New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I definitely like the clarification of AoO's; should make it much easier for people to follow.

We'd already been using the reach adjustment as a house rule; the Combat Reflexes fix makes sense. For those of you arguing about the "overpowered" feat combo, remember that "Hold the Line" isn't a core feat, nor is it on the list to go into the 3.5 PHB -- I'm sure they only balance against the core books.

Hyp -- I think you're reasoning's sound on the paralyzed/helpless AoO; nothing's preventing you from using DM judgment on it. I can think of one argument against, which is a rules item rather than a "realism" item: that it makes creatures with paralyzation attacks particularly dangerous. Consider:

DM: The Ghoul bites and claws at you. His first claws attack hits for 4 points; make a Fort save.
Player: Drat, an 11!
DM: You're paralyzed. The ghoul takes his attack of opportunity, 3 points of damage, and so does the one next to it. It then completes its full attack: claw, bite ...

As a slight hijack: if that's indicative of how they're going to tie in the miniatures line to the core rules, it looks like it will be a pretty smooth transition with minimal impact.

 

[Plane Sailing]

At last! Sanity reigns with respect to Combat Reflexes!

Interestingly, I have a recollection of big debates involving rule-writing heavyweights some time ago where Monte said that he'd expected/intended Combat Reflexes to work like this (one AoO per "infringement") and all the others said "no, one AoO per potential target".

The way it is described here is the way that makes logical sense to me, and I don't anticipate that it will cause us any strange problems in our game (not least since we have a fine filter on any feats allowed in the game... no such thing as Hold the Line or Karmic Strike in our campaigns)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I like the change of one-per-enemy to one-per-opportunity. If I can AoO six different people for six different distractions, I should be able to attack the same guy six times for six different distractions. It also prevents the trick to provoke an AoO (by walking, for example) to be able to cast the spell without fearing and AoO - you never know whether the enemy doesn't have combat reflexes....

But I really hope they do something against the "endless-chain" where two combatants alternately provoke AoOs with their AoOs. Something in the descritpion of Combat Reflexes that limits that (or fist fights between guys with Combat Reflexes will be really weird).

 

[Li Shenron]

I like the change of one-per-enemy to one-per-opportunity.

Mmm... I have always played like that, eventually I have always been wrong - or forecasting

 

[Enceladus]

From the article:

shorter and easier to understand

This is when I get nervous.

 

[Murrdox]

How about another clarification - to my knowledge it's still up for interpretation whether or not an invisible character provokes an attack of opportunity.

Personally - I think the paralysis/unconsiousness thing with AoO are a game mechanic. It would make the game more lethal that if a fighter drops you to -1 in combat... he then immediately gets an AoO on you for falling unconscious, immediately putting you down to -15. I think this same ruling is why paralysis doesn't provoke. If you're paralyzed, you're ALREADY screwed. The rules are trying to give you a fighting chance (But as was mentioned, you can get Coup de Graced)

 

[Spatzimaus]

The "multiple AoOs against a target" thing does worry me. Besides the Recursive AoO Chain effect, it's a bit unbalancing in general since it bypasses the whole BAB issue.

What I mean is, if I'm a first-level Fighter with an 18 DEX and Combat Reflexes, I get one normal attack per round, same as anyone else. When confronted with someone who does a lot of things provoking an AoO (say, running in circles around me at a distance of 5'), the Fighter without Combat Reflexes gets double his normal damage, while I get 6 times the normal. I'm doing 5 times as much damage on the target's turn as I am on my own.

The person's normal attack progressions become almost meaningless in this situation. Take the guy with the Spiked Chain; by standing in the middle of the battlefield, he's practically guaranteed to get lots of AoOs, even at low level.

Now, I understand why the ability to do multiple AoOs on one target is a good thing. If you don't give this capability, people will do a meaningless action (like move through a threatened square) to draw the AoO that could have disrupted a save-or-die spell. You could always choose not to take that first AoO, but that's not really a realistic thing.

That's why IMC we made a custom Feat, "Improved Combat Reflexes" (no relation to the splatbook feat) that, among other things, allowed the person to take additional AoOs on a single target at their Full Attack progression. That is, if I'm a 12th-level Fighter, I can take no more than 3 AoOs on a single target; the first is at my full attack bonus, the second at -5, the third at -10. After all, when AoOing a guy you shouldn't be able to get in more attacks than you would in a Full Attack action.
Each of these AoOs still counts against your Combat Reflexes total, so if you think other opponents are going to be drawing AoOs you should choose to hold off on taking all of them on the first guy you see.
Personally, I'd rather see it done this way as the general rule. IMC we'll probably use 3.5E and just house-rule it to this (removing the Feat).

