New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity

[Zenon]

Like another poster pointed out, they still don't clarify whether you have to be "aware" of the opponents action to take the AoO. Bad Wotc!

The arguments about AoO'ing tables and helpless opponents misses one thing - AoO's are special actions that happen out of turn order in response to an action.

Since the table or the helpless person takes no actions, no AoO's are provoked in response. After all, we're not modeling "realism" here, we're simply looking at a way to have some sort of rules for the situation that are fair and equitable to all involved.

If you feel like pounding on the helpless table or person, you are free to do it on your actual turn.

Another fallacy I've seen is the "6 AoO per round" using the one-per-action-that-provokes as proof this (mulitple AoO allowed) is a bad choice.

Reasons why?
1) Basic AoO: one per round
2) Combat Reflexes: Give additional AoO's equal to Dex modifier.

So you would need to have a Dex of at least 20 to do the 6 per round deal, along with feats spent for it, along with an enemy who will co-operate by provoking that many AoO's within reach.

As an aside, one of the "house rules" we've been using is the "multiple AoO's for different actions", exactly as the rule is changing to in 3.5. As the DM, I have not seen it to be unbalancing, or seen it to be taken advantage of. In fact, I think I can count on one hand the number of times that someone has got more than one AoO in a round in 2 1/2 years of play in 3.0. The cirucumstances (normally) just aren't that common for it to happen. Granted, I have no spiked chain wielders in my group, even my more "muchy' player hasn't gone that route.

Now, I also realize that a character can be specifically built to take advantage of this (like the high-dex spiked chain wielder with combat reflexes), but that is where enemy tactic have to change to nullify it:

1) SC wielder becomes primary arrow target.
2) SC wielder is primary polearm wielder's target.
3) Is a great target for Hold Person, Blindness, etc.

In other words NPC's/Enemies will realize that they are a serious threat and take steps against it. It's no worse than having a highly specialized archer character being "mobile artillery" with the right stats and feats - Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Shot on the Run, mighty magic bows, etc, etc, etc.

As always, the above is IMHO.

 

[melkoriii]

I personaly hope they clerify or make a rule that says
"An AoO can not prevoke a AoO."

Clears up some of the AoO Chain mess.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think this is an improvement, but could still use some work.

First, I really think there needs to be a clause saying that when you have lost your dex bonus against someone, you do not threaten them. This would handle the question of invisible opponents, sneaking opponents, blinded fighters, fluffed fighters, etc. Further, it would allow the flatfooted condition to be more simply defined: flatfooted would simply mean that until your first action in combat, you're denied your dex bonus (instead of "denied your dex bonus and may not make AoOs).

Second, Hypersmurf, I think your AoO-happy fighter example is problematic not because of the one-AoO-per-opportunity rule, but because of the feats Hold the Line and Karmic Strike. I don't think it's good to combine 3.5 rules with 3.0 feats from non-core sources: part of upgrading is re-evaluating balance issues of non-core feats.

Remove those two feats (and add in exotic weapon proficiency: spiked chain ), and you're down to three AoOs against the fool who, without knowing how to fight with his bare hands, attacks you bare-handed.

Give the bare-fisted boxer the Improved Unarmed Fight feat, and you're down to one AoO.

If the scenario happened how you described, I've got no problem with the idiot boxer getting smacked down. If the boxer knows what he's doing, then he only gets hit once -- and that's how it'd work currently.

********

My problem with the old rules was exemplified in the Horse-and-rider scenario. Imagine that, for some reason, a knight on a horse moves past you (a combat-reflexes dude). Under the old rules, both horse and rider provoke an AoO for moving through your threatened space: you may make an AoO on neither, one, or both of them.

But now, let's say they turn around and ride past you again. This time, whether you get an AoO depends on what you did last time. If you attacked the horse last time, this time you can attack the knight. If you attacked the knight last time, this time you can attack the horse. If you attacked neither of them, this time you can attack both. And if you attacked both, this time you can attack neither.

That's doubly silly: you shouldn't get two attacks on an opponent simply because the opponent is composed of a horse-and-rider team. When they charge past you, you should only have time for one attack. (And that's not even getting into situations where two or more people are riding a single horse).

But worse, on the second go-round, your previous swing should not dictate what you can do.

Under the new rules, I think the proper interpretation is that one attack per opportunity applies even if the opportunity involves two opponents. In other words, when a mounted knight rides past you, that only provokes one AoO, which you may take against the horse or against the rider.

I'd like them to clarify that obscure point.

Daniel

 

[Spatzimaus]

Another fallacy I've seen is the "6 AoO per round" using the one-per-action-that-provokes as proof this (mulitple AoO allowed) is a bad choice.

