New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity

[Pielorinho]

Nice description.

Maybe it's not so big a problem. I still see it as an unneeded complexity, though.

Thanks! It is an extra layer of complexity, but I see that complexity arising very rarely. And mostly when it comes up, it'll be in the context of a single person doing two or more AoO-provoking actions in a single round ("Okay, I'm going to cast shocking grasp on the ogre!" "He grunts, and smashes you with his club for 12 points of damage. Make a concentration check." "Yee-ouch! I don't make the concentration check. What, I've got a move action left? Fine, I run away." "The ogre grins and swings his club at you again. Mark yourself down another 14 hit points.")

Most players IMC know how to avoid incurring AoOs; the mechanic pops up in the game mostly in the context of limiting what people do (i.e., they don't cast shocking grasp when they're standing next to an ogre).

And on the rare occasions where multiple AoO opportunities occur, I can visualize the way that the AoO-chain works. I cannot visualize why, in the horse-and-knight example I gave above, the combat-reflexes guy would be able to attack both horse and knight once each, in any order, when they gallop past. It makes much more sense to me to grant AoOs per opportunity, not per opponent.

Daniel

 

[Spatzimaus]

I think chains like this will happen extremely rarely (i.e., only when two opponents with combat reflexes face off against each other, one incurs an AoO, and each combatant decides to use each AoO for an action that incurs another AoO).

Bob and Fred are two Human teenagers who get into a fistfight. Neither has Improved Unarmed Strike or Combat Reflexes.

Bob hits Fred, which draws an AoO. Fred takes the AoO, punching Bob in return. This, of course, draws an AoO, allowing Bob to hit him back. End result: in one attack action, Bob hit Fred twice and Fred hit Bob once. If they both had Combat Reflexes (as level 1 Humans they'd each get two Feats, it's not unreasonable) they could get a lot more.

Anyway, I still say you should add the "no backsies" rule, where once you've taken an action in the chain you can't take another one in that chain, even if one of the later people does something to provoke an AoO (since this'd require your second AoO to take place BEFORE your first action). So, Bob hits Fred, who hits Bob back as an AoO; Bob can't use that as an excuse for an AoO to hit Fred since he caused the situation in the first place.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Bob and Fred are two Human teenagers who get into a fistfight. Neither has Improved Unarmed Strike or Combat Reflexes.

Under 3.0 rules, it's undisputed that an unarmed attack does not draw an AoO from an unarmed opponent. It's disputed as to whether anything else does.

Under the 3.5 Spotlight rules, an unarmed opponent doesn't threaten an area. No AoOs.

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

Bob and Fred are two Human teenagers who get into a fistfight. Neither has Improved Unarmed Strike or Combat Reflexes.

Bob hits Fred, which draws an AoO. Fred takes the AoO, punching Bob in return. This, of course, draws an AoO, allowing Bob to hit him back. End result: in one attack action, Bob hit Fred twice and Fred hit Bob once. If they both had Combat Reflexes (as level 1 Humans they'd each get two Feats, it's not unreasonable) they could get a lot more.

Actually, if I may:

Bob and Fred are two Human teenagers who get into a fistfight. Neither has Improved Unarmed Strike or Combat Reflexes.

Bob hits Fred, which WOULD DRAW an AoO, except that, since Fred doesn't have improved unarmed strike, he's considered unarmed, and he doesn't threaten the area around him.

No Attack of Opportunity for Fred.

But let's say that Fred does have improved unarmed strike. Fred takes the AoO, punching Bob in return. This, of course, WOULD DRAW an AoO, except that Bob, not having improved unarmed strike, doesn't threaten the area around him.

No Attack of Opportunity for Bob.

But let's say that Bob also has improved unarmed strike. In that case, his first punch at Fred wouldn't have provoked an Attack of Opportunity in the first place.

End result: in one attack action, Bob hits Fred once.

See what I'm saying? These chains don't come up very often.

Daniel
edited for clarity, although I'm afraid it's still kind of confusing.

 

[Rel]

But that's all that Liza needs: as Frank's distracted by this maneuver, Liza darts forward and grabs Frank with her free hand, pinning him up against a wall.

And then they kiss, right?!

I'm gettin' all turned on over here!

 

[Pielorinho]

And then they kiss, right?!

Actually, just as Liza reaches for Frank's greatclub, the scene fades to black.



Daniel

 

[Stalker0]

I'm happy for the changes they made, but I don't think it really addresses the big problems with AOO that I've seen, namely the AOO chain ambuiguities, or the invisible target ambuiguities.

Hopefully though, perhaps these will be addressed in another section of combat, for instance, maybe it will specifically say that disarming, or sundering does not provoke an AOO when used as an AOO. Perhaps under invisible targets it will mention they don''t provoke AOOs or something to that effect.

But... I'm not holding my breath

As for teh paralyzed target argument, I completely agree that it is completely unrealistic for paralyzed creatures to not provoke AOOs. But its also unrealistic for crossbows to be fired once every 6 seconds. Somewhat unrealistic that full plate doesn't reduce damage from blows. You just have to come to a point where you just sigh and allow the fantasy to kick in, so that the game will be smooth and balanced and work.

 

[Pielorinho]

Actually, I was thinking about something else:

Frank and Liza circle around one another warily, Liza swiping the air in front of her with a glowing longsword every few seconds. Frank, for his part, smacks one palm with a heavy spiked club.

Suddenly, Frank lunges forward, attempting to close inside of the sword's reach and grapple Liza. Liza, acting quickly, lashes out with her sword at Frank's club.

