Question: How do you rationalize opportunity attacks?

[Water Bob]

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.

Doesn't all that make sense, though?

1. You can't attack other people because you're grappling!

2. You can only use light weapons because it's extremely hard to use a three and a half foot sword to damage someone who is wrestling with you. You need something small that you can hold in your hand to jab at the guy quickly. A knife works great.

3. And, once I've got a good hold of you, and can try to physically hurt you or put you where I need you, well, that's part of wrestling, isn't it?



So, I don't really understand your objections.

 

[RangerWickett]

My only object is the number of dice being rolled.

Roll 1. Attack.
Roll 2. Opp Attack.
Roll 3 & 4. Opposed Grapple Checks.

It's too many rolls.

If you made 1 roll to grapple, that's much faster. I'm fine with it having the same effects - immobilized, have to use light weapons, can't attack others, etc. I just don't want to have to roll 4 dice to get there. I can kill an orc with two die rolls (attack and damage), but it takes 4 to grab him? And potentially 6 or 7 if I want to use him as a makeshift missile weapon against his buddies?

Let's make some of this easier.

 

[S'mon]

I get why OAs exist in the rules. In reality, if someone's trying to keep you from running past him, it's dangerous to try to run past him.

Readied actions handle that fine.

IME the combination of no facing rules plus opportunity attacjs creates some silly situations. They also slow the game down greatly. Running Pathfinder Beginner Box I find that the game benefits greatly from the lack of AoOs: combat is more realistic, more dynamic, and much faster, a triple win!

 

[Water Bob]

My only object is the number of dice being rolled.

Roll 1. Attack.
Roll 2. Opp Attack.
Roll 3 & 4. Opposed Grapple Checks.

It's too many rolls.

If you made 1 roll to grapple, that's much faster.

Where are you getting the Attack roll above?

If my character wants to grapple yours, and it's my character's turn, then...


1. You get an Attack of Opportunity against me (and this only happens sometimes. You don't get it if you're out of AoO's for the round, and you don't get it if I have the Improved Grapple Feat.).

2. I make my Grapple attack. In Conan, you get a choice for your defense: You can make an Opposed Grapple check; You can Take 10 on your Grapple check, making it like your "Grapple AC"; or you can use your Dodge AC.




If everybody rolls, that's three rolls (1 - AoO, and 2&3 Opposed Grapple Checks).

It can be a little as one roll if there is no AoO, and you pick one of the two non-roll options for your grapple defense.



You had me curious about the D&D version of Grappling, so I looked it up.

I see the D&D version adds and extra throw.

In D&D, there is the touch attack first. Then the AoO. Then the Grapple.

I see the confusion. The Conan RPG throws out the first touch attack and combines that with the Grapple. So, in Conan, it's: AoO, then Grapple.

That is weird, that first touch attack. I like Conan's version better.

 

[Janx]

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.

I agree that the specific trigger example you cite is silly, but AoO as a mechanic is not.

I think it's a great idea that if your opponent does something risky on his turn, you get a free attack to cover the fact that you already went but he still faces a threat from you.

What's not quite right, is that some triggers for it aren't quite realistic, like the fact that if my PC is already busy in a fight, he probably can't deal with a new person rushing by.

Or can he?

What's the difference from fighting 2 opponents, and one of them grabs a potion and drinks it, thus affording me an AoO, versus fighting those 2 people, and a 3rd guy rushes past us through one of my threatened squares thus a giving me an AoO against the 3rd man? My busyness hasn't quite changed, I'm still fighting off 2 guys.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What's the difference from fighting 2 opponents, and one of them grabs a potion and drinks it, thus affording me an AoO, versus fighting those 2 people, and a 3rd guy rushes past us through one of my threatened squares thus a giving me an AoO against the 3rd man? My busyness hasn't quite changed, I'm still fighting off 2 guys.

Nothing at all. Any AOO should only be possible if responding to the opportunity can be done without the responder being otherwise threatened. Basically, if you are otherwise melee engaged and threatened yourself when an opportunity presents itself then no go.