Reasons why?
1) Basic AoO: one per round
2) Combat Reflexes: Give additional AoO's equal to Dex modifier.

So you would need to have a Dex of at least 20 to do the 6 per round deal, along with feats spent for it, along with an enemy who will co-operate by provoking that many AoO's within reach.

First of all, my example was 6 attacks per round, not 6 AoOs, which means DEX 18. Easily reachable thanks to racial bonuses and Gloves of Dexterity.

Second, it's a question of "force multipliers". People make fun of Manyshot, but Combat Reflexes can be worse. With DEX 18 and using only a single attack during your turn, you can now get a total of six attacks, all at your full attack bonus instead of only two. And, more importantly, it's not level-dependent at all.

Third, I never said all 5 AoOs had to be caused by the same enemy. Most enemies might only do one action that triggers an AoO, but spellcasters will always draw one until they're high enough to Cast Defensively consistently.
Currently, Combat Reflexes has two limiting factors:
1> You can only take a number of AoOs equal to the opportunities available, and
2> Only one can be on each target, effectively limiting the number of AoOs to the number of enemies in range.

This change removes #2. Against a single opponent, you might not see too many AoOs. After all, the only action that can cause multiple AoOs is a move (1 per square), by the book. If you've only got a 5' reach, it's not a big deal either. Now, take a Dragon with 15' reach, DEX 20 and Combat Reflexes, and things could get really messy.

Anyway, I think to make this change workable, you need to add two house rules:
1> An AoO cannot draw an AoO from the person who triggered it, either directly or indirectly.
That is, if Larry drinks a potion and I, Moe, try to trip him as an AoO, he can't try to hit me in return. However, his buddy Curly can poke me in the eyes as a AoO. Neither Larry or I can hit Curly back, since each of us performed actions that led to his AoO.
(This ends the recursive cycle; since AoOs happen BEFORE the action that triggers them, once you're in the "AoO chain" you can't add any more until the whole thing resolves.)
2> You can only take 1 movement AoO per move action of the target, no matter how many of your threatened squares he moved through. (If they move in, hit you, and move back out without Spring Attack, that's still 2 AoOs)

 

[Mercule]

Unfortunately:
- They still didn't come up with a shorter name than the clunky "attacks of opportunity" (more: www.superdan.net/dndmisc/terminology_changes.html )

Personally, I like the term "Attack of Opportunity". Nothing else really describes what it is. IMHO, "Openning" sounds even clunkier. Of course, it's all semantics -- I'd use the mechanic even if it was called "Rhubarb Dance" because it's a good idea.

I do like the clear, concise text, too. (to make the post relevant to 3.5)

 

[Zenon]

First of all, my example was 6 attacks per round, not 6 AoOs, which means DEX 18. Easily reachable thanks to racial bonuses and Gloves of Dexterity.

Sorry to everyone if I misquoted them, I probably read it wrong.

Second, it's a question of "force multipliers". People make fun of Manyshot, but Combat Reflexes can be worse. With DEX 18 and using only a single attack during your turn, you can now get a total of six attacks, all at your full attack bonus instead of only two. And, more importantly, it's not level-dependent at all.

It's a very limited (situational dependent) "force multiplier". Unlike the archery feat chain that can unleash a can of whoop anytime the archer can get a full-attack action, the AoO's can only be used if your enemy gives you the openings (perhaps due to low Int, poor tactics, etc).

Third, I never said all 5 AoOs had to be caused by the same enemy. Most enemies might only do one action that triggers an AoO, but spellcasters will always draw one until they're high enough to Cast Defensively consistently.
Currently, Combat Reflexes has two limiting factors:
1> You can only take a number of AoOs equal to the opportunities available, and
2> Only one can be on each target, effectively limiting the number of AoOs to the number of enemies in range.

This change removes #2. Against a single opponent, you might not see too many AoOs. After all, the only action that can cause multiple AoOs is a move (1 per square), by the book. If you've only got a 5' reach, it's not a big deal either. Now, take a Dragon with 15' reach, DEX 20 and Combat Reflexes, and things could get really messy.

Again, you are assuming that the provoking spellcaster is directly adjacent to the person taking the AoO and cannot/will not take a 5' step backwards in order not to provoke.

As for the removal of #2, I agree it's dangerous but I also think it should be dangerous so I personally don't see a problem with it. This may vary from DM to DM so I can understand your reasoning.

