Question: How do you rationalize opportunity attacks?

[Evenglare]

This is how I AoO.
http://www.gifday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gif_03.gif

 

[Rogue Agent]

I have a sword, he's paralyzed? Do I get to stab him as a bonus attack? If not, why is being paralyzed less dangerous to him than running away?

There was a period of time in which I used a "being helpless provokes" house rule. Worked just fine.

My rationale with AoO/OAs is generally: "Anything that takes your focus (mental or physical) off defending yourself provokes."

It'll make you think twice about running away, won't it.

Since modern iterations of the game have already completely abandoned all mechanical support for flight, I'm not sure why you think we need to take the extra step of further discouraging it.

 

[Janx]

Grappling in 3e is too complicated. You should just make an attack roll and cause an effect, though maybe you should have a "resist grapple" stat with size influences factored in.

Enworld has a Grappling for Beginner's book. You should check it out.

I dunno, it's late and I'm rambling. Mostly I just recall being upset during Red Hand of Doom 5 years ago when I couldn't do "overwatch" with my bow and make opportunity attacks at multiple enemies as they rounded a corner. I could fire 3 arrows a round normally, but if I ready an action to shoot them as they round a corner, I can only get 1. The other 2 guys are able to come out an alley and gank my archer.

That's what I assumed Hold Action really meant (or whatever it was called). It was a conditional suspension of your turn until the condition was met, at which point, your turn resumed and injected BEFORE the NPC who who triggered it can react. Or the player could terminate the waiting and just jump to action (got tired of waiting or something new developed).

Either way, if you tell me "I'm going to sit here and wait for enemies to pop into view and shoot them", then it's trivial for me to pull you out of the initiative conga-line (we model initiative with tokens for each PC and NPC in a line to show the order) and let you jump back in right when the NPCs comes around the corner. Thus interuppting their turn, so you can shoot them with as many attacks as you had left when you started the round.*

*which means, if you're Init 2, got 3 attacks, used 1, and then Hold, if it's the same round and targets appear at 5,6 and 7, you've only got 2 shots left total. If the round loops and you're still waiting, you've got 3 shots.

 

[Celebrim]

I dunno, it's late and I'm rambling. Mostly I just recall being upset during Red Hand of Doom 5 years ago when I couldn't do "overwatch" with my bow and make opportunity attacks at multiple enemies as they rounded a corner. I could fire 3 arrows a round normally, but if I ready an action to shoot them as they round a corner, I can only get 1. The other 2 guys are able to come out an alley and gank my archer.

Any turn based game is going to have problems with real time. That really is an additional discussion that covers problems well beyond attacks of oppurtunity. The 'ready' action is one of the most problimatic in the game.

That said, I'd not be surprised that your bitterness at the above situation has less to do with the rules and more with how the DM made the decision to gank your archer. The following points stand out:

1) If you did not need to interrupt the attackers action, you could have used a 'hold' action rather than a 'ready' action. This would have let you attack three times in a turn immediately after the opponent's finished their move.
2) Where the attackers aware of you before they turned the corner? If not, you are owed a surprise round - a free shot - even before we start talking about the attackers moving. Not that while the metalanguage is different, the ready action and the surprise round cover the same narrative situation. If the rules are transparent, the story will sound the same to the hearer.
3) Even if the attackers were aware of you, because its a 90 degree turn, they can't use a run or charge action this turn, so there is no way that they can attack before you get to act.

So how does this work out? Well, there are a lot of variations but it basically amounts to that if you are less than 10 yards from the corner then you'll probably only have time for 1 arrow before your foes close to melee (threatening you with attack if you don't defend yourself), but if you are more than 10 yards from the corner, then chances are you'll get at least 3 arrows off before they close with you. Does that seem reasonable? If we transform the mechanics and turns into a narrative, then I think that the answer is yes. If you are right on the edge of the corner, you might get off one shot, but if you are bit farther away and a heroic archer then you can cinematicly fire an arrow into each foe as they advance on you.

 

[Janx]

There was a period of time in which I used a "being helpless provokes" house rule. Worked just fine.

My rationale with AoO/OAs is generally: "Anything that takes your focus (mental or physical) off defending yourself provokes."



Since modern iterations of the game have already completely abandoned all mechanical support for flight, I'm not sure why you think we need to take the extra step of further discouraging it.

that's where applying AoO or applying an AC penalty depends on the details.

being helpless, that is, tied up, paralized, etc should translate as a easier to hit on the attacker's turn. Because it is on ongoing condition throughout the round (you will be helpless during your turn and the monsters turn, until you sucessfull unhelpless yourself).

Being distracted by trying to pull a potion out of your pouch is different. It's an action that only lasts during your turn. It would be a pain to put a 1 round condition marker so everybody knows you're easier to hit until your next turn. Instead, AO is applied, because it's a quick condition, just like the act of digging for the potion.


