ThirdWizard
First Post
I used AoOs back in 2E. I love them. Seeing people not like them makes me sad. It's like not liking puppies. 
I Recant (sort-of)
- Thread starter Ralif Redhammer
- Start date
Keeper of Secrets
First Post
I am for anything that prevents the mage rush.
The only thing that bugs me about AoO is when people step back, I say, 'well that provokes an AoO' and I get the response, 'nope, I took a five foot step.'
The only thing that bugs me about AoO is when people step back, I say, 'well that provokes an AoO' and I get the response, 'nope, I took a five foot step.'
Whimsical
Explorer
D. All of the above, but distinct.Jyrdan Fairblade said:
How about in region A the gnomes are illusionists, in region B they are earth-faeries, and in region C they are scholar and inventors.
Or check out Eberron. Eberron has a great take on Gnomes. They create a culture for them that fits and masterfully blends almost all of their divergent cultural stereotypes. Cut & Paste.
AoO models an important aspect in combat, doing a risky move that might make you vulnerable.
2nd Ed had in the sense that most GMs let you take a free shot at someone who turned and ran away (which is the crux of what AoO is about). From there, the idea was expanded upon for other actions.
The core idea is centered around movement. Moving past the enemy means you might get hit. Without the AoO rules, a fast opponent could move past a defender and the defender would never get a swing at him. This made no sense (we're not talking the Flash here, just somebody with 4 squares of movement). AoO is a pretty good solution to the moving past or away from scenario.
We can also reuse the AoO rules for other actions that might entail getting hit. What its trying to do is introduce risk and benefit. The fighter will decide if trying to trip the opponent is worth the risk of getting hit himself. That's a neat concept, but could have been modeled as an AC penalty instead.
Personally, I don't find the AoO rules hard to abjudicate. They're pretty simple once you see what triggers them. What I find annoying is the chess like strategies that come up to avoid triggering them. The figure movements seem less natural on the board. I think most players are risk averse (at least in not taking on more risk/hits than the basic rules allow). Something in the combat rules makes getting hit by an AoO bad, worse than whatever action the player might otherwise have taken without it.
Perhaps if AoO's were less effective or less likely to hit, players would risk triggering more of them (and thus try more interesting moves). Or if the GM enforced shortest path movement (straightish lines to the figure's end position, rather than wide circles around to avoid an AoO). Personally, I'd try a -2 or -5 to-hit modifier for AoOs, making them less likely to hit. This would increase the likelyhood that somebody would take the chance of getting hit by an AoO, and thus try the riskier (and more fun) actions.
Janx
2nd Ed had in the sense that most GMs let you take a free shot at someone who turned and ran away (which is the crux of what AoO is about). From there, the idea was expanded upon for other actions.
The core idea is centered around movement. Moving past the enemy means you might get hit. Without the AoO rules, a fast opponent could move past a defender and the defender would never get a swing at him. This made no sense (we're not talking the Flash here, just somebody with 4 squares of movement). AoO is a pretty good solution to the moving past or away from scenario.
We can also reuse the AoO rules for other actions that might entail getting hit. What its trying to do is introduce risk and benefit. The fighter will decide if trying to trip the opponent is worth the risk of getting hit himself. That's a neat concept, but could have been modeled as an AC penalty instead.
Personally, I don't find the AoO rules hard to abjudicate. They're pretty simple once you see what triggers them. What I find annoying is the chess like strategies that come up to avoid triggering them. The figure movements seem less natural on the board. I think most players are risk averse (at least in not taking on more risk/hits than the basic rules allow). Something in the combat rules makes getting hit by an AoO bad, worse than whatever action the player might otherwise have taken without it.
Perhaps if AoO's were less effective or less likely to hit, players would risk triggering more of them (and thus try more interesting moves). Or if the GM enforced shortest path movement (straightish lines to the figure's end position, rather than wide circles around to avoid an AoO). Personally, I'd try a -2 or -5 to-hit modifier for AoOs, making them less likely to hit. This would increase the likelyhood that somebody would take the chance of getting hit by an AoO, and thus try the riskier (and more fun) actions.
Janx
TheGM
First Post
Janx said:
You're dead on there. The problem is that IMHO they went too far after making a solid rule of a "rule of thumb". To each his own, I cut them back to "AoOs apply in the situations that similar rules applied in older versions, and might apply at other times, depending upon situation.
Much of this was driven by the same thing the OP talked about - my players would try some daring moves in combat under other game systems, but were whimps wanting things mapped out and calculating the safest route in D20. So I got rid of the problem.
DragonLancer
Hero
I also dislike AoO's. I find that (as both player and DM) they bog the game down slightly and turn the game from a source of fun RPG into a tactical war games simulator, which isn't what myself or my gaming group like. I have considered removing them but I changed my mind for the reasons already stated here.
Under 2nd ed we simply used to rule that you got a free attack (basically an AoO) if an opponent tried to break from melee combat with you, or cast a spell while in melee with you. Simple and worked well.
Under 2nd ed we simply used to rule that you got a free attack (basically an AoO) if an opponent tried to break from melee combat with you, or cast a spell while in melee with you. Simple and worked well.
Aaron L
Hero
Henry said:
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.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Just for nostalgia's sake and as a reference to where the Attack of Opportunity concept was pinned down.
I think its interesting how similar the 2E and 3E AoO really are.
In fact, firing a missile weapon while threatened provoked an AoO in 2E.
The "withdraw" action is an action in which you don't draw an AoO if you only move (and at 1/2 speed).
Overruns, grapples, unarmed attacks against armed opponents, and more provoke AoOs.
It's really quite intrigueing to see the evolution of the AoO.
Combat & Tactics pg 13 said:
I think its interesting how similar the 2E and 3E AoO really are.
In fact, firing a missile weapon while threatened provoked an AoO in 2E.
The "withdraw" action is an action in which you don't draw an AoO if you only move (and at 1/2 speed).
Overruns, grapples, unarmed attacks against armed opponents, and more provoke AoOs.
It's really quite intrigueing to see the evolution of the AoO.
MavrickWeirdo
First Post
Rodrigo Istalindir said:
But he has removed prestige classes, so that part is a non-issue.
