No AoO?


log in or register to remove this ad

I have not played the game with no Attacks of Opportunity, but I have played with simplified Attacks of Opportunity. Once you remove the complications -- like immunity from Attacks of Opportunity for 5' steps or retreats -- it plays much like older editions.
 

I've heard lots of people say they play w/o AoO. It seems to work fine.

Myself, I think AoO was a nice addition in 3E. I've also never found them to be particular complicated or difficult to understand, either.
 

Mercule said:
Myself, I think AoO was a nice addition in 3E. I've also never found them to be particular complicated or difficult to understand, either.

I agree; I also find them a nice addition to the game. To me, they also give a sense of movement to combat, but maybe that's because I absolutely adore Immediate actions.

I was just wondering what are people's thought on axing AoO. Maybe it would make combat slightly less tactical (which could be a good thing), but quicker/smoother?
 

A lack of AoO would make Mobility and Tumble nigh useless, and cripple a host of other feats and class abilities as well.
 

Satori said:
A lack of AoO would make Mobility and Tumble nigh useless, and cripple a host of other feats and class abilities as well.

True, and Karmic Strike/Robilar's Gambit builds etc.

The game would definitely change (feats/builds etc), but how much, and in a good or bad way?
 

I have not done so but here seem some implications.

Concentration is not as big a deal because you don't need to cast defensively, it is easier to cast in combat (readied actions still disrupt).

Tumble not such a combat skill.

A few feats no longer work or fully work (combat reflexes, mobility, spring attack).

Grappling becomes easier.

Special maneuvers become easier/less dangerous for those who have not taken specific feats (disarm, sunder, trip)

Can run around or by people with little risk

Can run away more effectively

Closing with creatures with reach becomes easier

Getting up from prone is safer
 

My limited experience playing without AoOs noted much of what Voadam has listed.

The game becomes more free form since you don't have to worry about running past an opponent.

I didn't experience the grapple/special moves ease, because nobody tried them.

Reach was no longer as much of an advantage.

I found the Concentration/defensive casting was one of the more noticeable changes.

Pluses:
-Movement seems less like plotting a chess move - "I'll get an AoO to move straight to attack this person 10 feet away, but if I use all 30 feet of my movement this round I can loop around, ending up in the same place and not provoke any AoOs."

-A little less metagame thinking - "That guy already used his AoO for the round against Jozan. I can move in without worrying...unless he has Combat Reflexes."

-Can speed up combat a small, but not insignificant, amount depending upon the circumstances.

Having tried both ways, I found what I would like is a simpler system. I like the way it adds in that element of being able to strike someone when they are more vulnerable - moving past, casting, getting up, but keeping all the mechanics straight in a large, diverse group of players can be a PITA.
 

Satori said:
A lack of AoO would make Mobility and Tumble nigh useless, and cripple a host of other feats and class abilities as well.
Skills and feats that only exist to deal with situations that only exist in a game, and not in reality, aren't likely to be missed.
 

Baby Samurai said:
1.) Has anyone ever tried this?

I'll point out that everyone who played D&D prior to 3E was doing that. :) I do think that combat ran faster, and was less confusing to new players. Things that now cause AOO were basically prohibited (i.e., must stop when you contact a foe, cannot fire a bow in melee, etc.)
 

Remove ads

Top