New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity

[Petrosian]

Yes.

You are doing a good job of listing the ramifications of "i chose to take my swing already."

Fortunately for me, you are not showing these as BAD differences, just differences.

If i decide after taking my first swing and seeing whether it hit or not that the full action "withdraw" maneuver was a better choice... its too late.

If i decide after taking a full attack set of iterative swings that i should have withdrawn or held back for a MEA... its too late.

The "opportunity only" AoO merely lets me make those decisions EARLIER when facing an adversary whose defense has lapsed (or was non-existent.)

is there more risk in commiting yourself earlier, sure, but that just means you need to THINK about whether to commit to take advantage of the opportunity rather than just go ahead because its not a tough choice, its free.

I don't see these as bad repercussions.

Its different. it certainly makes AoOs less desirable, not a gimme, and something to think about before using.

Another one I just thought of -

Using your "new model AoO" you realize that you will not be able to disengage/move away from an opponent without provoking an AoO on the round after you have taken an AoO because you are doing something other than "just moving" (you have taken an "attack" and will take a "move", even though your attack actually happened last round).

Whoa, that was a massive run-on sentence.

 

[Zenon]

I answered that already.

Yeah, I saw you had mentioned it when I was re-reading your posts, sorry.

one swing means you start the round AS IF you had just taken one swing... so you are at the point of decision between full attack and mea.

more than one aoo swing means you are in full attack, so you can use any remaining iterative attacks and use a 5' move.

Againm the notion is landing a blow sooner, taking advantage of an opportunity, not gaining a half dozen or more new swings against defending foes.

Hmm, what happens in a situation where you would have more AoO's than you have attacks in the next round?

For example:

3rd lvl Fighter, Dex 16 (+3 mod) with Combat Reflexes
He only has 1 attack per round (due to BAB), but can have up to 4 AoO's per round (1+3 dex mod).

Say he's in melee with an orc archer. He goes first in the round, swings and misses.

The orc tries to fire an arrow at him. (AoO provoked and taken)
Three other orcs run by him to get to the fighter's friends, each provoking an AoO, which the fighter takes.

The fighter has now used his attack for this round, plus his attacks for the next 4 rounds? Since he cannot do multiple attacks, can he only do an MEA each round for the next four (so no potion drinking, etc)?

What if he was two weapon fighting? Does that mean he only used his next two rounds of attacks and can only move 5' each of the next two rounds? What happens if he drops one(or all) of his weapons, does he have to recalculate again how many attacks he's used to see when he can really attack again?

The above may happen unless you change the Combat Reflexes feat to give only one additional attack over base BAB attacks, keeping the Dex as a prerequisite only.

This is what I mean by it'll get confusing. I think it will also frustrate your players ("What do you mean I can only move again this round? I want to run up to the orc and pound him!" "Well, you took those AoO's two rounds ago so that used up your attacks, sorry!"). Players are notorious for forgetting the benefits they had earlier, they'll only see they cannot do something now.

I'm just trying to poke all the holes I can in this to help you refine it and catch everything you'll need to change.

 

[Zenon]

Fortunately for me, you are not showing these as BAD differences, just differences.

That's Ok, I'm not trying to change your mind on it, just point out potential trouble spots.

You really should move this inth the House Rules Forum , I think you'd get more help on it there.

We're a little off-topic here.

 

[Staffan]

There was this game once that emphasized TOUGH CHOICES as a good thing.
With AoOs as a free thing it is rare that you should conisder not taking one. Thats because they are FREE.

Yes, tough choices are a good thing. In the default game, the tough choice is "Should I cast this spell, because if I do that guy might smack me one upside the head?"
Counting AoOs against the attacks next round means that *that* choice is lessened, since casting a spell or chugging a potion doesn't mean you'll be taking more damage on account of doing stupid things.

 

[Ravener]

I like Petrosian's suggestions, but has anyone considered the potential of a rule that states you can only make attacks of opportunity outside of your turn ?

- You don't get an AoO for dropping an opponent (but any allies that threaten the dropped opponent might).

- You don't get an AoO on an opponent that is making an AoO to your initial attack (preventing certain AoO chains, but not preventing stupid archers or boxers from suiciding).

- If the wizard successfully casts Hold Person on the orc that the fighter is in melee with, the fighter gets an AoO (and a CDG when his turn comes up).

Simple in design, easy to justify.

I'm still considering all the implications, but I'm sure there are those who can point out the flaw in the idea.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm, what happens in a situation where you would have more AoO's than you have attacks in the next round?

from my first post... where i laid out this notion.

