RANT: Attacks of Opportunity

[TheAuldGrump]

While I don't have a problem with AoO rules as such, there is no denying they are a major part of why 3.X combat runs slower than earlier editions.*


*This has been my personal experience - I fully expect people to call me a heretic and crucify me over this sentiment.

Thurbane is a heretic! Crucify him! *CUE: Always Look on the Bright Side of Life*

I will agree that AoOs do add to the time in combat, and that combat in 3.X does take longer, but since I actually enjoy the combats more than in previous editions I am not going to complain about that. (For what it is worth, combat in Spycraft 2.0 seems to take even longer, going by the clock on the wall, but feels shorter somehow....)

The Auld Grump

 

[eyebeams]

No, I'm sorry.

That's like claiming that resolving an attack is difficult, confusing, and impossible to resolve without miniatures because:

1. (Roll dice.) Did you hit your target?
2. What type of damage does your weapon do?

Because you have to do a chart look-up for what type of damage your weapon does.

The difference is that weapon damage is a character centered element, and AoOs are a global element. Customs puts weapons on your character sheet, but not AoO situations. Aside from the organizational structure of the game itself, it's worth noting that the character generator CD (that many, many games use by default) sticks weapon stats on the sheet, but not maneuvers with AoOs. In fact, I don't think the program mentions anything about AoOs.

Heh. Sure, and Power Attack and Weapon Finesse make resolving attacks impossibly difficult, confusing, and impossible to resolve without using miniatures. Probably time to remove those rules from the game.

Neither of those feats have anything to do with positioning and invoke bonuses, which players are inherently better motivated at tracking. The latter fact is something that DMs and game designers need to understand better. (Incidentally, player interest is also a big factor in play balance in other ways which I'll be happy to discuss at another time.) Plus, of course, AoOs are global properties of the game and feats are character-based properties.

In terms of the process of play at the table, AoOs are in an awkward spot. Players can easily invoke straight numerical bonuses, but claiming an AoO from the DM requires consensus and even permission to an extent that doesn't apply to many other things. The DM could remind the player of AoOs instead, but that doesn;t suit games where players are expected to intelligently seek out tactical advantages -- it becomes a "gimme" from the DM. The only applications of AoOs that don't have either of these problems are when the DM uses an AoO on a PC.

I'll share an interesting bit of information with all y'all. One of the things I do to refine my work is break down my experiences at convention games and guest games into usable bits. Sometimes I play in games -- sometimes I just sit in and take notes.

(Lemme get out those notes now.)

Here's how AoOs were actually used in 18 D&D games I played in or examined:
* 5 games did not use them at all. None of these games used miniatures.
* 8 games included one or more errors in application, usually by missing AoO opportunities. One of these games used miniatures.
* 2 games had DMs that disallowed AoOs for arbitrary reasons, to either save characters or delay a premature end to combat. Neither of these games used miniatures.
* The remaining 3 games applied AoOs in an (as far as I could tell) error-free fashion. All but one of these games used miniatures.

What I find even more interesting is that your self-described rant is basically expressing anger at the legitimate experiences of players. Me, I like D&D players. Otherwise, I wouldn't play D&D.

 

[Maester Luwin]

Hey Justin! Good thread & good debate points. Yours truely Whacky Maester Luwin

 

[papakee]

Justin,

I love miniatures, I've got hundreds of em...heck, I'm the guy that brings a tackle box full of them to away games. What you failed to read from my post was the 2nd line of the quoted text. My problem with AoOs is that they take more time and take away from the RP.


The imaginary play scenario included :
a. plotting movement paths vs. moving from point A to B
b. extra dice roll for tumbles
c. getting a rule clarification and possible chart lookup on whether a spear had reach or not

All time consumers and all take away from RP. I'm sure some folks will would say that real RP'rs would be just scream their battle cry, state the actions (AoOs be darned) and let the DM sort out the move plots or dice results. Which is fine, but still time consuming to resolve and any break in the action takes away from the RP because side discussions start up, people are talking in character while the DM can't listen, the dramatic flow of the game stalls, etc.

Anywho, in your initial post, I got the impression you thought most folks thought AoOs were too hard. Most of the posts against AoOs I've read haven't reflected that. I've played both with and without AoOs. If you haven't tried it, I say give it a try.

 

[Delta]

Eyebeams, interesting data there. Thanks for posting that!

 

[eyebeams]

Eyebeams, interesting data there. Thanks for posting that!

Keep in mind that even though it's a broad set of anecdotes, that's all they are. Also, I'm not down on AoOs. I use them and they work quite nicely, but I don't like how they're organized or the lack of a clear responsibility as to who invokes them. I think that the next edition needs to really deal with how AoOs get raised at the table and how peple use them and look them up.

 

[evildmguy]

What parts of "willing to make a sacrifice", "uber-skilled", "tough son-of-a-bitch" do you consider to be metagame assessments, exactly?

IOW, no, my response was not the essence of metagaming.

From the wiki: Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

I am sorry I didn't start here and explain it.

From levels 1 - x, let's call it 5 or 6, the attempt to get past several rows of mooks to get to the bad guy has failed. Suddenly, the player sees that his character has enough hit points to make it and does so. Yet, every time before this, the character didn't attempt this, and now they suddenly do. What allowed that first act? What allowed the first attempt? In my opinion, it is metagaming.