Anyway, I think to make this change workable, you need to add two house rules:
1> An AoO cannot draw an AoO from the person who triggered it, either directly or indirectly.
That is, if Larry drinks a potion and I, Moe, try to trip him as an AoO, he can't try to hit me in return. However, his buddy Curly can poke me in the eyes as a AoO. Neither Larry or I can hit Curly back, since each of us performed actions that led to his AoO.
(This ends the recursive cycle; since AoOs happen BEFORE the action that triggers them, once you're in the "AoO chain" you can't add any more until the whole thing resolves.)
2> You can only take 1 movement AoO per move action of the target, no matter how many of your threatened squares he moved through. (If they move in, hit you, and move back out without Spring Attack, that's still 2 AoOs)

I have never really had an AoO chain go for an incredible stretch of back & forth like that, but I can see that limiting it may be a good thing so it didn't get out of hand. As for #2, I think it's already implied in the rule (per different action), so 1 for moving, 1 for drinking potion, 1 for sheathing weapon, etc. Even if an attacker ran in a tight 5' circle around you through all your threatened squares, he should only provoke 1 AoO (IMO).

 

[Petrosian]

"Sometimes, however, a combatant in a melee lets her guard down, and she doesn't maintain a defensive posture as usual. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. "

Having a lapse in defense should not be only considered to exist when the lapse was a deliberate choice. A lapse in defense for involuntary reasons should ALSO be just as problematic as one deliberately made.

It should be the degree of lowering of guard, the how lapsed is your defense, that determines what problems you suffer, not your intent.

The arguments about AoO'ing tables and helpless opponents misses one thing - AoO's are special actions that happen out of turn order in response to an action.

Since the table or the helpless person takes no actions, no AoO's are provoked in response.

The mechanic requires an action. The descrition of what an AoO is... combatents nearby taking advantage of a laspe in defense...
should not be limited to only INTENTIONAL lapses in defense.

In other words... the rule would make more sense and be consistent if it allowed a free swing "in response to a lapse in defense" not "in response to an intentional lapse in defense>"

I should NOT be limited to taking "one swing per round" at a table when i can make more than one swing per round at an actively defending person who has "lapsed" his defense by drinking a potion. The table has not got more defense up than the guy is.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

I don't know - I always thought of it more as "If I can draw an attack from him, he'll be out of position so I can then drink my potion (or cast my spell... etc.).

I don't like the fact that recursive AoO's are now possible.

I can see it now:

A Trips: Provokes AoO from B
B uses AoO to Trip - Provokes AoO from A
A AoO is to Disarm. Provokes AoO from B[/i]
B uses AoO to Disarm. Provokes AoO from A
A uses AoO to Grapple. Provokes AoO from B
B uses AoO to strike A's weapon. Provokes AoO from A
A uses AoO to strike B's weapon, Provoking an AoO from B.
B uses AoO to AoO to attack A

You might note that neither A nor B ever repeats an action, so even if the two if the repeated identical actions won't draw an AoO rule is applied it won't help here.

Now, not only do you have the rest of the group of players sitting around twiddling their thumbs whole this sequence is worked, but a very odd resolution since we have to work from the last action backwords because an AoO interrupts an action.

It looks like one of those time travel paradoxes is possible - if you eliminate the possibility for the AoO chain to start, what happens to all those AoOs?

For example:

I grapple (and pin?) him with my AoO, so he could not have attempted to disarm me.

So far, so good.

But wait - he was attempting to disarm me because I was attepting to break his weapon which was in response to him moving out my my threatened square.

If he is now pinned, he could not have been attempting to move, because I was only responding to his attempted disarm at the time I grappled him, This means that he could not have been attempting the action that drew the AoO when I grappled him. Now what?

It gets confusing, and paper and pencil will be needed to simply keep track of it all, since the AoO's are not resolved until the entire sequence is laid out.

Bad rule - adds complexity.

 

[Zenon]

The mechanic requires an action. The descrition of what an AoO is... combatents nearby taking advantage of a laspe in defense...
should not be limited to only INTENTIONAL lapses in defense.

In other words... the rule would make more sense and be consistent if it allowed a free swing "in response to a lapse in defense" not "in response to an intentional lapse in defense>"

I agree with your above statements, even the new write-up leaves something to be desired but is still a great improvement over the original.

Hopefully we will see some better phrasing in the final book version over the website posting.

 

[Staffan]

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.

Well, to begin with, any amount of movement only provokes one AoO, but that's beside the point. What you're missing is that the guy with only one attack per round isn't just swinging his sword once. He's doing a lot of stuff that gets blocked, or is trying to evade his opponent's defenses, and stuff like that - that's why he only gets one "real" chance of hitting in a round. Now, if the opponent isn't defending himself but is only running around in a circle around him, I don't see any reason why he *shouldn't* be able to hit the opponent many more times - and the guy with Dex 20 *is* inhumanly fast. A more likely number would be 3 or 4 AoOs, and I can easily imagine someone spanking someone else 4-5 times in a 6-second span of time if the guy getting spanked isn't defending himself.