As a translation of combat activity and results to fiction, here's what I consider:

• each attack roll is a concerted attempt to swing the weapon and hurt the enemy
• Just as a high level PC might get 4 attacks around at reduced levels, rather than assuming the 1st level PC is only swinging once every 6 seconds, assume that he is also making 3 other feints or auto-matically failed attacks (attacks that came nowhere near to being interesting, but occupied the fighter's time)
• a generally vulnerable opponentis easier to hit, puts up less of a defense
• a distracted or multi-tasking opponent leaves an opening that the attacker takes advantage of (AoO)
• desscribe the combat results as a whole picture for the round, rather than specifically within a single PC's turn (which would make it sound like the fighters are literally taking turns trading blows)

 

[Umbran]

More on point, there's a chandelier held up by a rope. I want to attack the rope. It is defenseless. Do I need to spend an action? Or a rope bridge. Or vial of acid that when smashed will pour onto my enemy.

Well, why do you want to drop the chandelier? To drop it on someone, or to have it drop so you hold the rope and get lifted up?Those have more things going on than just whether you sever the rope. Same with the vial of acid - exact timing matters, and exact placement of the blow matters (when it normally doesn't in abstract combat!). So, they probably require an action to set them up just right.

Mind you, that doesn't necessarily have to be an attack - for example, in 3e you can break a rope with a strength check, without an attack roll.

 

[Water Bob]

I love abstract combat. You spend a few swings or steps setting up an attack, and then you go for an actual strike; no need to make a "feint roll," a "footwork roll," and a "leverage your foe's weapon out of the way roll." You just make an attack roll. Groovy, ideal.

Alternately, you spend a few seconds lining up your aim, and then you loose an arrow.

But you don't have the same time to set up an effective attack when someone just sprints past you. I'd like the mechanics to work differently.

Now you're getting into the realm of houserules. And, that's fine. I was just giving you the "official" rule and how it's rationalized.

Grappling in 3e is too complicated. You should just make an attack roll and cause an effect, though maybe you should have a "resist grapple" stat with size influences factored in.

I've heard people say that before. I've never read the D&D 3E rule, and I'm not sure if Grapple was improved in 3.5. But, I've always assumed that the Grapple rule was the same in the Conan RPG, which I play (based on 3.5).

If it is, I don't understand why people think Grapple is hard.

In Conan, Grapple is pretty simple.

A Grapple is resolved with Opposed Grapple throws. A Grapple throw is the character's nomal unarmed attack (d20 + BAB + STR mod), but also using a Size modifier if needed. And, since the attacker is stepping out of a threatened square into the defender's square in order to attempt the Grapple, an Attack of Opportunity applies unless there is some Feat or other reason that negates teh AoO.

So, that's it. Why is that hard? Or is the D&D rule different?

Step 1: Resolve Attack of Opportunity, if applicable.

Step 2: Perform opposed Grapple throws to see if grapple successful.

Nothing else. That's it.

If the Grapple is successful, then both characters are considered to be in one 5' square. If the Grapple is not successful, then the characters remain in their original squares.

 

[RangerWickett]

I don't mean complicated as in "hard to understand." I meant "requires too much rolling for an often ineffective result." I make an attack roll, you probably make an opportunity attack, we each make grapple checks. Result is that we're both immobilized and can't attack other people, and we can only use light weapons, and later on I can drag you around.

4e simplifies it a bit to, I make an attack roll. If I hit you're immobilized and later on I can drag you around.

 

[Wiseblood]

I don't try to rationalize opportunirty attacks. They are nonsense. I put up with the crap because there is an expectation by the other players that these will be used. They should not exist. A guard or ready action should do this job. There should not be any freebies.

For Example: Ted the Thief is fighting a Bull in a china cabinet. Ted can get a free shot on the Bull if it tries to overrun him but not if it tries to hit him with it's head.

Also Ted could be fighting two bulls at the same time. And only get one shot picking wichever Bull to attack. However if either Bull should try to drink a potion Ted will get another free shot. But ted would have to use a standard attack to strike a single plate of china. The plate of china is blind, immobile, and might actually be holding something. How can anyone reconcile this being any harder to hit than a bull dinking a potion?

Last but not least Ted holds his action to stab the first bull that he can reach. The first bull he can reach moves into a threatened square and quaffs a potion. Ted has somehow lost his nerve and attacks just once. I say this because you can not make attacks of opportunity during your turn. The system does not account for simultinaitey(sp) and during all of this nonsense characters are considered to be acting throughout the turn so there would not be an individual turn? or is there?

I tend to very strongly appose any action taken during anothers turn. It stretches resolution and tends to very strongly nerf the classes that are non casters. Instead of AoO's I would greatly prefer an action priority system within initiative.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Opportunity attacks are rather silly as written and don't make a lot of sense. One man can be fighting 3 opponents simultaneously then someone moves behind him and suddenly he can turn and take a swing against the movement provoking foe without the 3 guys he was already fighting getting an advantage because of this.

Even the old school rules about getting a free attack against a fleeing opponent need to be modified with the caveat that no such attack is gained if the combatant being fled from is still otherwise engaged in melee.