No AoO w/o Combat Reflexes?

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

How much harm would it do to the game if a house rule were implemented that said that no creature could make an attack of opportunity without having the Combat Reflexes feat? Combat Reflexes would be rewritten like this:

COMBAT REFLEXES [General]
Benefit: You may make a number of attacks of opportunity equal to 1 plus your Dexterity modifier.
Normal: A character without this feat cannot make an attack of opportunity.
Special: The Combat Reflexes feat does not allow a rogue to use her opportunist ability more than once per round.
A fighter may select Combat Reflexes as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A monk may select Combat Reflexes as a bonus feat at 2nd level.​

Another feat would be added to allow the ability to make Attacks of Opportunity while flat-footed.

IMPROVED COMBAT REFLEXES [General]
Pre-Requisite: Combat Reflexes
Benefit: You may make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Normal: A character without this feat cannot make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Special: The Improved Combat Reflexes feat does not allow a rogue to use her opportunist ability more than once per round.
A fighter may select Improved Combat Reflexes as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A monk may select Improved Combat Reflexes as a bonus feat at 2nd level.​

Thanks.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It would make spellcasters and archers more powerful, large creatures less powerful, and would make Combat Ref an almost obligatory feat choice for a fighter.

It would also make abilities based on avoiding AoOs much less important; Mobility, Spring Attack, Combat Casting, etc. would not be worth taking, and Tumble would go from being a great skill to a mediocre one.

If your style involves much tactical wargaming, it would totally unbalance the game. If you're an extreme storyteller/character actor who never uses battlemats or tracks AoOs anyway, making this change could be part of a houserule set to make everything simpler (some combat-light games, such as CoC d20 and I think Modern make AoOs optional).

I wouldn't do it, and I'm not even real heavy on the tactical stuff.

 

[Celebrim]

Combat Reflexes is almost a must have feat as is. By making it more important, you are unbalancing the game.

 

[Voadam]

Spellcasters would not have to focus on concentration as much and could spend skill points on other skills.

Reach would be less of a threat, you'd have people charging big bad guys more.

More missile fire while in melee instead of five foot step and fire.

Expect more maneuvers to be used. If one works well for a character expect it to be used a lot.

These factors are countered when facing foes with the combat reflexes feat.

How many big creatures will have the CR to swat incoming charging knights/barbarians?

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Thanks for the reply, Ahnehnois.

It would make spellcasters and archers more powerful, large creatures less powerful, and would make Combat Ref an almost obligatory feat choice for a fighter.

Good info... I hadn't thought about how it would affect larger creatures.

It would also make abilities based on avoiding AoOs much less important; Mobility, Spring Attack, Combat Casting, etc. would not be worth taking, and Tumble would go from being a great skill to a mediocre one.

More ideas I hadn't thought about. This is why I love ENWorld!

If your style involves much tactical wargaming, it would totally unbalance the game. If you're an extreme storyteller/character actor who never uses battlemats or tracks AoOs anyway, making this change could be part of a houserule set to make everything simpler (some combat-light games, such as CoC d20 and I think Modern make AoOs optional).

Hmmm... We're really starting to get more into miniatures, now, whether we play 3X or AD&D, so tactics seem to be getting more important for our group. I just didn't want everyone to paralyze their characters in combat in order to avoid AoO's. I've seen that happen a lot, so I was trying to think of a way to reduce the frequency of AoO's.

I wouldn't do it, and I'm not even real heavy on the tactical stuff.

Thanks for the advice. Really appreciate it!

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Combat Reflexes is almost a must have feat as is. By making it more important, you are unbalancing the game.

Thanks, Celebrim. That's part of the reason I was thinking of splitting Combat Reflexes into two feats. But, I think you're probably right.

This is why I wanted to talk this out on ENWorld before making this kind of rule change in my group when I DM.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Spellcasters would not have to focus on concentration as much and could spend skill points on other skills.

Right about that, Voadam. However, I've been thinking of adopting something like the Pathfinder variant concerning concentration. I don't have it memorized, but it's not a skill that spellcasters sink points into in that system, but the DC to cast on the defensive to avoid an AoO is higher.

Reach would be less of a threat, you'd have people charging big bad guys more.

Yeah... I've been trying to figure out how to handle charging. Can't seem to get anyone to do it because they're afraid of their characters taking an AoO. Guess they should take Mobility?

More missile fire while in melee instead of five foot step and fire.

Yeah, that one really bothers me. It shouldn't be a freebie to fire a bow while standing right next to your target.

Expect more maneuvers to be used. If one works well for a character expect it to be used a lot.

Right. I don't mind manuevers that make sense, but spamming cheesy manuevers just to exploit a rule or lack thereof bothers me.

These factors are countered when facing foes with the combat reflexes feat.

Yes, they are. But, I almost feel like giving Combat Reflexes might feel like a "Gotcha" if AoO's become really rare. The player's might feel like I'm cheeting if a group of elite hill giant bodyguards all have Combat Reflexes, if they're not used to seeing AoO's regularly.

How many big creatures will have the CR to swat incoming charging knights/barbarians?

If I were to adopt this system, the answer would depend upon the big creatures dexterity. The way I wrote the possible revisions to the feats, the creature would have to have a 10 dex to even get one AoO with the Combat Reflexes feat. I don't know off the top of my head what the usual Dexterity is for most big creatures.

Good thoughts... Thanks for posting!

 

[Sadrik]

I think that it may be okay.

It will definitely hurt the DM more than the players though. To implement this you will have to consider quite a few rules. Reach weapons, large and bigger monsters are only the tip of the iceberg. There are a slew of feats - Mobility, Spring attack, Shot on the run, Ride by attack, Fly by attack and I am sure others and of course tumble skill and withdraw action. However it is not unmanageable. Note the changes to them and move on. If you are looking to remove the tactical aspect of 3e then by all means this should simplify and speed the game up quite a bit.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Thanks for the reply, Ahnehnois.



Good info... I hadn't thought about how it would affect larger creatures.

The second level of this is that I just thought of is that if you have a world with (generally) no AoOs, and the players eschew feat and skill options for avoiding them, but you then give your next giant/dragon/etc. Combat Reflexes, the players will be unprepared to deal with it and the creature will be even more devastating. Yikes.

I can see where the problem of having players stuck because they're afraid of AoOs arises, but I think the solution is more for the players to prepare for them better and perhaps for the DM to learn/enforce the rules better (which took me a bit of time because they can be confusing). There is a lot you can do by simple withdraws and 5 ft. steps, but I've seen experienced players who don't know how these rules work.

 

[El Mahdi]

How about: You can only make an AoO if you aren't engaged in combat yourself and someone passes within range, OR only if you have Combat Reflexes if engaged in combat.