How Were AoOs / OAs Explained to You?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Just what the title says:

Were Attacks of Opportunity (aka Opportunity Attacks) explained to you as a rule? ("You provoke an attack by leaving a threatened square.") Or as an in-game logistic? ("You provoke an attack when you do something in melee that leaves you open to an easy potshot. Like running past a guy with a sword, or wiggling your fingers provocatively, etc.") Or did you learn directly from the PHB?

And a follow-up question:

Did/do you understand how AoOs / OAs work, based on how they were explained to you? (Knowing all thirty-seven and a half corner-cases that provoke AoOs isn't necessary to understanding them!)

 

[SnowleopardVK]

AoOs were explained to me first with the explanation of what a 5-foot step was, followed by the explanation that if you move past or away from someone by more than a 5-foot step then they get to attack you as they go. It was also explained that I could do the same to enemies moving past or away from me, but that it was only possible to do one per round. (The casters and ranged characters in the group were also told that their spells and archery would provoke, but that didn't apply to me, as I was playing a melee barbarian at the time.)

Later on (after some practice) the withdraw action, and combat reflexes got explained.

And then even later than that, the AoO chart got pulled out and I learned what other things can provoke.

I'd say it made pretty clear sense.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

All I needed to know about AoO I learned from the 3E PH. Not that it DID a good job of explaining it, but I understood it. Thing is, it so seldom came up. Players didn't want their characters getting AoO'd and most NPC's/critters didn't either so once melee was joined people stayed put until their adjacent opponents were down.

 

[Spatula]

Learned from the 3.0 PHB, although I was a little confused at first. I thought at first that moving adjacent to someone provoked an attack. The general idea was pretty easy to understand, though.

 

[Lwaxy]

We learned altogether from the books Never quite got the hang of it because I tend to not notice when it happens unless I GM.

 

[Rune]

I learned how Attacks of Opportunity worked from Eric Noah's site before 3e was released. He even had some examples of how what was known of the rules worked in play.

By the time the game released, those of us who had been following along already knew how to play it. Then, people started complaining about how difficult AoOs were to understand (which, frankly, I didn't understand--they're really not that complicated).

 

[Viking Bastard]

I finally got OAs/AoOs when I read the 4e PHB. I never understood them in 3e. I don't really know how/if they're different in 4e than they were in 3e (or if there were any changes to them for 3.5, since I never played 3.5) or if they simply explained them better in 4e (or if something simply happened to my brain in the meantime).

 

[delericho]

I read the 3e PHB. I understood them pretty much right off, although the explanation wasn't great.

They were explained better in the 3.5e PHB, but unfortunately I don't think many people bothered to read that book very closely. They were also explained better in the 4e PHB (about as well as the 3.5e version), and it seems people did read that book.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think it was something along the lines of "when an opponent moves away from the area you threaten, you get a free melee attack." Then it was added that it has to be normal movement and that shifts/withdraws/5-foot-steps didn't count.

It was pretty clear-cut IMO.

 

[Mercutio01]

I learned from reading the 3.0 books back when they were released. I didn't have any problems understanding or visualizing their use. In fact, of all the "complex" systems that rack up complaints, AoO is the one I feel deserves the scorn the least.