D&D 3E/3.5 Consequences of a single change to AoO rules for 3.5/d20/Pathfinder?

[ZenFox42]

Hi! I am new to this board (first post), and will be contributing various house-rules I've experimented with and their results in the future, but for now I have a question :

Just so you know, I've been playing and DM'ing RPG's for several decades.

Several years ago I played for some time in 3.5, and learned all about the AoO rules.

Now I'm a DM in a group with 3 players who are long-time RPGer's, but *brand new* to 3.5/d20/Pathfinder (we're using Pathfinder, FWIW). None of them are power-gamers, thankfully!

I have always felt that the AoO rules turned a fun role-playing game into a *strategy* game, and the players were having a particularly hard time with movement, which slowed things way down.

So I implemented this house rule : movement between squares does not provoke any AoO's. All other actions that normally provoke AoO's (casting, standing, etc.) still do. Moving thru an enemy's square is still handled as normal. This has sped-up melee quite a bit, which is what I hoped for.

My question is this : can anyone see ways in which this could seriously imbalance the game, perhaps at higher levels or with certain creatures? Keep in mind that any argument you make applies to PC's and bad guys equally!

What I'm not looking for is the ways in which things change, but if anything becomes unbalanced. So yes, the evil sorcerer could dash right between two PC's on either side of her to get far enough away to cast a spell, but so could the PC's wizard when stuck between two bad guys - so no imbalance.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Generally, removing AOO for movement has only one fairly serious repercussion. Low hit point characters that stand behind the primary combatants can still be targeted by opponents who simply bypass those with more hit points or combat ability.

As the low hit point characters are often spellcasters, this is not too big a deal. It does make, "protect the innocents!" type encounters more difficult.

 

[Dethklok]

I agree; archers are hard to protect as well.

However, the rule may be realistic, with one caveat - if someone is engaging you already then his buddies should be able to move past. But if there isn't already someone standing next to you whom you attacked or who just attacked you, it isn't plausible to imagine that you will merely stand still as enemies rush by.

 

[GMMichael]

What applies to both PCs and NPCs doesn't upset the PC/NPC balance.

But balance applies between PCs too.

Disallowing movement AoOs tilts the balance in favor of maneuvering PCs, like fighters, rogues, and scouts.

 

[ZenFox42]

Thanks everyone for the input!

Someone else (off-forum) has since made this point : if a spellcaster is only partially boxed in by fighter-types (anyone who does most of their melee damage with a weapon), then with this rule the spellcaster can often just move right past all the fighters in order to be able to cast without getting an AoO for the casting (this happened in our last game). Thus his claim is that spellcasters (and archers, as Dethklok points out) become more powerful, and the fighters-types (especially ones with Combat Reflexes) become weaker.

That's exactly opposite of what Michael S. and DMMike are saying, but I can see the reasons for your claims, too - so do you think between the pluses (the above point) and the minuses (your points), things even out?

 

[Dethklok]

ZenFox, I agree with your friend. Attacks of opportunity tended to make it difficult for spellcasters in a way that I always thought was tactically interesting; mages didn't benefit from the ability to make such attacks since their melee abilities are limited, but the bulk of their own abilities provoke these attacks from others. Reducing the scope of attacks of opportunity straightforwardly reduces the difficulty they place on casters, and thus makes spellcasters more powerful at the expense of other classes.

I'll add, though, that I think people worry too much about game balance. Not only is it my experience that the scenario and style of gamemastering has more to do with which characters or classes are favored, but more importantly, games can be great fun with strong imbalances in character power. For instance, roleplaying a merchant or diplomat who is being escorted across dangerous country by her bodyguards can be very rewarding. What matters most is whether the character's choices feel meaningful, not how handy they are in a fight.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I'm always tempted to introduce the following AoO movement rule: if you move at half-speed, you do not trigger AoOs from movement (you are being careful). Acrobatic types can still Tumble through threatened squares, but at full speed, to avoid AoOs. This way, there is still a (minimal) cost to moving in threatened squares, and frontliners still have some capacity to protect backliners. Attacking the archer in the back becomes a strategic choice (do I lose a round of movement to get to him or do I attack immediately the person in front of me?).

AR

 

[ZenFox42]

I've been doing some thinking based on these comments (and an off-forum discussion with the players), and have come up with 3 scenarios as examples :

A spellcaster with fighters right next to him can often (but not always) simply walk away far enough to cast a spell without provoking an AoO. The advantage goes to the spellcasters (as Dethklok points out, and happened in the last game).

A spellcaster is behind a row of fighter-types protecting him. But the opponent's fighters can simply walk past the protectors and attack the spellcaster. The advantage goes to the fighter-types (as Michael S. points out).

Many spellcasters stay away from the face-to-face fighting because their spells have range, so often AoO's aren't even an issue for them. And if the field isn't crowded, they can take a 5-foot step back and still cast without provoking AoO's. But with this rule, the fighter-types who are in the battle area are now free to move thru it to attack whatever they want without worrying about AoO's. The advantage goes to the fighters.

I think there will always be specific battles in which this rule will benefit one side or one class, but I'm seeing enough examples of how both spellcasters and fighters can benefit from it that I don't think it's really seriously unbalanced.

And as Dethklock and a player pointed out, it's also about whether you're having fun. Most of the players (all but one, really) could care less about tactics, and just want to play the game and kill things. This rule allows them to not have to spend a lot of time thinking about where to move and how to move.

Thanks for all the thoughts and feedback, I'm going to keep the rule. But if anyone has any other comments, or someone else stumbles across this thread in the future and would like to comment, I'll get an email about it and check back.


P.S. - Altamont R. : great idea! I really like it. But to introduce it now in the middle of the game under these conditions would probably piss everyone on both sides off. I would however consider making it a house rule at the start of a new game. If I didn't have this rule about movement, I would have done the same thing for withdraw (you have to keep your guard up as you back away, so you have to move half speed), and your suggestion is a perfectly logical extension of that.

 

[Gomer212]

All, I can say is that my PCs would have loved this rule against that Elder Fire Elemental with the 15' reach, +9 Dex Bonus, and Combat Reflexes feat. As in, it had enough AoOs to hit every one of the characters before they got into melee, then it would Spring Attack away and make them do it all over again. That fight would have been almost trivialized by a modified AoO rule.

But, other than odd creature scenarios like this, seems like a fair rule. If it helps your game, then enjoy it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have played a few Combat Reflexes-based PCs with the appropriate ancillary feats, reach weapons and boatloads of available AoOs. In fact, it has proven to be one of the more effective Monk builds I've found.

I would hate this rule.

For one, it would gut at least one feat- Stand Still- which stops a character struck by a triggered AoO from continuing to move. Very handy for keeping mobile foes from moving past towards lower-HP target.

Second, IME, moving through squares is one of the most common triggers of an AoO. Taking this away kind of guts the build.