I think several posters here have already said that the character doesn't have a concept of hit points and levels. So, how did this character suddenly know they would survive and what made them try it? That's metagaming. (more on this later)

Knowing that a character is "uber skilled" or a "tough s.o.b." is subjective and I can't see a real person suddenly deciding they can do it. At least, not without having a huge advantage. In the real world, that is armor. However, DND doesn't model armor realistically.

Umm.... No. Verisimilitude hasn't changed. Character skill has changed.

Really? So when a highly trained fighter looks at a cadre of the evil prince's guard led by the man who killed his father, lowers his sword and says, "My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die." Your reaction is, "No way. There's no way that the best swordsman in the entire world could know that he can take on a half dozen mooks single-handed without a meaningful risk of being killed!".

Well, count me out of your game, then. It's not realistic and it certainly isn't interesting.

I don't know why you felt the need to be rude and insulting. If I have treated you in such a way that I deserved this, I apologize and hope we can continue this interesting discussion.

I have not talked about how I handle things in my game, so I don't know how you can infer that. I have never said that an experienced combatant shouldn't be able to take on lots of inferior combatants. In fact, I have said the opposite. What I have said, and maintain, is that AoO are less effective when dealing with higher level opponents.

Can you see a Celt getting past a Roman army line to attack the general in the back? That's what I think about when I think of a character running past the front line guards (Praetorian, if you will) to attack the king/ruler/general/whatever. However, I am not up on my 3.5 rules and feats, so I will gladly concede this, my entire point, if you give me a build than can do it. Something that allows the guards to guard. I might argue against it if it took 9th level to get there but I would like that it is at least possible.

How does the high school kid "suddenly" know that he can disable a IED? Well, he doesn't "suddenly" know that. He spent time training those skills, using those skills, and knows he's done that.

We aren't talking about a definite, trainable and measureable skill. We are talking about a body's ability to take damage. How does anyone know that they can suddenly survive multiple attacks, attacks which they aren't completely defending against? There are lots of examples of a blow not hurting a child and a similar blow killing an adult.

In the end, there is simply no way for a person to know if a blow will be deadly or not, imo, which is why I think it is too bad that the system encourages being hit by having high hit points. Again, that's why I call it metagaming. DND allows for that and if I was playing DND, I would accept that and adjust accordingly.

btw, I am playing a game that if the character was in plate mail, they would feel very good about their chances of running past the "mooks" to get to the BBEG. So, I still have the drama and tension of a typical game but with rules I like better. Just FYI.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[evildmguy]

I don't think the game actually scales that way, it's just that priorities change and what can kill you has to be more powerful than your average warrior swinging a sword, because in turn the characters have gotten more powerful. As has been said by even you, DnD is not the game you're looking for.

But I do think you're wrong about scaling weapon damage. Yes, the base damage die never changes, but magic weapons, feats, and class abilities . If your PCs are 17th level, maybe your BBEG Elite Guards are a pair of 15th level melee combatants, one a +3 halberd, Improved Trip, and Power Attack and the other a Fighter/Rogue/Blackguard with a +2 unholy fiery burst greatsword smiting good with a sizeable amount of sneak attack dice. Any 17th level PC would be daft to just run past these guys.

Okay, but you are forcing your example to fit with scaling damage.

My point is simply this. The "standard" MM orc, with no changes, is deadly to characters of up to 3rd level, especially mages with their low hit points. (IIRC, this orc does d12+4 damage on a hit.) Clerics and fighters are probably safe but rogues and mages would be hurting!

What I am talking about, in terms of scaling, is that if we take two fighters, equip them exactly the same at 1st, 5th, 10th and 15th levels and have them fight, for some reason, the weapons are less effective as a percentage of damage than what they used to do.

I get the fact that skill of avoiding damage is built into the levels, hit points and AC of DND. I understand that is how DND has chosen to model that. I just find it too bad that the attack roll means less than the bonuses at higher levels. (I think it was Wyatt? who said that at higher levels, the modifier is more important than the roll, but at lower levels, the roll is more important.) It does show that the character is more skilled. I can't argue with that. I just don't like that other things are less effective for no other reasons.

That's just me.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[BryonD]

Also, I'm not down on AoOs. I use them and they work quite nicely, but I don't like how they're organized or the lack of a clear responsibility as to who invokes them. I think that the next edition needs to really deal with how AoOs get raised at the table and how peple use them and look them up.

I do agree that this is a valid criticism.
The list seems to be part specific and part generalization and that isn't a good presentation.

However, I still personally find it extremely easy to consistently implement them.
And I think having them out of the game would make it a lot less interesting.
Heck, I know that.
But for me it is also really easy to make a call and go with it. It just isn't important if every player agrees with me on each and every choice. They know that I make fair choices with the intent of keeping the game fun for everyone. If the people at the table can't get that attitude then, again, it is a people problem, not a rule problem. Just like saying that someone can not RP when they have AoOs. IME that kind of person is the "I"m here to win" type, or something similar and if they aren't stopping abandoning their character's motivations due to AoOs they are abandoning their character's motivations for some other "maximum result" activity.

 

[BryonD]

What I find even more interesting is that your self-described rant is basically expressing anger at the legitimate experiences of players. Me, I like D&D players. Otherwise, I wouldn't play D&D.

You do realize there is a diffence between ENWorld posters and the people he games with, right?

I mean, come on, that isn't even close to a fair representation of what he is saying.