And then Liza thinks, "What the heck am I doing? Frank's trying to grab me, and I'm worried about his weapon? I should be trying to cut off his head, not disarm him!"

Indeed, while I can think of AoO chains that could happen, I'm having real trouble thinking of ones that would happen, ones where it's to a character's advantage to use an AoO to make an AoO-incurring attack.

The only one I can really think of is this:
*Liza, using a spiked chain, tries to disarm Frank's spiked chain. They're 10' apart, but since Frank has a spiked chain, he threatens Liza, and can take an AoO on her.
*Frank realizes that Liza is standing on a cliff, and decides to use his AoO to bullrush her off the cliff.
*As Frank moves into Liza's space, he incurs an AoO (since Liza's spiked chain threatens spaces both near and far). Liza realizes that she's so much blood pudding if Frank's bull-rush succeeds, so she decides to try to grapple him, on the assumption that Frank will give up his bull rush if he's gonna go with her.
*Frank, seeing that he's about to be grappled, does the smart thing and just tries to attack Liza -- if he can hurt her, then her grapple won't go off, and then he can proceed nicely with his grapple attempt.

Okay. So I'll concede that during combat-reflexy, spiked-chain-wielding, hi-dex combatants on the edge of a cliff, you might legitimately get into AoO chains. In this example, on Liza's turn, Frank gets two AoOs (a bull rush and a normal attack), and Liza gets one (a grapple).

Only one problem: can you bull-rush as an AoO? I doubt you can.

So we may be back to square one.

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

Okay. This is silly, but why don't we make a list of actions you can do as an AoO that in turn draw an AoO?
* Unarmed strike? Rarely: if you have Improved Unarmed Strike, your punching someone doesn't draw an AoO from them, and if you don't, you don't threaten the area around you, so you don't get an AoO yourself. Under bizarre circumstances, however, you may decide to punch someone even though you have a sword in your other hand. Maybe you want to take the prisoner alive. So in rare circumstances, yes.
*Disarm? Yep.
*Strike an attended object? Yep.
*Strike a weapon? Yep.
*Grapple? Yep
*Anything else? I can't think of anything else

Okey-dokey, here's a chain for you:
*Bubba the Cleric of Doom decides to cast hold person on Mitzi the Paladin: he raises his holy symbol and begins to chant. Sadly, he's right next to his enemy, and incurs an AoO for casting in a threatened square.
*Mitzi, seeing an opportunity to humiliate her nemesis, decides to use her AoO smash Bubba's beer-bottle-shaped holy symbol with her mace. Sadly, Bubba is also armed, and Mitzi incurs an AoO for striking an object
*Bubba, realizing what a bad thing it would be to lose Vecna's Beer Bottle of Doom, uses his AoO to raise his sword to smash Mitzi's mace. He incurs an AoO for attacking a weapon.
*Mitzi does not want to lose her precious mace, and it's bigger than Bubba's little short sword (although his short sword, being magical, is likely to sever her mace). She therefore decides to disarm him, and incurs an AoO for doing so.
*Oh yeah? Thinks Bubba. I'll disarm you first, and incur an AoO for doing so!
*This is getting ridiculous, thinks Mitzi. Since Bubba can't cast his spell if he's grappled, she tries to grapple him, and incurs an AoO for doing so.
*Bubb agrees it's getting ridiculous, and tries to hit her. HE DOESN'T INCUR AN AOO!

*Bubba hits Mitzi.
*Mitzi's grapple attempt automatically fails, since she was hit.
*Bubba finishes his disarm attempt, but fails.
*Since Mitzi still has her weapon, she continues trying to disarm Bubba. She succeeds!
*Bubba was planning on smashing Mitzi's mace, but he no longer has the sword to do so, so he fails.
*Mitzi attacks Bubba's Beer Bottle Holy Symbol, and hits, but doesn't do enough damage to smash it.
*Bubba finishes casting his spell.
*Mitzi fails her save. Since it's a 3.0 Hold Person, Bubba coup de graces her next round, proving once and for all that he's evil.

There's a chain for you -- and all it takes is a couple of extraordinarily devious holy characters with combat reflexes and dexterity out the wazoo.

I maintain that this'll happen very rarely, and the disadvantages of its rare occurrence are outweighed by the logic of other circumstances in which you really oughtta get two AoOs against someone who does two dumb things.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

Okay. This is silly, but why don't we make a list of actions you can do as an AoO that in turn draw an AoO?
*Strike an attended object? Yep.
*Strike a weapon? Yep.

Can't.

Table 8-4.

*Bubba finishes his disarm attempt, but fails.
*Since Mitzi still has her weapon, she continues trying to disarm Bubba. She succeeds!

You forgot that Mitzi gets a counter-disarm attempt before resolving her own disarm attempt

*Bubba was planning on smashing Mitzi's mace, but he no longer has the sword to do so, so he fails.

... with his Eagle Claw Attack[!

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I saw it the same way. It really only mattered for spellcasting but the idea was the same. It's basically a faint [sic] IMO though,so I required a bluff check in order to pull it off. If the bluff failed the person would see it as a faint trying to draw an attack away from something. They wouldn't be sure what but something.

I think it is easier just to require the players (or DM) to use their brain rather than use more complicated mechanics.

Savvy players do not always take the first AoO that comes up; they save them for spellcasting or want to keep their guard up in case something big and ugly tries to grapple them. It is hardly rocket science.

My only concern about the AoO rules is balance and we can't judge that until we see how all the feats are written up. The Combat Reflexes Feat we have in 3.0 is already very powerful -- probably the strongest single core feat without the enhancement. I always thought that the possibility of extra AoOs on the same combatant would make for a fine part of a CR feat chain.