Getting rid of AoO-Good Idea?

beldar1215

Explorer
Hello All,
I run a game for kids (10-16) at my FLGS and have been thinking about getting rid of AoO's in the game. My main reason is to speed up combat and to allow the kids to do more in combat without worrying about the AoO factor. Do people think this is a good idea? I'm looking for the Pros and Cons of doing this.

Thanks in advance for your help
Beldar
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You will have to also remove all feats related to AoO. There is also the "reach factor" to take into account : is it also suppressed?
 

You know, I didn't even think about the feats. Can you give me an example of one or two. That could be a major reason to not mess with AoO's.
 

beldar1215 said:
You know, I didn't even think about the feats. Can you give me an example of one or two.
-- Combat reflexes
-- Improved bull rush
-- Improved disarm
-- Improved grapple
-- Mobility

Except for Combat Reflexes, these feats are still usable but lose some of their benefits if there are no longer AoO. In any case, there isn't so many feats that you couldn't get rid of AoO...
 
Last edited:

There are a couple of feats that look at AoO, Mobility and Combat Reflexes spring to mind as obvious choices. Personally, I'd say it depends on whether they've new to rpgs etc it's entirely introductory.

If it's an introductory game, I'd cut it, certainely. It's a rule that adds a lot to the game, but it's not required and if you're learning about what an rpg is, then worry about fun, not strategy so much. I'd also bring pre-generated characters along so that the players can come along and say 'I want to be a <class>' and you can give them the characters and you can delve into the fun. That removes any worries about characters with reach, or AoO-based feats etc.

If they've played this sort of thing before, or possibly if they're looking for a more strategic minitures style game of D&D then of course keep it.
 

also things like trip, sunder, disarm, overrun, and/or grapple will need to be slightly changed.

the main point of trip is to get an AoO when the person goes from prone to standing. and to utilize the extra bonus to attack when they do it.
 

It's kinda sounding like I should leave this alone. Thanks for the quick replies. I think the kids are handling this OK. I may need to look at other ways to speed things up.
 

Consider killing off AoO but saying that you just can't do any action that would have provoked one, or (you, the DM) keeping track of who's done one of the AoO-provoking-actions and give their foes some bonus to hit (+4 seems justifiable) when their foes's turns come around.

This lets you keep the game going but still provide some trade off.

Of course, it's also more complex to you, but at least you don't need to explain anything --
"What did you expect, you shot a bow while he was standing next to you"
is a lot easier to get away with than
"And you get attacked again."
Because in the former case, you don't really need to explain, or beg forgiveness.

Gah, everyone so *quick* today!
 

whatever happened to the nice document ENworld hosted that explained AoO's clearly.

It ain't bloddy rocket science.

Movement AoO:
If you LEAVE a threatened square, you trigger an AoO.
If all you do is Move that round, you negate the AoO.

Doing Stuff:
Casting, tripping, grappling, changing items while in a threatened square can trigger an AoO.
If you have the right feat or make the right skill check, you negate the AoO.


Did I miss anything? The Doing Stuff one covers all the side activities (if I missed an activity, it's still the same rule).


For a GM, the easiest way to retain AoO, and reduce the worry, is to ALWAYS assume everybody takes the optimal path. If somebody says, I go over here, and fight this dude, assume they used movement mode and path that triggers the least AoOs. Don't be a jerk about "you didn't say you avoided that guy that you clearly had enough movement to avoid."

AoO rules are in place to add realisim "aka danger when you do stupid things in front of an armed opponent". Walking away from the enemy, changing weapons, casting spells, etc would be stupid things to do while standing within swords reach of the enemy. The "Leaving a threatened square" rule is in place to cover running past enemies, and trying to leave a fight, both things the enemy would surely try to take a swing at you for (and possibly justify an extra swing in a real fight).

If you're DMing for newbies, you don't even have to fully explain AoO's. Just say, if you do something risky while facing an enemy, he may get a free attack against you. If the player is about to do something that would generate an AoO, tell him, if you do that, the enemy will get a free Attack of Opportunity. And be sure to throw in a few risky acts by the monsters, so the players see it goes both ways.

If your players don't do stupid things in combat, you'll never see an AoO. Honestly, I think I've had 2 AoO's rolled against me in 6 years of gaming in 3E. They simply don't come up that often.
 

The AoO rules were designed by the Devil to inflict pain and suffering on mankind, and all the D20 variants I like have dropped them like the needlessly complicated and intrusive foolishness they are.

If True 20 can do it, so can you. Go ahead and cut 'em out; you'll speed up combat plenty.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top