No AoO?

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.


This is bad how?

I don't use AoO, and I, and my players, don't miss them enough to bring them back.

In fact we like the toned down nature of the game without them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mmadsen said:
Well said.
I'm surprised that the stock reaction to "Let's remove Attacks of Opportunity" is "Then everyone can run right past each other," rather than, "Oh, just like it used to be."

You are surprised that the response is to answer the specifics of the question asked with the specific effects on how current gameplay would change rather than allusions to the feel of gameplay in older games that the questioner may or may not have played?

You are pessimistic on human nature then and the utility of internet communication for answering questions directly? :)
 

mmadsen said:
I have recommended replacing Attacks of Opportunity with Opportunities to Attack -- the attacks isn't free, but you have the option to make it before your turn rolls around, and if you succeed, you stop your target from doing whatever it was he was trying to do: move through your zone of control, drink a potion, shoot a bow, etc.


Or, perhaps, add a concentration check, I suppose, though the idea you add to "stop your target from doing whatever it was he was trying to do" isn't something I had in my initial mechanic. From my perspective, just getting the attack in ahead of time is its own reward, and one could, if one so chose, use the opportunaity to sunder a potion, attempt to disarm an opponent, grapple, take a five foot step to block a path, or (as a standard action) use some other method of hindering someone from a given course of action rather than just having the successful attack being an automatic ends to a means, if I am reading your explanation of your mechanic correctly.
 

DM's let players run through armed and armored people? No wonder people had problems with older editions. In older editons if you wanted to run by you had to maneuver outside their reach so they couldn't engage you. If they were able to engage you due to pole arms or their sword, you were stopped.

Worked fine for my groups anyhow.

Firing into melee has always been allowed, just you had a very good chance of hitting your allies.

Oh well.
 

I lost a long time player because of 3.x's AoO rules. He'd been in my gaming group since 1987, and hasn't played D&D in 3 years now, because he hates the AoO rules and such.

I still use them, but at a -4 penalty to the attack roll. I was a fencer in college, and I can tell you from a "real-life experience" point of view, the Attack of Opportunity mechanics break down in actual "combat".
 

Voadam said:
You are surprised that the response is to answer the specifics of the question asked with the specific effects on how current gameplay would change rather than allusions to the feel of gameplay in older games that the questioner may or may not have played?
No, I'm surprised people would assume something silly (no AoOs mean you can do whatever you want!) rather than something reasonable (you can't just run past a guy with a sword), which is time-tested and has worked for decades.
 

Attacks of Opportunity existed long before 3e, they just weren't named until 1995 (?) in Combat & Tactics which expanded on the idea of the free attack for doing various things (like running away).
 


Thornir Alekeg said:
-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."
I beg to differ. AoOs should be treated as in-game just as threatening an area. It should be fairly obvious when someone overextends themselves strinking at a foe, using up thier AoO.
 

There was no AoO in AD&D and it leads to a lot of weird situations like drinking a potion into melee or shooting a bow into melee etc.
I like AoO very much.
 

Remove ads

Top