RANT: Attacks of Opportunity

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Thayan Menace: you need to come over and clean the soda off of my monitor. Thanks.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Logos!

Thanks.

No problem bro, this thread definitely needed some comedy relief.

-Samir

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You know, I'm always surprised when this thread makes an appearance, because I just don't see what's so complex about AoO's. I mean here's the list:

1. Moving through an opponent's threatened area.
2. Taking a non-combat action in a threatened area or in the same turn as you leave one with a move action.
3. Taking a specialized combat action in a threatened area without the appropriate feat.

No complexity there but #3 confuses some people and also "takes away options". I virtually never see anyone attempt to disarm, sunder, bull rush or (worst) overrun if they don't have the right feats because they don't want to trigger an AoO.

I don't get how that's overly complicated. The thing is, it must be, because many of the people who say they have problems with the rule are very experienced and know more about some parts of the rules than I do. So my question is: what gives? What's the trouble?

I've seen some complaints about taking a long time to scout out the perfect path to avoid AoO's when you move, but it seems like if this is really a concern, you either invest in tumble or buy the dodge-mobility-spring attack chain.

No, lots of PCs won't qualify for that. Between heavy armor/low Dex characters and most classes getting a lame number of feats (barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and basically any class that doesn't get bonus feats) it's not possible.

Furthermore, confidence in AC is very rare. Some characters might risk dashing past a villain because they're wearing full plate, but that's extremely rare; unless you're really low level (and so is the villain) you're probably going to get hit.

 

[Justin Bacon]

What is that smell? Ah yes, it´s the smell of perm. banning!

If pointing out that someone else is blatantly misrepresenting my posts and lying about what I said is a banning offense on this board, then I don't really care if I am banned. I'm not going to stand around and let someone misrepresent my posts and lie about what I said because it would be rude to point it out. Nor do I have any interest in being part of a community in which it's OK for people to lie about other people, but pointing that out is considered bad form.

But I think we should let the moderators decide what kind of community this is, don't you?

 

[Asmo]

But I think we should let the moderators decide what kind of community this is, don't you?

Absolutely, we have great moderators that I trust will do their job when the job needs to be done.

Asmo

 

[Maester Luwin]

Hey everyone! I think it all boils down to perspnal perference. AoO's are not bad & in many cases not hard to understand (unless you are new to D20 or have used a system that does not use them such as AGoT RPG). Some people like them others do not. I have played with them & have run a campaign for nearly a year without them & had fun both ways. No right or wrong as far as I see... just comes down to choice. Thanks Maester Luwin

 

[jeffh]

Hey everyone! I think it all boils down to perspnal perference. AoO's are not bad & in many cases not hard to understand (unless you are new to D20 or have used a system that does not use them such as AGoT RPG). Some people like them others do not. I have played with them & have run a campaign for nearly a year without them & had fun both ways. No right or wrong as far as I see... just comes down to choice. Thanks Maester Luwin

Well, you're right that there's no absolute right and wrong in the matter, but there can still be right and wrong answers to questions of the "If I want X, is it a good idea for me to use Y?" sort. (The main problem comes, I think, when people presuppose a certain value of X and just assume everyone else agrees with it, or that everyone who doesn't is guilty of badwrongfun.) And, contrary to popular belief, not all values of X are equally valid.

If, like me, you like the bit of tactical verisimilitude they add, the decisions they force, and prefer the potential for punishing certain types of actions over disallowing them entirely, AoOs are good, especially if you aren't trying to learn them from the 3.0 rules (which explained them very poorly). If you prefer simplicity over all or most of that stuff and want to take the "D&D is a game of heroic fantasy" logic all the way (see the "Dozen crossbows" thread for some examples of this), I can see why you'd want to dispense with them, or perhaps use them only for one or two things (like spellcasting in someone's threatened area). Or, you might just think that the amount of complication they introduce isn't worth what they add to the game; that doesn't mean you don't understand them or that they're too complicated simpliciter, it may just mean you don't think they add much that's of value. These are essentially standoffs between X-values that I can see as, more or less, equally reasonable.

I do, however, think that the range of X-values that are well served by simply disallowing the actions that provoke AoOs is an extremely narrow one, and one whose preferences seem bizarrely arbitrary to me. So I think the approach the original SWd20 used is a pretty terrible one. It may be that there's some argument that could convince me otherwise, but I haven't seen it. Until I do, that will be a case where I'm happy to question and criticize someone's preferences.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

If pointing out that someone else is blatantly misrepresenting my posts and lying about what I said is a banning offense on this board, then I don't really care if I am banned. I'm not going to stand around and let someone misrepresent my posts and lie about what I said because it would be rude to point it out. Nor do I have any interest in being part of a community in which it's OK for people to lie about other people, but pointing that out is considered bad form.

Except when you do it, of course. Then it is fine. And if someone insists that you are misinterpreting their point your outrage is righteous and justified. I know how that goes.

There's a little thing in critical analysis call "reading what is said in the most beneficial interpretation possible". You don't even try that, you go right on to the veiled insults and snobbery.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

AoO's are fine by me.

 

[Umbran]

What is that smell?

Well...

At this point in the thread, it seems to me there's folks left and right ignoring a very basic guideline - address the matter of the post, not the poster. While this isn't breaking a rule, it is one of the major indicators that folks are getting personal and accusatory. It's downright uncool.

So, let's make it simple - stop it. Disagree all you like, but show respect for the people and their positions. There is no excuse for failure to show respect around here. Period.