 

[Bauglir]

I like the change of one-per-enemy to one-per-opportunity. If I can AoO six different people for six different distractions, I should be able to attack the same guy six times for six different distractions. It also prevents the trick to provoke an AoO (by walking, for example) to be able to cast the spell without fearing and AoO - you never know whether the enemy doesn't have combat reflexes....

This is a bad thing imo. That's another valid tactic removed from combat, and in its place is lots of munchiness as detailed above. Urgh.

 

[Petrosian]

Re: Re

[/B][/QUOTE]

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.

So by common sense you are not referring to the rule "making sense" but as to how to "sensibly" use the rule ionce the rule is accepted?

The other guy then is arguing a wholly different point. he is arguing, and i have stated for a long time the same case, that DEFINING AoO as being a free attack granted by the enemy lowering his guard should also mean that defenseless targets also get an AoO attack free swing made at them.

Yes, you should get a free swing at the table and yes you should get a free swing at the held mage. They are not defending against you. So their guard is lowered and therefore you can elect to use your AoOs on them.

Just because they are not fighting back does not mean, or should not mean, you have to likewise treat them as "not in combat". You should be the person making the decision as to whether or not they are "in combat" when you decide whether or not to keep attacking them.

They should not be granted an out-of-combat status by dint of THEM lowering their defenses or being forced to.

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.

We agree completely... but simple logic says that if a temporary or brief opening allows a free swing, then a more severe more prolonged opening should do so as well.

Looking away from me to pop a potion ans swig it is NOT more exposed if i am swinging those many blows that miss than being held motionless or unconscious at my feet is. It should be MY CHOICE not your status that determines whether you can or cannot be treated as "in combat" by me.

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.

Yes, that is coreect and that is the decision that we are saying makes no sense. You should not get "immune to aoo" simply because you have less defenses.

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?

First, adding even more severe penalties to helpless people, to highlight that they are worse off or more exposed than a potion drinker is FINE. We are not arguing that CDG is a bad rule.

Taking away the potion drinker's problem if he becomes unconscious is another matter. The helpless guy, by every descrition of what the AoO rule is supposed to simulate or represent says that he should get an AoO if i chose to spend one on him AND in addition there is the CDG rule for full attacks and such. The addition of CDG should not remove AoO.

Do not agree?

Let me give you a real case from last night.

*****************

The sorcerer got held, HELPLESS. There were plenty of foes within a 15' radius when his turn came up but just by dint of luck none within 5'. The sorcerer cast a silent teleport. Poof.

Now, lets say the sorcerer was within 5' of the enemy. According to you he SHOULD not be getting an AoO normally because while his guard is down he is by definition helpless and out of combat.

So if within the reach of a guy with a sword my helpless held and out of combat sorcerer casts a teleport spell silently... he would provoke an attack of opportunity. If, however, he just stands there motionless, he does not. This is because casting a spell "distracts" him from his defense?

That makes no sense.

***********************

On the other hand, if you choose to say that "helpless = cannot provoke AoOs" then you have just created an AoO proofing tactic, albeit a dubious one.

What makes more sense, though might not be balanced for now, is for loss of defense due to distraction or incapability to defend to BOTH serve as openings for AoOs.

********************

The most meaty thing about AoOs that was not shown is the concentration skill definition.

In D20M, a concentration check is required to complete ANY ACTION that provokes an AoO that causes damage. So, closing more than 5' through an enemy with reach means you take an AoO and IF THAT HITS you then make a concentration check to see if the damage stops you there. This grossly expands the role of AoO and concentration to preventative not just punitive and seriously impacts the importance of them. Unfortunately, in D20M that rule was in the concentration skill, not AoOs.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

This is a bad thing imo. That's another valid tactic removed from combat, and in its place is lots of munchiness as detailed above. Urgh.

I see that less as a valid tactic and more as meta-game thinking: "If I play stupid now, he hits me, and then I have the whole rest of my turn where I can really play silly buggers right before him and he can't do a thing".

If you don't want to provoke an AoO, stay out of reach - or cast defensively.