New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity

[Plane Sailing]

Re: Re

We play that you aren't allowed AOO's if you lose your dex bonus. You lose your dex bonus when "flat-footed" or facing an invisible opponent.

We decided this since Combat Reflexes implies that you receive no AOO's when "flat-footed" that this would also apply to any other time a combatant was denied their Dex bonus.

This has an interesting side effect of making Blindfight quite nice, since it would allow you to take AoO against invisible opponents (since you don't lose your Dex bonus against them).

Cheers

 

[Cayle]

Well, it's even worse, now.

You have a Spiked Chain, and the Combat Reflexes, Hold the Line, and Karmic Strike feats. Your opponent is 3.5 Hasted.

He charges you, entering a threatened square (AoO - Hold the Line), then leaving a threatened square as he closes (AoO - movement). He throws a punch (AoO - unarmed attack) and hits (AoO - Karmic Strike). Then, with his Hasted attack, he punches again (AoO - unarmed attack) and hits (AoO - Karmic Strike).

If you can get six AoOs on someone who isn't unconscious, why can't you get six AoOs on someone who is?

Bad ruling. Bad.

-Hyp.

As opposed to your vast rules knowledge i'd like to burst your bubble you created in your recent post:

Although I don't know about the Karmic Strike Feat, it is impossible, i repeat, impossible, to gain this chain of AoO's.
I'll explain:
First two AoO, no problem, i'll agree with the third one too, if the attacker is so dumb to attack you unarmed w/o Unarmed Strike (poor DM, by the way), then the Karmic Strike, fine, but that's it! You read the article, didn't you? A hasted person has to use a "Full round Action" to get more attacks, how could he do that while still moving more than 5ft? I don't see a niche in this how you'd explain that to us.

And to your argument concerning hitting six times a helpless foe: You wouldn't get six AoO, what for? At least he isn't provoking six times, as i'd still say he isn't provoking at all, but you'd only get one AoO, if any. There i'd gladly take him out with a Coupe de Grace...

abusing the rules is when not knowing them exactly.

-Cayle

 

[Bauglir]

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.

Or "If I try to cast he'll lunge at me and wreck the spell, so I'll try and draw his attack early so I can get an opening to cast"

Balancewise you're choosing to take a hit to ensure that spell goes off. You lose something, you gain something; seems fine to me.

As for why AoOs on helpless opponents is game breaking, here's why imo: If this were possible, one could make an attack dropping a character to negative hitpoints, then immediately make an AoO on the now helpless character, killing them instantly. Orcs suddenly become a LOT more deadly to low level parties.

 

[Bauglir]

I'll explain:

Hit submit early?

I'm guessing you were going to pick up on how under 3.5 haste the bonus attack only comes as part of a full attack action?

 

[Hypersmurf]

You read the article, didn't you? A hasted person has to use a "Full round Action" to get more attacks, how could he do that while still moving more than 5ft? I don't see a niche in this how you'd explain that to us.

Fair point - I did screw up with the Haste.

Swap Haste for Lion's Charge, then - he can take a Full Attack action with Improved Two Weapon Fighting for 6 unarmed attacks, drawing 12 AoOs for a total of 14

Better?

-Hyp.

 

[Jens]

... It would seem stranged to me if you allowed a person to take all of their AOO's against the helpless person, considering their helpless would only be considered one opportunity. ...

Ok. It would seem strange to me if an opponent who drinks a potion and moves out of your threatened area (while dodging you attacks; he keeps his dex bonus) leaves more openings in his defense than an opponent who is held (Hold Person) within your threatened area. The latter has effectively dropped his defenses continuously the whole time while the first has only done so at two distinct points.

If I can get two free attacks against an opponent who lets down his defenses two times during his turn, I should be able to get at least as many free attacks against someone who has his defenses down throughout his turn. It does not make sense to count a state (continuously dropping one's defenses throughout one's turn) as an event (momentarily dropping one's defenses), and the rules should accomodate this distinction.

Imo, it would be completely reasonable to either
- make helpless combatants provoke infinitely many AoOs on their turn, or
- let a combatant take any 'unused' AoOs at his turn against any helpless opponents (and undefended objects) he threatens.
Any problems these might cause would be due to the Combat Reflexes feat and the removal of the 'one AoO per opponent per round' rule.

 

[Hypersmurf]

- The AOO-chain concern seems theoretical at best, as frankly I've never seen two opponents both with Combat Reflexes engage each other to date.

Well sure, not in 3E.

But in 3.5, with the suped-up AoO rules, there might be more of them floating around...

-Hyp.

 

[Cayle]

Hit submit early?

Yup

-Cayle

 

[Cayle]

Fair point - I did screw up with the Haste.

Swap Haste for Lion's Charge, then - he can take a Full Attack action with Improved Two Weapon Fighting for 6 unarmed attacks, drawing 12 AoOs for a total of 14

Better?

-Hyp.

Quite Good, when you explain to me the 39 Dex he must have to get 14(!!) AoO.
Still, i would state, that moving is a separate action from attacking, but a Full Attack is just one Opportunity.

To get everything right, the (hopeless) attacker wouldn't continue to hit (thus getting the extra Karmic Strike) until after the first 6 Attacks, would you think? And if he does, he'd shrug off your puny attepts to bother him, and finally punish you subdually

-Cayle

 

[Li Shenron]

Given so much anger shown in this thread, I wonder if AoOs were a good idea from the start of 3e

They are still the most complicated rule of the game and eventually they don't help realism... Our DM malignly has always said he believes the only purpose of AoO was to sell miniatures

edit: I think the first aim is to prevent ranged combatant to be also melee combatant with the same weapon

As a DM I haven't had problems with them, but always required some DM's calls. I would like that 3.5e either addressed every ambiguity or otherwise stated that adjudication is always required, and let's forget about a clear comprehensive rule...

edit: I have recently tried to play Neverwinter Nights, and stroke me most was the amount of AoOs coming unexpectedly. I got the impression that even at Bioware they didn't really understand how they work...