Here's to the extinction of the AOO

[Shortman McLeod]

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.

Hence D&D as a "gamist" game rather than a "simulationist" one, I suppose.

Interestingly, in 2e (can't remember about 1e tho) the premise in combat is that everything happens simultaneously, to the point where players are supposed to announce to the DM what they intend to do that round (rather than just doing it, in other words) and the DM is supposed to decide *ahead of time* what the monsters will do *and not let his decision be influenced by the players' intentions*.

Needless to say, this approach raised serious problems of its own.

 

[wgreen]

You actually withdraw at the same rate of speed that you advance, so I don't think the "slowly" part of this really applies.

I agree that that part of it's still wonky, but the complaint was that a withdrawal (of, say, 30') does not provoke AoOs, while, say, an attack followed by a standard move of 30' does. I think the reasoning is that, while you're moving the same distance, in the former case, you're moving more slowly.

-Will

 

[gizmo33]

I agree that that part of it's still wonky, but the complaint was that a withdrawal (of, say, 30') does not provoke AoOs, while, say, an attack followed by a standard move of 30' does. I think the reasoning is that, while you're moving the same distance, in the former case, you're moving more slowly.

Speed is roughly distance/time. So if I'm moving 30 ft in 3 seconds or 60 ft in 6 seconds, I'm still moving the same speed. In the case of Withdraw AFAIK you are allowed a double move, that's 60 ft (all of this in the case of standard unencumbered movement).

If protecting vs. an AoO was simply about moving slower, then you would think rather than withdraw 30 ft and attack, I could withdraw 15 ft and attack. I've essentially halved my withdraw movement rate, and yet even withdrawing 15 (or even 10) feet and attacking *still* provokes the AoO.

So what's going on? I think the basic thing is that thinking of it in terms of "I withdraw, and *then* I attack" is somewhat misleading. It's probably something more like that you're readying your sword for an attack as you're leaving your first opponent in order to engage the second. Because you plan on attacking the second opponent in the later phase of the round, you've already started making preparations (studying his movements, raising your sword) in anticipation of completing the second attack, and that lack of focus on your first opponent, rather than the rate that you are moving, is what causes the problem. This is reinforced by the fact that the AoO is granted to your first opponent, so the conditions for the AoO are apparently in place the instant you decide on this action, not enough time for you to actually have a "speed" at that moment because you haven't even left the first square yet.

Apparently a 5ft step means that both foes were essentially within your range of consciousness, and preparing an attack against the second did not preclude you from defending yourself against the first.

 

[Mercule]

As for the counting boxes things that someone brought up, we have a table rule that if you count a character has moved to that box. You can continue counting in any direction you want, but no take-backs.* We also rule that you choose a target for a spell or missile weapon before counting the range. You can choose to not cast or shoot after, but you lose your action.

Pretty close to how I handle it. I'm extremely quick at counting squares "by eyeball", but that just offsets the disadvantages of running the DM's side of combat.

Honestly, AoO are such a simple concept that they never came into play before the "fog of war" rule.

Now, some of the "Do spell-like/supernatural/extraordinary abilities call AoO? How about potions?" exceptions can get people through ignorance, so I'm fine with a simplification. Even then, it's only an issue with my group every 2-3 months and the handy-dandy chart on my DM screen settles the issue within 60 seconds.

I have a hard time calling something cumbersome/confusing/annoying when sorting it out costs me an average of 30 seconds a month. I spend more time re-explaining negative levels than AoO -- and my summary of negative levels is "Subtract 1 from all d20 rolls until further notice."

Edit: And, I'm pretty sure anyone who'd walk when I explain the 1,2,1,2 rule of diagonals would be challenging enough to drive me insane by the end of the first session. They'd probably walk, anyway, when they found out you used dice that aren't cubes.

 

[Morland]

Here's a vote in support of AoOs

I like AoOs...they really enable tactical play, and really aren't that complicated at all. In fact, the AoO rules are probably one of the things I feel are stand-out about 3/3.5. I'd sorely miss 'em.

And, a tad off topic, but since someone else brought it up...counting diagonals as 2 squares may well be a 4E deal-killer for me.

 

[ruleslawyer]

And, a tad off topic, but since someone else brought it up...counting diagonals as 2 squares may well be a 4E deal-killer for me.

That's easy enough to house-rule, though (probably one of the easiest things to house rule, actually).

 

[ruleslawyer]

Another option could be to make AoOs a rule variant. This would work especially if the game simply doesn't allow you to take certain actions (grapple, trip, etc.) without the right feat or maneuver. Just say "you can do [x] without having the feat, but doing so triggers a melee attack as an immediate action by your opponent."

 

[ptolemy18]

Edit: And, I'm pretty sure anyone who'd walk when I explain the 1,2,1,2 rule of diagonals would be challenging enough to drive me insane by the end of the first session. They'd probably walk, anyway, when they found out you used dice that aren't cubes.

I've never had anyone "walk" on it, but I find it a huge pain in the ass to keep track of, since it instantly turns any diagonal movement into a calculation rather than an eyeballing.

 

[ptolemy18]

AoO are one of my favourite 3e rules. They add immensely both to verisimilitude and to the tactical feel of the game. Combatants with reach or long weapons *should* get a first strike in. Casting a spell in a melee *should* put you at a disadvantage. Getting round an opponent *should* be difficult..

Holy crud, we agree on this!!

 

[Aldarc]

I think that AoO could easily be thrown away and integrated simply as a type of combat challenge with different situation modifiers.