Changing Attacks of Opportunity

Slobber Monster said:
OK... so you had AoO's anyways, except via ad hoc house rules. That's fine and all, but it doesn't really defeat my point.
I guess it's a good thing that I wasn't trying to "defeat your point" then, or I would've LOST!

Competitive Internet - catch the excitement!
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I rather like C&C's approach, where taking an 'aoo' means using up your one & only attack for the round - so aoos (not called that) don't generate more attacks, they just let you use your attack outside the regular initiative order.
 

S'mon said:
I rather like C&C's approach, where taking an 'aoo' means using up your one & only attack for the round - so aoos (not called that) don't generate more attacks, they just let you use your attack outside the regular initiative order.

Pretty cool. I'm with the original poster on this. I think the idea of drawing an AoO when withdrawing from combat is a remnant from 1E when withdrawing meant turning your back.
 

The Shaman said:
I guess it's a good thing that I wasn't trying to "defeat your point" then, or I would've LOST!

Competitive Internet - catch the excitement!

Uh, I suppose you're just being silly, but "defeat my point" is an English idiom meaning "render my argument invalid". I guess that wasn't your intent anyways but there's no need to be an ass about it.
 

Frostmarrow said:
Pretty cool. I'm with the original poster on this. I think the idea of drawing an AoO when withdrawing from combat is a remnant from 1E when withdrawing meant turning your back.

Even though you don't actually draw an AoO if all you are doing is moving (up to double speed at least).
 

Slobber Monster said:
This removes the advantage of superior reach - how would you account for that?
Heh... indeed. :) I, personally, would ignore it. The superior reach advantage is fine threatening other actions that would cause an AoO.
 

The Shaman said:
That's the one that bugs me too...

Balan the Bold is trading blows with Ugly Ugluk when Fiznip the gnomish sorcerer attempts to slip past - Ugluk gets to break away from Balan's attacks to take a shot at Fiznip? Why doesn't Balan get some kind of advantage for attacking a distracted opponent?

I've played it straight since I picked up 3.0, but I would consider a revision to AoOs in that situation.

Ok let me try and explain this... because he is NOT a distrafted opponent.

DnD 3.0 does not have any sort of penalty for attacking more than one guy. if you have three iterative attacks, you can send one at each of three different guys with ever losing track of any of them.

DND assumes any threatening enemy you are in melee range of is engaged with you, period. Swings are being exchanged etc. We just resolve the ones that matter.

the guy running past, his attention is NOT on you and thats why you get one of your "swings that don't matter" to go as a "swing that does matter." The guy moving past becomes "just another guy you are engaged with."
 

What would i change? "helpless" provokes AoO.

the paralyzed guy has "his guard down" as much as the guy trying to down his healing potion or the guy picking up the sword.
 

S'mon said:
I rather like C&C's approach, where taking an 'aoo' means using up your one & only attack for the round - so aoos (not called that) don't generate more attacks, they just let you use your attack outside the regular initiative order.
Ah, that sounds exactly like what was suggesting earlier in this thread. Except I would also allow the first attack of a Full Attack, and I'd give the attacker a +2 to hit (or the defender a -2 to AC, because he's leaving himself open for an attack).
 

Remove ads

Top