Here's to the extinction of the AOO

[wayne62682]

IMO the hatred of AoOs is because while it increases the "tactical level" of the game, it turns it into a mini-wargame. Back with my old group, every combat devolved into a chess game, with us trying to choose the best way to take movement to avoid any AoOs, because blindly moving had proved to be deadly when we first started playing. So yes, it did slow the game down a great deal for us and made it feel like a board game, where it was in your best interest to take 5 minutes calculating how best to move your "piece".

I'd love to get rid of them.

 

[Pinotage]

IMO the hatred of AoOs is because while it increases the "tactical level" of the game, it turns it into a mini-wargame. Back with my old group, every combat devolved into a chess game, with us trying to choose the best way to take movement to avoid any AoOs, because blindly moving had proved to be deadly when we first started playing. So yes, it did slow the game down a great deal for us and made it feel like a board game, where it was in your best interest to take 5 minutes calculating how best to move your "piece".

I'd love to get rid of them.

It's no worse than having to count squares to move from point A to point B, which can take even longer. Avoiding to attack of opportunity is easy, but counting to squares to make it work is the bit that takes up time. Attack of opportunities were fine - in most instances they rarely cropped up, and most players knew the rules well enough to not to something that would evoke them. From that perspective, it was like they never existed in the first place.

Now, that dragon article, is going to make everything worse. It was one thing having a single mechanic that governs 'immediate' action in the attack of opportunity, but that article makes it sound like there will be dozens of different things granting immediate actions under dozens of different circumstances. IMO, that's bad. If that dragon article is the way to go, bring back the AoO anytime.

Pinotage

 

[Henry]

I don't want to see them go, but I would be glad if they reduced the number of "counter-cases" that triggered them, even if the verismilitude were reduced as a result. For instance, Unarmed attacks triggering them tend to complicate things, even if it does reflect the advantage of weapon reach in real life. Drinking potions trigger op-attacks, which discourage people from using cool potions in the midst of melee, even though it makes a kind of sense. Those are a couple of the examples.

 

[Baby Samurai]

even if it does reflect the advantage of weapon reach in real life.

And what about attacking someone wielding a greatsword with a dagger?

…Oh no, Player's Option flashback…Noooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ptolemy18]

Sorry to pop into the thread just to argue, but AoO has always been one of my favorite things about 3.x. To me it's something that seems very easy to understand, even for newbies: "As you try to run past him, he gets a free swing at you!" "Because his weapon is so long, he gets a free attack as you charge at him!" "As you reach down to pick up your weapon, they get a free attack at you!"

That's speaking as a DM... but as a player, I like 'em too. They have never seemed "mean" or anything.

I actually think Iron Heroes did it best. They have a vastly simplified AoO system, only one paragraph long, which pretty much boils down to "if you do anything in a threatened square which isn't an attack, your opponent gets an attack of opportunity."

 

[ptolemy18]

It's no worse than having to count squares to move from point A to point B, which can take even longer.

Amen brother. You know what they added in 3.5, that I'd like to see go in 4.0? The horrible "when you move diagonally, every other square counts as two squares" rule. AGGGH!

 

[D.Shaffer]

For what it's worth, they've already mentioned that AoO are still there, just that they're simplifying what triggers them.

 

[Baby Samurai]

You know what they added in 3.5, that I'd like to see go in 4.0? The horrible "when you move diagonally, every other square counts as two squares" rule. AGGGH!

Would you prefer for each square to count as two when moving diagonally, ala Saga?

 

[Henry]

And what about attacking someone wielding a greatsword with a dagger?

…Oh no, Player's Option flashback…Noooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I almost wouldn't mind some rules like 1st Editions rules on charging, since I now know how they work -- namely, if you charge, the person with the longer reach gets first swing, since they are effectively "set" versus your charge. You could simulate it with op-attacks, but it's probably not worth it to do so.

And attacking someone with your fists or legs is even worse off than attacking someone with a dagger, advantage-wise. Martial artists in unarmed techniques are taught how to take down someone with a weapon, but their best advice is often, "neutralize the weapon first" because of the disparity.

Would you prefer for each square to count as two when moving diagonally, ala Saga?

In fact, I STRONGLY suspect (based on side-comments by designers) that this is exactly what will happen. I dislike it, myself, but Owen KC Stephens from Star Wars RPG said he's actually had new players WALK from the TABLE when trying to teach them the "1,2,1,2" thing.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Owen KC Stephens from Star Wars RPG said he's actually had new players WALK from the TABLE when trying to teach them the "1,2,1,2" thing.

Maybe he forgot to mention these new players were his children?