Players not taking AoO

[Alcamtar]

In the immortal words of Gary, from the 1E DMG:

"Never give a sucker an even break!"

Okay, so he was quoting someone else. Seriously, the whole point of all those rules in 3E is to master them and use them effectively. You don't give hints to your opponent in Chess, why do it in D&D? Doing it yourself is the whole point of the game.

(A related question is: do you allow them to kibbitz in combat? You know, pause for five minutes between each round and weigh various attack routines and coordinated maneuvers? Using out-of-character knowledge? If not, I wouldn't think you'd want to give hints either.)

If you want them to pay more attention to AOO, make the combats tougher. They'll start paying a lot more attention to tactics and rereading the rules and looking for anything that gives them an advantage.

In any case, as DM I find the players out-think me frequently, which isn't surprising considering I'm outnumbered. So if they make a mistake or play less effectively than they might, I figure it just evens things out a bit.

D&D is a game of escalation: levels, monsters, spells... If they aren't fighting at max potential now, that's okay. Personally I enjoy the lower levels when the team isn't as powerful and effective, because it lets me do things I couldn't do at high levels. So my recommendation is to enjoy it while it lasts -- once they get on the ball, the cat is out of the bag and there is no going back.

 

[Darkness]

Have you talked to your players regarding this issue?

If so, what did they say? Aren't they yet comfortable with the rules? Do they concentrate more on the battle itself rather than the mechanics? etc.

 

[alsih2o]

the d.m. is the judge of all rulings, and a reminder of all rulings too. i would mention it.

 

[reveal]

We use miniatures in our campaign during battles. It helps us to visualize what is going on and strategize better. One thing I do as a DM, and as a player, is say "I move PC here" and physically move the mini the way the character will go. This way, the players actually see if it provokes an AoO or not.

I do think that players, and DMs, need to be reminded about AoO sometimes, but not every time. By using minis and moving them accordingly, no one usually has to remind anyone because the players who take the AoO usually say something like, "He's moving past me, so that provokes."

 

[hong]

The player's don't tell me if I forget an AoO,

My players did, last session. (Fighting a tendriculos, aka a cabbage from hell with 10' reach.)

 

[Darkness]

(Fighting a tendriculos, aka a cabbage from hell with 10' reach.)

At least it wasn't a Salad Lord of Entropy...

 

[jaerdaph]

I think its fine to point out AoO to players, at least initially and especially to new players. I'd only do it for low level or minor encounters though - mooks and such.

But don't give 'em a break when they face the main encounter or main villain - in fact, let your main villains take their AoOs, and your players will get the not-so-subtle reminder

 

[Piratecat]

Wow - I think we're seeing a dichotomy of DMs who play "with" their players, and DMs who play "against" them. Both styles can be fun, and it's clear that there are a lot of folks in between - but I admit I'm surprised by how many people wouldn't remind their players. My rules-savvy players remind me when the monster forgets an AoO, and I try to do the same. *shrug* I guess whatever works for your group.

Personally, I find that it takes more time to answer constant "can I take an AoO now?" questions than it does to remind them if they forget. Those sort of rules digressions drag me out of the flow of combat.

I think Jemal has the right idea. Warn your players that it's up to them, and there's nothing to worry about.

 

[Sanackranib]

AoO

you should remind them as they also should remind you if you miss them.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

If you ask me (and you did) it's the DM's responsibility to tell players when they're entitled to an AoO.

In my experience the game works much better this way. The players only have to ask about AoOs when something unusual is happening (or it looks like I forgot). So, for instance, a player might have a reach weapon and combat reflexes when he's attacked by rogues. If I say "you get an AoO" he can just make the attack. If I don't, the player is likely to say "are those guys tumbling or something?" And when I reply in the negative, the player then says "well, since I've got combat reflexes, I can take AoOs when I'm flatfooted so I do." The latter exchange takes up much more time and slows down combat much more than the first.

It also makes exchanges more pleasant and preserves the unique authority of the DM. If I move a villain next to their glaive wielding fighter, and make an attack without announcing the AoO, I can reply "nope, he's got spring attack" when the player asks me about it and continue the villain's move. In this case the player poses a question and the DM answers. If players assertively take their AoOs as you seem to suggest instead of a question, the player would say something like "I take and AoO" and you have to say "No you don't. He's got Spring Attack"

Finally, announcing AoOs for players builds upon the DM/player trust and allows some rhetorical shortcuts. If an NPC is casting defensively, and I ordinarily tell PCs about AoOs, all I need to do is roll a d20 and cast a spell. If I'm letting PCs take AoOs any time they're entitled to, I have to announce specifically that I'm casting defensively every time I do so. Otherwise the PCs will be entitled to AoOs. Similarly, if a villain has Improved Disarm or Sunder, I can just say "he attempts a disarm" and a player who trusts me can assume that the villain has the appropriate feat since I didn't give them the AoO. (Sometimes they'll ask anyway though). If I don't announce AoOs for players, the player is entitled to say he gets an AoO every time I attempt to disarm or sunder him and I have to explain why he doesn't.