Here's to the extinction of the AOO

[Wormwood]

I don't mind if AoOs stay. But they need to be integrated into the rest of the rules. Give players one Immediate action per round. Make an Attack of Opportunity an immediate action that can only be used to counter your opponent's actions.

Sweetness.

 

[Henry]

That's true, we had Basic and Advanced and…

Actually, Basic (Moldvay) D&D and 1st edition AD&D did have op-attacks, or something like them. If you ran away from a combat, the enemy got a free swing at your back, but if you did a "fighting withdrawal" (Basic) or used your whole turn to move out of combat (AD&D), then you didn't get attacked. Even Combat & Tactics introduced full-fledged op-attacks, so they've been around in various forms not as complex for a long time.

 

[vagabundo]

The only AOO issue I had, to be fair it is a side issue, is with Withdraw.

I just couldn't visualise how spending a full round to withdraw negated the AOO. Maybe they spent the extra 3 seconds timing their escape and fully concentrating on the combatants, but that just doesn't do it for me as a five-foot-step doesn't get an AOO.

I'm hoping the combat system is fluid, but that it also makes sense from a (fantastically) realistic point of view. I really need to be able to visualise whats happening so I can make appropriate DM decisions in play, as there is always some combo or crazy thing the PC try to do that is not covered in the PHB/DMG....

 

[Baby Samurai]

Actually, Basic (Moldvay) D&D and 1st edition AD&D did have op-attacks, or something like them.

I know, I already stated that on the previous page…


"When you fled from an enemy in 1st edition you provoked an attack…"

 

[JDJblatherings]

AOOs dont' have to entirely diasappear they just have to be explained and implementd in a slightly cleaner fashion. sorta liek they were in the d20 CoC; I think most of it was in an optional insert but it made AOO really make sense to me compared to the descriptions in the D&D books.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

AoOs

I really like the attack of opportunity rules. They aren't too complicated for me, or for my players. I'd hate to see them go.

Ken

 

[Shortman McLeod]

IMO the hatred of AoOs is because while it increases the "tactical level" of the game, it turns it into a mini-wargame. 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".

Just for the record, not everyone thinks that's a bad thing.
Personally, I am quite fond of the "tactical wargame/boardgame" feel of 3.5 combat. I hope this is retained in 4e.

 

[gizmo33]

I just couldn't visualise how spending a full round to withdraw negated the AOO. Maybe they spent the extra 3 seconds timing their escape and fully concentrating on the combatants, but that just doesn't do it for me as a five-foot-step doesn't get an AOO.

IMO it's not to be visualized because the 6 second round really doesn't exist. It's not like your character withdraws and everyone else just stands there and watches you, but that's essentially literally what happens in 3E because it's turn-based. Allowing people to step back 6 squares and then perform any action they want would produce results that were both strange and unsatisfying IMO. Imagine someone with an axe chasing someone with a bow.

 

[wgreen]

The only AOO issue I had, to be fair it is a side issue, is with Withdraw.

I just couldn't visualise how spending a full round to withdraw negated the AOO. Maybe they spent the extra 3 seconds timing their escape and fully concentrating on the combatants, but that just doesn't do it for me as a five-foot-step doesn't get an AOO.

Because you're moving more slowly and carefully?

-Will

 

[gizmo33]

Because you're moving more slowly and carefully?

You actually withdraw at the same rate of speed that you advance, so I don't think the "slowly" part of this really applies. "Carefully" is probably more the case, because rather than fishing through your backpack looking for a potion as you withdraw, you keep your eye on your opponent.

Then again, in real life if I back up with a sword in hand my opponent can follow me then and there. He doesn't have to sit there and watch me back up until I get to 30' away, and then he closes the distance while I stand there in a trance and watch him. Trying to go too far in literally interpreting the movement rules as some sort of reality IMO has problems.