Changing Attacks of Opportunity

[The Shaman]

When a character is engaged in melee, how it is that they can ignore their foe long enough to get an AoO on someone else...without provoking an AoO on themself from the foe with which they are engaged?

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.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I'm not a fan of the mechanic because it assumes too much. Just because a person is leaving or drinking a potion doesn't mean they're wide open to you and ignoring your sword.

So we don't push it too hard. If you turn to run from a fight, yeah they get an AoO. If you cast right next to them (which takes immense concentration), yeah they get an AoO. Otherwise it's case-by-case.

Well there is some on the spot adjudicating that you can do. However if you are just leaving combat (ie withdrawing) then you don't worry about AoO. It's when you want to do two things at once - "I'm withdrawing away from that guy....but I hit him with my sword first!" That indicates a split in concentration (you want to leave the combat zone but still fight). Drinking a potion assumes you would have one hand occupied and a at least a nominal amount of attention on the potion (so you don't spill it - no one wants 350gp worth of cure potion down the front of their breatplate) again you are spliting your concentration. How many movies have we all seen where the good/bad guy is distracted for that plit second only to have their opponent get a good shot in? I know I've seen a lot of those and I like that aspect of AoO. I have found explaining it this way to those confused by AoO (and new to D&D) to be very helpful.

I relaize that this is not the direction the thread is intended but I just wanted to lay out my views of AoO.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

"Come, father! Let us embrace!"

Err my geek fu must be weak today - what is that from?

 

[Psychic Warrior]

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.

If Fiznip is just moving past Ugluk then no problem. Just don't go around and around him (this is why I like using a hex battlemat right here - each person only has 6 adjacent hexes it is much easier to avoid hitting two of those hexes than two of the 8 squares on a square grid). Maybe consider that Ugluk is swinging his sword in a dangerous arc of destruction - Fiznip is moving around him and also bringing to mind the spell his going to blast Ugluk with - he isn't paying attention to where Ugluk's sword is and Ugluk gets a lucky hit in.

btw - I love the names

 

[Janx]

When a character is engaged in melee, how it is that they can ignore their foe long enough to get an AoO on someone else...without provoking an AoO on themself from the foe with which they are engaged?

This is a good point that Cal brings up as well. In many ways, it's not an AoO problem, it's an attacking multiple opponents problem. Consider if I have 2 normal attacks, aren't I just as vulnerable to this? Especially, the farther apart they are from each other (ie. flanking).

In fact, that may be exactly what flanking is trying to model. Which is seperate from "you do something risky so I hit you"

Personally, I'm less concerned with modeling multiple attackers with better rules, than I am in trying to get people to provoke more AoO. I find that players work hard to avoid triggering them, almost to the point of silliness.

I'd suggest putting a -2 or -5 modifier on AoOs, reducing their effectiveness.

Janx

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I'd suggest putting a -2 or -5 modifier on AoOs, reducing their effectiveness.

Janx

I've considered a -4 to them, as well.

 

[Rel]

I make no judgements against anybody in this thread but I am always fascinated to see what parts of the rules comprise pet peeves for which people. For example, I'm not bothered in the least by the mechanics for AoO's but I cannot abide the RAW for Wizard's Spellbooks.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Err my geek fu must be weak today - what is that from?

The movie 'Excalibur', when Mordred forcibly impaled himself on Arthur's lance to get within melee distance.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Personally, I'm less concerned with modeling multiple attackers with better rules, than I am in trying to get people to provoke more AoO. I find that players work hard to avoid triggering them, almost to the point of silliness.

I'd suggest putting a -2 or -5 modifier on AoOs, reducing their effectiveness.

It's a tough balancing act, to be sure. Make AoOs ineffective, and they lose any purpose. Make them too effective, and the PCs get kinda meta-gamey. Perhaps if moving were handled slightly differently. Something like "Move up to your normal move allowance any way you want is a full-round action, move in a straight line is a 'move' action".

 

[TheGM]

Well there is some on the spot adjudicating that you can do. However if you are just leaving combat (ie withdrawing) then you don't worry about AoO. It's when you want to do two things at once - "I'm withdrawing away from that guy....but I hit him with my sword first!" That indicates a split in concentration (you want to leave the combat zone but still fight). Drinking a potion assumes you would have one hand occupied and a at least a nominal amount of attention on the potion (so you don't spill it - no one wants 350gp worth of cure potion down the front of their breatplate) again you are spliting your concentration. How many movies have we all seen where the good/bad guy is distracted for that plit second only to have their opponent get a good shot in? I know I've seen a lot of those and I like that aspect of AoO. I have found explaining it this way to those confused by AoO (and new to D&D) to be very helpful.

I relaize that this is not the direction the thread is intended but I just wanted to lay out my views of AoO.

Yeah, my problem with all of that is that it slows the game. I keep it as simple as possible while still offering some of the flavor AoOs offer. In short, I played with 'em as-written, and they create a meta-gaming nightmare even with good players. Not my style of game, so I went back to my 1E/2E roots and pulled in that basic system with some tweaks to keep the feel of AoOs.