Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
You're welcome!
If you'd like to see the rules I'm using for AoO-less Pathfinder, they're available for free download to my newsletter subscribers. The subscription form is on my Spes Magna site.
Problems with removing attacks of opportunity?
- Thread starter Sir Robilar
- Start date
You're welcome!
If you'd like to see the rules I'm using for AoO-less Pathfinder, they're available for free download to my newsletter subscribers. The subscription form is on my Spes Magna site.
pming
Legend
Hiya
IMHO, you should go back to thinking like a 1e/2e DM. In other words, your "job" as DM is to run a fair and neutral game where common-sense is the overriding factor for all rules adjudications.
In the case of AoO...keep using them, but apply generous amounts of common sense to each and every one. This will result in AoO's that "make sense" happening, or at least having the potential to happen, while AoO's that "make no sense at all" will simply go *poof*. For example, a fighter is engaged in combat with an ogre. Suddenly, a kobold goes running behind him heading towards a door. As per the AoO, the fighter would get an AoO on the kobold who just ran behind him on his way to the door. However, this would entail the fighter turning 180 degrees, swinging at the kobold, then turning back 180 degrees...while the Ogre would apparently just stand there, waiting for the fighter to do his thing. Silliness I tell you! When you apply common sense to the situation, it changes. Suddenly the fighter *can* turn and swing at the kobold, but the DM should rule that the Ogre then gets an AoO against the back of the fighter. If the fighter player deems it worth it, he can, or he can let the kobold go and keep his focus on the ogre.
So, just apply common sense and have fun!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
IMHO, you should go back to thinking like a 1e/2e DM. In other words, your "job" as DM is to run a fair and neutral game where common-sense is the overriding factor for all rules adjudications.
In the case of AoO...keep using them, but apply generous amounts of common sense to each and every one. This will result in AoO's that "make sense" happening, or at least having the potential to happen, while AoO's that "make no sense at all" will simply go *poof*. For example, a fighter is engaged in combat with an ogre. Suddenly, a kobold goes running behind him heading towards a door. As per the AoO, the fighter would get an AoO on the kobold who just ran behind him on his way to the door. However, this would entail the fighter turning 180 degrees, swinging at the kobold, then turning back 180 degrees...while the Ogre would apparently just stand there, waiting for the fighter to do his thing. Silliness I tell you! When you apply common sense to the situation, it changes. Suddenly the fighter *can* turn and swing at the kobold, but the DM should rule that the Ogre then gets an AoO against the back of the fighter. If the fighter player deems it worth it, he can, or he can let the kobold go and keep his focus on the ogre.
So, just apply common sense and have fun!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
The OP did say he/she/it/they want to remove the need for miniatures, and this method, while it works to remove the clunkiness of remembering when to apply them, doesn't remove the need to know position, and in fact adds the need to know facing or at least think about it.
My advice would be to remove AoOs and then remove the system that needs them, i.e. also get rid of initiative.
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
I did that with 1E and 2E. Initiative really doesn't matter much unless (1) you die before you get to act, (2) you kill your foe before he gets to act, or (3) you're trying to disrupt a spell. When DMing 1E/2E, I had players only roll for initiative on the spot in those these sorts of situations.
Worked well enough.
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
Well one could always roll initiative as usual and then just not bother with it until a decision of timing came up.
But yours is more dynamic.
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Well one could always roll initiative as usual and then just not bother with it until a decision of timing came up.
But yours is more dynamic.
That's me: dynamic!
Well, that is, in a rather sedentary, rocking chair using, whiskey sipping sort of way.
If you remove AOO if lessens the need for the spellcaster to take combat casting feat and if in 3.5 game the concentration skill.
If you still want to go for it, I suggest to reintroduce some of the 1 & 2 edition rules on weapon speed.
In its simple format you add you weapon speed to you initiative roll and you roll each round. The DM starts at initiative of 1 and starts going up, a character gets to act on their modified initiative roll, then you get you attacks or start to cast a spell. Someone casting a spell must wait for a count equal to the spell level (for any spell with a casting time less than 1 round (standard action in PF)) then the spell goes off. If they are hit in this time period the spell is ruined.
