I Recant (sort-of)

[Akrasia]

AoO don't actually REQUIRE minis at all....

Strictly speaking, you're right. But in both of the 3e campaigns I've run (each of which lasted about a year), I had a devil of a time keeping track of 3e combat -- and especially questions concerning AoOs -- without using minis or some similar set of items. At least for anything other than the simplest combats.

 

[Akrasia]

And thank Ford we have them now!

Yeah whatever. Not everyone likes them. Accept it.

 

[ForceUser]

Yeah whatever. Not everyone likes them. Accept it.

Hmm....OR, you could accept that not everyone DOESN'T like them.

Am I annoying you yet? If not, I'll have to try harder.

 

[Akrasia]

Hmm....OR, you could accept that not everyone DOESN'T like them.

Am I annoying you yet? If not, I'll have to try harder.

No, you're not annoying me.

I understand that some people like them (including one of my former players).

The thing is, though, AoOs tend to promote a certain way of playing the game -- viz. a 'tactical' approach to combat that is best realized through the use of a board and miniatures.

Not everyone likes that way of playing the game. The frustrating thing about AoOs is that it is hard to simply get rid of them (for the reasons mentioned earlier in this thread).

If the rules concerning AoOs were more modular -- so that people who liked them could use them, and people who disliked them could ignore them without reworking many other aspects of the system -- I'd have no problem with them.

 

[MerricB]

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.

Akrasia, the Moldvay Basic set came out two-three years AFTER AD&D.

 

[Psion]

Yeah, Attacks of Opportunity are deeply-rooted in 3e. But they just bug me...previous editions didn't have them,

Not true. The originated in 2e as Attacks of Opportunity, but are really just a formalization of mechanics that existed prior to that.

 

[Psion]

#2: Level Adjustments. I understand the need for balance, but in practice it's been a real drag. As long as I don't have anyone wanting to play a Beholder Swashbuckler, I should be fine,

I just got a picture of a beholder in a feather cap in my head. Illustrated by Dennis Cramer. :\

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Am I annoying you yet? If not, I'll have to try harder.

Don't bother, annoying Akrasia is like trying to annoy an..."Annoying-Demon"?? Damn, there's no monster fr that yet.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Well, there are always Racial Substitution Levels.

#4: Gnomes. Still not sure what to do with these poor guys. I guess I need to pick whether gnomes are illusionists, earth-faeries, scholars, or inventors, as long as they're not all three at once.

I'm never going to understand everyone's hate of gnomes. And why is it that they can't be all at once? Why demand that they be two-dimensional? That's what dwarves are for.

 

[Akrasia]

Akrasia, the Moldvay Basic set came out two-three years AFTER AD&D.

Right -- I was thinking in terms of personal history. Sorry.

But that doesn't invalidate my original point.