New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity

[Celtavian]

Re

If the unconscious person is threatened by an active combatant, there's no need to "jockey for position" and "look for open shots". There's no "leaving openings in defences", because there are no defences. The attacker can flail away as fast as he likes, and there's nothing to stop his shots getting through, no need to dodge, to guard against return strikes.

It is common sense, just as an opponent would not gain AOO's against a table in the room, they don't gain an AOO against an unconcious person.

Coup De Gras action more than makes up for not getting an attack of opportunity as well as the excessively low AC the unconcious person will have if they do decide to expend all their attacks on the unconcious person.


How is Hold the Line Feat different? How often is the situation you describe going to apply?

 

[Darklone]

Re: Re

How is Hold the Line Feat different? How often is the situation you describe going to apply?

Very often. I can see any PC with one or two feat choices going the AoO munchkin route now.

But alas... we first have to wait for the feat list for 3.5 till we can really say something about this.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re

It is common sense, just as an opponent would not gain AOO's against a table in the room, they don't gain an AOO against an unconcious person.

No, that's rules again.

Explain, using "common sense", why someone can get more good hits in against an active opponent than a helpless one.

Coup de Grace is irrelevant. If I choose to make melee attacks instead of a CDG, AoOs allow me to hit the active person more often, because of a "lapse in defence"... a defence the helpless person doesn't have to begin with.

How is Hold the Line Feat different? How often is the situation you describe going to apply?

It's different because it happens for a different reason!

"When a charging opponent enters your threatened area" is not the same thing as "when an opponent moves out of a space you threaten".

And "how often" isn't as important as "can".

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Another attempt at common sense:
I don't think it's viable that a guy who usually is able to make one or two attacks per round, maybe three, should suddenly make 9 simply because of Dex 20, Combat Reflexes and a stupid opponent. One more attack (AoO) fits into my timescale of a combat round nicely, Cleave IMHO is most often interpreted as hitting several opponents with one move, haste explains itself...

But more than doubling hacking and slashing around even with the interpretation that AoOs are actually letting your guard down... Nope. Not with me.

 

[drnuncheon]

I think that's pretty well written. However, I'd like to see them address why a paralyzed person doesn't provoke an AoO.

At the risk of derailing the ongoing argument:

Do we know that is true in 3.5? I don't see it in the spotlight.

J

 

[Hypersmurf]

At the risk of derailing the ongoing argument:

No, please do!

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

One more attack (AoO) fits into my timescale of a combat round nicely.

One per opponent, anyway

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

Nobody else pointed this out, it's the only part I dislike:

An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).

I think it leaves itself open to 3 different interpretations:

1.
I shoot an arrow from 5ft away, and provoke AoO
My opponent immediately rolls his AoO
I roll my ranged attack

2.
I shoot an arrow from 5ft away, and provoke AoO
My opponent immediately rolls his AoO
Next character turn! (no ranged attack)

3.
I shoot an arrow from 5ft away, and provoke AoO
I roll my ranged attack
My opponent not-so-immediately rolls his AoO

If I was to read the D&D rules for the first time, I would be very confused...

edit: emphasis added; why specify "if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn", isn't it ALWAYS?

edit2: NEVER MIND, I thought "character" meant the provoking, but instead it's the AoOing. Well, I DID GET confused...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other notes:

- I don't necessarily like that now you don't threaten anymore with unarmed attack, but it really simplifies the matter (if you threatened, and there's no difference between a punch and kick as an unarmed strike, why can't you get a Kick of Opportunity while wielding a bow? or an AoO with the other hand?)

- the same comment applies to the rules about diagonal squares

- explanation is overall better organized

Also I think that whether a bonus/penalty is to be applied to the AoO is said in the text about the bonus, like Power Attack specifies that the +/- last one round and therefore applies to AoO before the next turn.

 

[Darklone]

- I don't necessarily like that now you don't threaten anymore with unarmed attack, but it really simplifies the matter (if you threatened, and there's no difference between a punch and kick as an unarmed strike, why can't you get a Kick of Opportunity while wielding a bow? or an AoO with the other hand?)

Not anymore??? I thought you didn't threaten unarmed in 3rd too

Btw: I know several guys who shoot 3 arrows in 6 seconds. Used to do so too, when I was still practicing more often. But NONE of them could do a nice kick during that time!

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Explain, using "common sense", why someone can get more good hits in against an active opponent than a helpless one.

Common sense and realistic, are two different things. It is a common sense application of the rule as in a sensible DM doesn't let a player do this.

The DM looks at the series of AOO's and decides what seems appropriate. The AOO rule is there to allow a player to strike an opponent who temporarily drops their guard during a combat sequence. Like when a person uses a potion, leaving an opening for one of those many attacks that happen but don't hit to hit. (the interpretation for combat exchanges is a series of blows with your BAB determining how many effective blows you can attempt. As in there are 10 blows exchanged, but only 3 or 4 are going to be effective blows even at high level) That is what an AOO is.

For the sake of simplicity, they determined that an unconcious person is not really engaged in combat, and that allowing a person to Coup De Gras that individual or hack at them with a severely lowered armor class was good enough. You can basically hack away at the person unimpeded. AOO's were unnecessary because they weren't really doing anything to provoke them and for the most part, the active combatant could just walk up and hack them do death. Do you really need a whole bunch of extra AOO's to hack apart an unconcious person?

And "how often" isn't as important as "can".

This is where you as a DM decide that the feat choices of said player have allowed them to abuse the rules, so you make changes. Why? The game designers in an RPG can only do so much. It is up to the DM's to arbitrate a rule that has gotten out of hand whether it is a combination of feats or a particular spell application that the game designers failed to take into account when designing the rules.

If the combination of feats you suggest become a problem in the game, I am quite sure that they will errata a change or make a change in the next edition. I would be very surprised if the situation you described occurred very often in any game I run. I would definitely nix it in the bud as soon as it did.