"A normal guy would only be able to "move up" one attack, regardless of his iteratives... someone with combat reflexes would be able to move up as many attacks as he can make with a fulll round action."

So, under my model the problem would never happen. Its only under the current and upcoming official model that yous AoOs rate is independent of your attacks per round.

For example:

3rd lvl Fighter, Dex 16 (+3 mod) with Combat Reflexes
He only has 1 attack per round (due to BAB), but can have up to 4 AoO's per round (1+3 dex mod).

Not in my model, covered that in post 1. Only in the official model is this a "problem".

Say he's in melee with an orc archer. He goes first in the round, swings and misses.

The orc tries to fire an arrow at him. (AoO provoked and taken)
Three other orcs run by him to get to the fighter's friends, each provoking an AoO, which the fighter takes.

Yes, absolutely, you need to think about what you need to do when you CHOOSE to use an AoO or not. If he wants to screen the mage, then he does not need to take that anti archer AoO.

if he is a higher level fighter, he can take more.

The situation is exactly like it is now, except that combat reflexes doesn't work independently of you level anymore, you don't get extra attacks from CR until you get them normally.

Thats a difference, not a problem.

There will be a great many difference in AoOs under this model in terms of their tactics and use. Mainly, they are not as powerful as they once were, or at least, not as frequent. They may be more powerful if the concentration-interrupt is in play.

The fighter has now used his attack for this round, plus his attacks for the next 4 rounds? Since he cannot do multiple attacks, can he only do an MEA each round for the next four (so no potion drinking, etc)?

The limit to AoOS already established is your full attack rate. You cannot draw attacks from more than the next round. This was already covered.

The above may happen unless you change the Combat Reflexes feat to give only one additional attack over base BAB attacks, keeping the Dex as a prerequisite only.

See above. CR gives you up to your full attack in AoOs. a TWF guy with them in hand could use his TWF.

I think it will also frustrate your players ("What do you mean I can only move again this round? I want to run up to the orc and pound him!" "Well, you took those AoO's two rounds ago so that used up your attacks, sorry!"). Players are notorious for forgetting the benefits they had earlier, they'll only see they cannot do something now.

I think you are actually thinking it would frustrate your players.

If your playera are frustrated by non-free things, then this rule would not serve you well.

I'm just trying to poke all the holes I can in this to help you refine it and catch everything you'll need to change.

So far, most of the things you have pointed out were already addressed. Most were merely "so you mean this..." variety and the others were just misreads.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Petrosian]

Yes, tough choices are a good thing. In the default game, the tough choice is "Should I cast this spell, because if I do that guy might smack me one upside the head?"
Counting AoOs against the attacks next round means that *that* choice is lessened, since casting a spell or chugging a potion doesn't mean you'll be taking more damage on account of doing stupid things.

The risk is STILL there. If i do this he might take a swing at me.

The additional risk comes for everything but spells from the concentration check addition from M20... that ANY AoO action is going to require a check to complete if an AoO hits.

For a spellcaster now, the AoO issue is not as much about damage... its about losing the spell.

If the fighter waits... he does damage.
if the fighter takes the AoO, he takes damage and interrupts the spell. May even cause the spell to fail.

The mage's decision is still a case of the AoO being more dangerous to him than a regular swing on the fighter's turn. So options like combat casting still apply.

For everyone else, the threat of interruption and having their action stopped... the notion that the fighter can actually in truth prevent you from running by and not just hit you while passing, sounds good to me.

 

[Staffan]

The risk is STILL there. If i do this he might take a swing at me.

But it's a swing he'd take anyway, just half a round down the line. If it had been a game with a more realistic damage system, I could buy the rule, but not in D&D (note: this is not a knock against D&D's hit point system. I like hit points. It's just that "getting hit sooner" is not much of a deterrent when that hit isn't likely to impair you very much).

 

[Petrosian]

But it's a swing he'd take anyway, just half a round down the line. If it had been a game with a more realistic damage system, I could buy the rule, but not in D&D (note: this is not a knock against D&D's hit point system. I like hit points. It's just that "getting hit sooner" is not much of a deterrent when that hit isn't likely to impair you very much).

the deterrent comes not from the fact that he swings and hits me, but that he swings and hits me NOW and that by hitting me now he can interrupt my action and prevent it from being accomplished.

AoO != MORE DAMAGE
AoO = MORE COnSEQUENCES

 

[Hypersmurf]

AoO != MORE DAMAGE
AoO = MORE COnSEQUENCES

Or both! Give everyone the Sneak AoO Epic Feat for free!

-Hyp.