It would certainly cut down on the ridiculous chessboard gridlock effect. If you see a way through 4 opponents and all are already engaged then you should be able to move through without a problem. If you have to run by 3 guys just standing at the ready its a different story.

 

[Mercutio01]

The implementation of a facing rule would "fix" a lot of the problems with AoOs. And I put "fix" in quotes because a facing rule just adds more complexity itself and causes as many problems as it fixes.

Yeah, AoOs are unrealistic, but so are HP, healing surges, and a host of other problems out there that people get all up in arms about on message boards. Frankly, the solutions to most of those problems tend to be more realistic, but they all come at a significant cost (simplicity and speed being the two most obvious).

 

[Janx]

Nothing at all. Any AOO should only be possible if responding to the opportunity can be done without the responder being otherwise threatened. Basically, if you are otherwise melee engaged and threatened yourself when an opportunity presents itself then no go.

It would certainly cut down on the ridiculous chessboard gridlock effect. If you see a way through 4 opponents and all are already engaged then you should be able to move through without a problem. If you have to run by 3 guys just standing at the ready its a different story.

Well, we may be able to work out a simple patch. Like I said, the AoO mechanic itself is fine, it's the conditions that trigger it.

I posit that 2 fighters of equal level as opponents are pretty well occupied. If one gets distracted, it is the other's advantage: this could trigger an AoO

If it was a 2 on 3 fight of equal fighters, the solo fighter is in trouble. If one of the duo teams needed to quaf a potion, odds are good the soloist would be unable to take advantage of this because the other fighter is more then able to consume all his attention as in a 1 on 1 fight.

Thus, barring a multi-opponent feat or special ability or higher level of ability (a 20th level soloist vs. a 1st level duo would not be so challenged, and in fact would be waiting for such an opportunity to strike).

Presently, 3.x D&D treats those situations all the same. it lets the math work out the problem. Namely that a 20th level dude is likely not to get hit by 1st level dudes, even IF they get AoO.

An Equal level 2 on 1 has only the same moderate chance to hit if they get an AoO, so it tends to wash out. Keep in mind, that the soloist is facing double the number of attacks. IF one of the duo pauses to quaff, the threat he is facing is lessened already (because there's one attacker swingingg at him for the round).

I'd be OK with rules like:
you can only use an AoO if they are distracted (ex. quaffing) when facing one opponent.
Then make a Feat that increases that allowance by one (allowing for taking it multiple times).

Conceptually, by default, all fighters lack this feat. If you're facing an enemy, and somebody else runs through or teams up and quaffs, you get the benefit of them not hitting you, but not the free attack because you're not skilled enough to deal with multiple opponents more efficiently.

 

[the Jester]

I've got a sword. A man in front of me has a sword too. He decides I'm scary and so he turns and runs away in a hurry. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack?

I've got a sword, he's got a sword. But he needs a magic potion, so he rummages through his hip pouch trying to find the potion, then draws it. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack?

The default logic in D&D for both cases is, sure, he's dropped his guard. You get to hit him.

Actually, no it isn't.

The default logic in 3e for both cases is, yes, you get to hit him, and the "drop your guard" argument goes on as presented.

However, in 4e, drinking a potion- or drawing one- or sheathing a weapon- or standing up- etc.- does NOT provoke.

This nicely illustrates that AoOs, or OAs, are a gamist construct designed to punish certain inept tactics.

Being paralyzed, being a tree, being unarmed- those are bad circumstances, but not inept tactics. Turning your back on an armed, adjacent opponent is bad tactics. Drawing and/or drinking a potion might be on the list of "punishably inept tactics", depending on what edition you're playing.

 

[Water Bob]

This nicely illustrates that AoOs, or OAs, are a gamist construct designed to punish certain inept tactics.

I've noticed that there are a lot of things about 3.x that are "gamist". Two that come immediately to mind are:

The flanking rule--getting exactly diagonal from your ally in order to flank. And, because there's no facing rule, it takes two to flank!

The Flatfooted rule....it's deeply entrenched in the game but very hard to realisticaly defend in many situations.