How Were AoOs / OAs Explained to You?

[Dordledum]

I learned the AoO rules from the 3.5 PhB, never had any problem with 'em.

Sounds very clear and logical to me. If you perform an action within melee range of an enemy, without being able to defend yourself (for whatever reason), that enemy can clobber you.

 

[Griego]

I learned from the 3.5 PHB too. The concept wasn't difficult to understand, but it was not intuitive for a lot of players. Many players wanted move first, and then check to see if they were attacked at their destination. It took a bit of training to get them to check their current square before moving.

 

[hagor]

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!)

they were explained to me more as an in game logic & are as such not very difficult to understand: sort of an "upgrade" of the "free attack at a fleeing opponent" of AD&D (which I was familiar with). Also, "threatened squares" are largely irrelevant in the games I'm in since they seldom make use of a (gridded) battle mat...

As a rather casual player (monthly-bimonthly game sessions) I never bothered with the details though - I just have a broad sense of the do's/don'ts when entering or in melee:
as a player, I trust my GM to tell me when my character will be on the receiving end & as a GM, I prefer to change the initiative order (rather than an extra attack) in most cases triggering an AoO.

Hagor

 

[The Red King]

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.

I see this alot too. My players don't like to retreat. EVER.

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.

It is pretty clear cut. I don't see the problem, or why others don't grasp it. Both of my sons understand it. (9 and 12 year olds)

 

[Sunseeker]

I see this alot too. My players don't like to retreat. EVER.



It is pretty clear cut. I don't see the problem, or why others don't grasp it. Both of my sons understand it. (9 and 12 year olds)

My players don't retreat....and they die.

Yeah I don't get it. I can see it being buffed and used as a feature for certain heavy melee classes(fighter, paladin, barbarian, melee cleric) but it sure as heck isnt complicated.

 

[Thotas]

Well, I learned from the book and taught it to the group since I was the early adopter but...

I explained it basically as a cheap shot. Your guard slips for a second and bam, someone takes a swipe at you. Why doesn't everything do this?

~~~handwave~~~

It's magic!

When I finally get a group together again, I will indeed be explaining the AoO as a "cheap shot" -- and since cheap shot rolls off the tongue much more easily, we'll probably substitute the term. For that matter, 5e designers, take note! Make it official!

 

[The Red King]

My players don't retreat....and they die.

Mine too..... I keep trying to tell them that while I don't design the world to kill them, I wont keep them from killing themselves either....

 

[Sunseeker]

Mine too..... I keep trying to tell them that while I don't design the world to kill them, I wont keep them from killing themselves either....

Yep. I want my players to succeed, I've created some really cool stuff that not only do I want them to see, but I want to see how it plays out as well. Still, I'm not going to save them from their own stupidity.

 

[The Red King]

Yep. I want my players to succeed, I've created some really cool stuff that not only do I want them to see, but I want to see how it plays out as well. Still, I'm not going to save them from their own stupidity.

Same here. The rule is now that they are almost level 9, that if they die doing something to either save the group, or for a good cause, they get to roll up a new character at the same level as the last one.

But if it is because they got into a fight with the town guard alone in the dark and couldnt handle it? Or the rogue picked a fight with the 1/2 Orc barbarian? That guy gets to start at Level 1.

 

[Sunseeker]

Same here. The rule is now that they are almost level 9, that if they die doing something to either save the group, or for a good cause, they get to roll up a new character at the same level as the last one.

But if it is because they got into a fight with the town guard alone in the dark and couldnt handle it? Or the rogue picked a fight with the 1/2 Orc barbarian? That guy gets to start at Level 1.

Since I don't use Xp in my games, I don't make people restart at lower levels, I just usually rule that they can't bring in a clone. Or at least if they do they have to be of the opposite alignment, and have amnesia so they don't know they're the dead character's twin.(yes, I force soap opera parodies on stupid people.)