I Recant (sort-of)

[StupidSmurf]

Count me in as someone who can't understand why some folks find AoO difficult. It really does address certain points that I found ludicrous in past editions. If you're standing next to an enemy and you're taking the time to drink a potion or read a scroll, hey, guess what...the baddie isn't just going to stand there politely and wait till you're done. Nossir. He's gonna do his best to stop you.

I will concede to the AoO-haters that there ARE certain situations which seem to be gray areas, and can get a little confusing sometimes. But I consider such situations to be rare.

 

[tjoneslo]

In my experience, and by my reading of the rules, you can't adjudicate AoO's without having a detailed map and miniatures on the table to follow the combat. Since miniatures based combat is not what my group has learned to play, running combats with miniatures is a complete pain. The gaming area isn't set up for it, some of the players hate the whole idea, and setting up maps that may or may not be used is time consuming. So we've dumped AoOs because the overhead required to use them properly is too large. At least for us.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Yet another 'what's wrong with AoOs?' comment.

As has been stated you did semi/pseudo/sort of have them in 2.0, and what is more in 2.0 a wizard who was hit while casting a spell just lost it, end of story. Now he can take a five foot step, cast defensively, or just try to gut it out in an emergency. The five foot step makes AoOs an avoidable thing most of the time, and keeps combat fluid. In 2.0 big fights could seem like everybody's feet were nailed to the floor, 3.0 is much more fluid, and AoOs are a part of that.

The only downside is that they almost require the use of miniatures, and since I use them anyway I do not find that much of a burden.

I also vastly prefer the new multiclassing in 3.x over the methods in either of the previous editions, and I rather like Prestige classes - but you do have to pick and choose which ones to allow, PrCs can add a lot of flavor to a setting, or they can be a power gaming munchkin's weapon of choice. Fit the prestige classes allowed to what you want in your campaign - they are always optional!

The Auld Grump

 

[BryonD]

Ive always been truly flabbergasted by so many peoples inability to understand AoOs. Theyre simplistic, intuitive, and logical. If you drop your guard, you provoke an AoO. If you move past someone incautiously, you provoke an AoO. We had them down the first 3E game we played the day we got the books.

Agreed.


The thing I've been tinkering with is Favored Classes. I don't think anyone every really uses them. They supposed to encourage one type of play, but actually just discourage the opposite. Which is not at all the same thing.

I'd rather see a system that rewards Dwarves for being a fighter rather than hindering them for being any non-fighter multiclass.

 

[Conaill]

How about this for an AoO alternative:

Instead of a *free* extra attack, the opponent gets to use oneof his regular attacks, at a +2 to hit. If he has multiple attacks, this could be the first attack of a Full Attack sequence.

This gets around the whole "extra attack", which many people seem to have an issue with. It just changes the simultaneity of combat slightly, but still gives an edge to the defender for the fact that his opponent left himself open to attack. Nonintuitive consequences like AoO's provoking AoO's or Cleaves become a lot more intuitive this way.

 

[Akrasia]

...
The only downside is that they almost require the use of miniatures ...

This is the main reason why I don't like AoOs. Plus they can slow down combat (e.g., "If I move x, I think I might provoke an AoO; so maybe y, no that provokes an AoO too; perhaps I'll do z ...").

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

AoO don't actually REQUIRE minis at all. In fact, most of the games I've run don't use maps except for general reference in PbP games since I can ramble on with descriptions. I've run many, many face to face games without maps or minis and AoOs still work fine.

Of course, it takes a certain mindset and visualization of things, and I can obviously see why it can be hard to do for some people.

Also, I've never, ever seen AoOs slow down combat. Though, of course, that may be because I really push my players to tell me their actions quickly. Its also taught them that taking an AoO is NOT a bad thing...they don't always hit.

 

[MerricB]

This is the main reason why I don't like AoOs. Plus they can slow down combat (e.g., "If I move x, I think I might provoke an AoO; so maybe y, no that provokes an AoO too; perhaps I'll do z ...").

The movement AoO has been in the game since AD&D.

The Spellcasting AoO wasn't - instead we had one of the most confusing initiative systems ever. Most people simplified it for that reason. Simplified, it boils down to: Declare actions, roll initiative, if you get struck before your turn, you lose the spell.

Cheers!

 

[Akrasia]

The movement AoO has been in the game since AD&D.
...

The rule that 'if your opponent runs away, you get a free attack' has been around since the Moldvay Basic Set.

Movement AoOs as implemented in 3e have not.

 

[ForceUser]

Movement AoOs as implemented in 3e have not.

And thank Ford we have them now!