No AoO w/o Combat Reflexes?

[Sylrae]

I Gotta ask, why do you want to get rid of AoOs? Is it to speed up gameplay?

I took this in the opposite direction.

Every creature has 1 attack of opportunity they can make per round. If a character is open to attacks of opportunity they are unable to make attacks of opportunity. This is a free standard action (hostile) which can be taken against any creature that is unable to defend themselves.
Any time a character is flat footed, or unconscious, or would lose their dexterity bonus to AC, or is partaking in any of a number of specific actions, Creatures can make attacks of opportunity against them. Attacks of Opportunity can be made with ranged weapons. If someone is doing something which provokes an attack of opportunity, and an attack of opportunity is going to be taken, the attack of opportunity goes before the other action. (Like Casting Instants in Magic: The Gathering).
Making an attack of opportunity Provokes an attack of opportunity.

So, sparing the major details, Player A Falls Prone. Monster A Makes an AoO against Player A. Player B Makes a Ranged AoO Against Monster A. Monster B Attacks Player B.

Monster B Goes first in the AoO chain. > Misses.
Player B Hits Monster A> Does enough damage,
Monster A Loses his AoO due to the damage.
Player A is uninjured.

It doesn't save time, but the players in my group have liked the AoO Chain.

 

[Voadam]

Combat Reflexes is almost a must have feat as is.

How so? I've had multiple characters with Combat reflexes and IME it rarely comes up. One notable time was when my high level eldritch knight had thunderlance going (20' reach force weapon from 1 rnd/level 4th level spell) and he was attacked by a swarm of shadows. Another was when multiple commoners tried to ambush grapple him at a banquet and he got in hits using his improved unarmed strike. I have a 5th level dwarf paladin who uses a ranseur (reach weapon) and I can't remember either his CR or hold the line feat ever being invoked even though he is usually on point for the party.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Combat Reflexes is essential if you have reach, use combat maneuvers (trip, esp), or if you use Karmic Strike/Robilar's Gambit. For a typical fighter it will be heavily dependent on how the DM runs enemies, and likely won't get used all that much, I agree.

 

[Celebrim]

How so?

Between grapple attempts and tiny creatures, being able to make attacks of oppurtunity in the surprise round is huge in itself. It's a free attack. If you have a high dexterity, it's potentially multiple free attacks and in some cases (swarm of stirges descends on you) it is almost like not being surprised at all.

I suppose however it very much depends on what sort of challenges you are usually presented with. If you DM generally has the party face off against a single high CR challenge, then it probably almost never comes up.

 

[Voadam]

Between grapple attempts and tiny creatures, being able to make attacks of oppurtunity in the surprise round is huge in itself. It's a free attack. If you have a high dexterity, it's potentially multiple free attacks and in some cases (swarm of stirges descends on you) it is almost like not being surprised at all.

I suppose however it very much depends on what sort of challenges you are usually presented with. If you DM generally has the party face off against a single high CR challenge, then it probably almost never comes up.

Yeah, it all depends on if your foes provoke AoOs in surprise rounds or multiple AoOs in normal combat. If you fight lots of non-swarm tiny foes at a time, if opponents swarm on you instead of you moving to engage them, if they do maneuvers provoking AoOs such as grappling without improved grab, if you are caught by surprise and have a reach weapon, it can come into play.

If you don't use a reach weapon it is less likely to come up. If you walk around with your sword sheathed or a bow out to get in ranged shots first it won't help during surprise without improved unarmed strike or a bashable shield. If you go to your foes instead of letting them come to you it is unlikely to come up. If you personally usually engage one foe instead of being swarmed by multiples it is less likely to come up.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Thanks, again, everyone. Good discussion and lots to think about.

I Gotta ask, why do you want to get rid of AoOs? Is it to speed up gameplay?

Thanks for the question, Sylrae. It's not necessarily to speed up gameplay. I just don't want player's characters to be so afraid of attacks of opportunity that they don't move around the battlefield.

Basically, the problem that I have is I'm almost the only one in our group who really takes the time to read the rules. Especially concerning attacks of opportunity. I know there are a lot of ways to avoid AoO's, but I haven't gotten my players to use those methods, yet. Took a long time to get them to use the Withdraw action, instead of just a 5' step. Tumble is seemingly not even in their thought process... They don't seem to like skills, in general (which is probably my fault, 'cause I didn't like them to begin with).

Making an attack of opportunity Provokes an attack of opportunity.

Now, this is a nice, simple rule. For me, I can see needing to clarify that if you make an attack of opportunity, you can't make an attack of opportunity against the person/creature that makes an attack of opportunity on you unless you have the ability to make multiple attacks of opportunity.

It doesn't save time, but the players in my group have liked the AoO Chain.

I actually like the AoO Chain, myself. I used it quite a bit in a few combats where I was testing the idea of allowing ranged weapons to threaten all the squares within line of sight out to one range increment. I liked it, but my players objected when 15 bow-wielding goblins got an attack of opportunity when someone fired a bow. The player's didn't care that the characters wielding ranged weapons could have made AoO's on the goblins.

But, the idea that making an AoO is a distracting act that provokes an attack of opportunity may be the exact solution that I'm looking for, Sylrae. Thanks for sharing this idea!!!

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I think that it may be ok.

It will definately hurt the DM more than the players though. To impliment this you will have to consider quite a few rules though. Reach weapons, large and bigger monsters are only the tip of the iceburg. There are a slew of feats - Mobility, Spring attack, Shot on the run, Ride by attack, Fly by attack and I am sure others. 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.

Thanks, Sadrik. Overall, I think it's going to break too much to make the changes that I originally suggested at the beginning of this thread. What do you think of Sylrae's suggestion that making an Attack of Opportunity provokes an Attack of Opportunity?

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

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.

Yeah... That option is scary. I can see a total party kill resulting from this kind of thing.

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.

I'm really going to refresh myself on the Attack of Opportunity rules, again, before making any changes. I don't think I'm going with my original suggestion in the first post. Right now, I'm leaning toward Sylrae's idea that making an Attack of Opportunity provokes an Attack of Opportunity. Do you have any thoughts on the pros or cons concerning this idea?

Thanks!

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

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.

Interesting, El Mahdi. I'd need to read some others thoughts on the ramifications of this change. I'm drawing a blank, right now, on what this proposed change causes downstream. Though, I'd imagine that it still makes larger creatures and reach weapons less valuable.

What do you think of Sylrae's idea that making an Attack of Opportunity provokes an Attack of Opportunity?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yeah... That option is scary. I can see a total party kill resulting from this kind of thing.



I'm really going to refresh myself on the Attack of Opportunity rules, again, before making any changes. I don't think I'm going with my original suggestion in the first post. Right now, I'm leaning toward Sylrae's idea that making an Attack of Opportunity provokes an Attack of Opportunity. Do you have any thoughts on the pros or cons concerning this idea?

Thanks!

If you leave the AoO rules as is and add in this idea that making an AoO provokes an AoO, it changes the landscape without necessarily unbalancing things; Combat Ref would be a fantastic feat-even more so than usual. A typical character would think twice about taking an AoO however, and tactical movement would become slightly easier.

The consequences for special opponents are that mages and archers are at a slight additional disadvantage from the core rules (since they provoke a lot of AoOs but generally don't threaten an area and can't retaliate) and big creatures or anyone with with reach has an advantage (because they can whack enemies before they're in range to retaliate). On the whole, I think the retaliatory AoO idea is an interesting wrinkle, not necessary by any means, but not as unbalancing as the original changes.