Help Needed - Houseruling AOOs

[bouncyhead]

I'd love to make combat a little less 'sticky' by dialling down the effect AOOs have on tactical movement but am short of ideas as to how to accomplish this.

They just seem to be too hardwired into the feat economy. Also act as a balancing element with flanking and restricting range and spell-casting in melee.

I guess I'm just looking for a simple fix to the threatened square/movement aspect that doesn't involve more dice-rolling or square counting.

Any ideas anyone?

 

[enrious]

We ditched them completely with no ill effects. The feat economy you mention is offset by the volume of feats available.

 

[bouncyhead]

We ditched them completely with no ill effects. The feat economy you mention is offset by the volume of feats available.

Thanks! I can't help but think it could be that simple! I worry though about spell-casting in melee?

 

[enrious]

Thanks! I can't help but think it could be that simple! I worry though about spell-casting in melee?

We looked at handling that in three ways:

1) There are no Attacks of Opportunity, so why worry? Obviously this approach leads to a more open, cinematic style. The wizard doesn't get hit because he's not statically standing still for the fighter while casting. Or, if you prefer, the actual casting only requires a split second and the reason why it was a standard vs. a free action is precisely because the wizard was waiting for that split second where he could cast without getting stabbed by the fighter.

And so on.

2) Keep AoOs, save those relating to movement.

3) Ditch AoOs unless the situation is basically begging for an AoO - and the DM warns a player before the player does something to provoke. Example: Drinking a potion or casting a spell wouldn't, nor would moving standard movement (say 30' for humans) in combat. However, running flat out with no regard for defense (using both standard and move actions for movement), digging through a pack for a potion, etc. would.

But there's a DM responsibility there to warn the player in advance that such action would provoke, so if an AoO happens, it's because the player knowingly triggers it.

 

[IronWolf]

You can just mimic the Beginner Box rules. Remove AoO's. Spellcasters can't cast when standing next to an enemy combatant.

 

[Systole]

I ran into a similar problem recently. I tried to design an encounter where the PCs were supposed to bypass some monsters and activate some switches. The players understood the role of the switches, and actually made an effort to get at them. Unfortunately, AoOs really made that plan not work, and they were forced to bulldoze through the bad guys.

I do feel like AoOs have their place, but in retrospect, maybe scrub monsters should (a) not get an AoO on PCs moving through the first threatened square or (b) take a penalty on attacking with an AoO? It would make combat a little more cinematic.

 

[bouncyhead]

Thanks for comments everyone. Think I might concentrate on movement AOOs only and see if there is a tweak there that might free things up - perhaps a variant of the 5' step rule. Perhaps the first 5' of all movement between threatened squares could be made free?

 

[enrious]

Personally, I think if you're introducing an element where people have to remember and calculate that their first 5' is "free", you're not really reducing the complexity.

But that's my gut feeling, if you try it out, I think it's safe to say we'd be interested in hearing your results.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Tumble :: d20srd.org

You see those nice, moderate, fixed DCs? Try implementing those.

Static combat is a PF-created problem. It was always more rewarding to just slog it out with full attacks in 3E, sure, but you could easily make a skirmisher if you wanted to at least.