The full system looked the same except someone getting multiple attacks added their weapon speed each time they attack with it. EX. A rouge with a short sword (weapon speed = 3) has 3 attacks with it. He rolls 5, he will attack on segment 8 then 11 and lastly on segment 14.
In general small weapons (ex: daggers, knife, short sword) had short times of less than 5, while big weapons (two-hannded sword and polearms) had long times greater than 9. If you pick up a 1/2 ed. PBH (but not basic) you can directly port weapon speeds for 90% of weapons. It wont have exotic weapons.
Since you are running Pathfinder, I suggest the following being added: you could force a concentration check if a spell caster is hit between the start of casting and its completion. Also a character would subtract his dexterity bonus. (You would subtract the bonus to act faster for a high dex character and slower with a low dex character.)
If you still want to go for it, I suggest to reintroduce some of the 1 & 2 edition rules on weapon speed.
In its simple format you add you weapon speed to you initiative roll and you roll each round. The DM starts at initiative of 1 and starts going up, a character gets to act on their modified initiative roll, then you get you attacks or start to cast a spell. Someone casting a spell must wait for a count equal to the spell level (for any spell with a casting time less than 1 round (standard action in PF)) then the spell goes off. If they are hit in this time period the spell is ruined.
The full system looked the same except someone getting multiple attacks added their weapon speed each time they attack with it. EX. A rouge with a short sword (weapon speed = 3) has 3 attacks with it. He rolls 5, he will attack on segment 8 then 11 and lastly on segment 14.
In general small weapons (ex: daggers, knife, short sword) had short times of less than 5, while big weapons (two-hannded sword and polearms) had long times greater than 9. If you pick up a 1/2 ed. PBH (but not basic) you can directly port weapon speeds for 90% of weapons. It wont have exotic weapons.
Since you are running Pathfinder, I suggest the following being added: you could force a concentration check if a spell caster is hit between the start of casting and its completion. Also a character would subtract his dexterity bonus. (You would subtract the bonus to act faster for a high dex character and slower with a low dex character.)
mxyzplk
Explorer
You could not remove *all* AoOs - just the ones that only come up using minis.
Let me explain. I actually had an AoO mechanic I used back in 2e, no minis required. Basically, if you were in melee combat with someone and did something totally retarded instead of defending against your attacker, like start rooting through your backpack looking for an item, they'd get a free shot at you. A proto-AoO. It works because "in melee with someone" is usually clearly defined even when using abstract non-minis combat.
Even in non-minis combat, you know if there's someone in melee with a spellcaster/archer. If you wanted to maintain the whole concentration/spellcasting AoOs thing it would be easy enough to. If someone ran up and stabbed the wizard, then if the wizard tries to cast he provokes. All you lose from this approach is the more complex AoOs from "well this guy maneuvered through this square and not that one" and who really likes all that.
Just wanted to point out that removing minis and thus many maneuver AoOs doesn't mean you have to remove them from spell/archer guys and that's where there's more other crunch to them really (concentration, mobility, etc.)
Let me explain. I actually had an AoO mechanic I used back in 2e, no minis required. Basically, if you were in melee combat with someone and did something totally retarded instead of defending against your attacker, like start rooting through your backpack looking for an item, they'd get a free shot at you. A proto-AoO. It works because "in melee with someone" is usually clearly defined even when using abstract non-minis combat.
Even in non-minis combat, you know if there's someone in melee with a spellcaster/archer. If you wanted to maintain the whole concentration/spellcasting AoOs thing it would be easy enough to. If someone ran up and stabbed the wizard, then if the wizard tries to cast he provokes. All you lose from this approach is the more complex AoOs from "well this guy maneuvered through this square and not that one" and who really likes all that.
Just wanted to point out that removing minis and thus many maneuver AoOs doesn't mean you have to remove them from spell/archer guys and that's where there's more other crunch to them really (concentration, mobility, etc.)
Sir Robilar
First Post
This is how we did it last session and it works perfectly for us.
Thanks again to everyone!
