Klaus said:
I also have no problem with AoO. The only way I'd simplify them for a faster game would be to take the Call of Cthulhu d20 way: if you would generate an AoO, you simply *can't* take the action.
I personally hate that variant. It takes a mechanic which accurately models battlefield behavior and replaces it with a mechanic equally complex that in no way accurately models battlefield behavior.
You've already got a situation in D&D where a combatant can completely stop movement through an area larger than their own body (5 square feet). Extending that area to 15 square feet turns everyone a commoner armed with a hoe into Jet Li.
greywulf said:
Either lots of people are wrong to feel that way, or the rules are broken or (at best) badly worded. I vote the later. AoO is one of the worst aspects of the game IMHO that add nothing to playability or enjoyment. I fully expect lots of people to disagree with me.
I can probably get behind the idea that the AoO rules are written clumsily. Personally, I find the entire Combat chapter to be badly organized and clumsily written.
That being said, AoOs add an important aspect to the game. In order for any abstract turn-based system not to create whacky artifacts in which, for example, a trained soldier in a 10 foot wide hallway will
always allow an untrained farmer to run past them, it needs some ability to handle out-of-turn reactions. AoOs are an extremely streamlined and easy-to-implement way of handling that.
Delta said:
I don't like AOO's. Dealing with new or part-time players, they can't parse the rules. Dealing with some expert power gamers, they take a very long time mapping out moves to avoid all possible AOO's. I prefer rulesets (1E) that force you to stop moving when you contact an enemy - that's much clearer to part-time players.
I guess I'm confused about why the expert power gamers still won't be spending "a very long time mapping out moves to avoid all possible [AoOs/contact with an enemy]" under these rules.
Of course, I'm a little puzzled by these supposed "experts" taking so long to figure this out: If you're playing with miniatures, the only thing you need to do is plot a path that doesn't take you through a threatened area. That's a pretty easy path-finding exercise. If you're not playing with miniatures, you say: "I want to go from here to there." And then the DM says, "You'll provoke an AoO from X if you go directly there."
Delta said:
(1) Player may not know a priori if someone can hit them. (Hidden, invisible, unarmed, armed with reach weapon, natural reach, etc.) Need to track exceptions for cover.
(2) There's a 100-odd list of cases that need to be memorized or tabulated for these "do somethings".
(1) That's why we have Dungeon Masters.
(2) One way in which AoOs could be streamlined is to make a short list of actions which
don't provoke AoOs and then assume that anything else you do
will provoke an AoO.
But, that being said, this doesn't add meaningful complexity to the question: The description of the action you're attempting includes the rules for whether or not it provokes an AoO. So if you know the rules for the action you're attempting, you know if it provokes an AoO. And if you don't know the rules, then you're looking at them anyway.
Delta said:
(4) This is a forward-looking statement that some players have difficulty with. In other words, you need to mentally map out the entire future move before you can determine if starting the move stops the move and lets someone else act first (AOO).
You can invert the question if you prefer:
1. Can someone hit me right now?
2. Have I already moved at least 5 feet this turn?
3. Am I moving carefully in order to avoid getting hit? (If so, you can't take any other actions this turn except move. If not, then you provoke.)
Delta said:
(5) Then you also need to mentally track if any or all opponents have made AOO's earlier in the turn, against anyone, so as to be eligible to take AOO's. Then you need to know whether any have Combat Reflexes to act as an exception to that.
You mean you have to ask the questions: What are my opponents doing? What can my opponents do to me?
Aren't you asking those questions anyway?
Delta said:
More generally, for part-time game players, the idea of it being "my turn" in a game and having it be invisibly interrupted by someone else getting an action is very unsettling and confusing.
They've never played Monopoly before? (In which people's turns are frequently interrupted by other players when their actions provoke a Rent of Opportunity from another player.)
(Psi)SeveredHead said:
Agree. (that "It's impossible to resolve AoOs without using miniatures.") Except the part about some kind of "graphical interface" like a battlemat. Unless you've got the right kind of mind for it, keeping track of where everything is without a graphical interface is difficult. It's worse when the party is large, or there are lots of opponents, or people are throwing around area-of-effect spells, and what have you. No one wants to die because it turns out they were ten feet closer to the epicenter of the PC mage's Fireball spell than they thought they were. On the same note, no one wants to die because they drew an AoO and didn't think they should have.
That's a strong argument for why you
want to use a battlemat. But, using your logic,
every roleplaying game
needs a battlemat: You literally cannot play them without using a battlemat. I just don't see that as being true.
wayne62682 said:
rather than force the player to sit for 5 minutes and ponder the proper course to move his/her miniature as though he/she were playing Chess.
This simply makes me reiterate my refrain from the first post: What is wrong with you people?
I have never seen anyone do this. If a movement-induced AoO can be avoided, the path for doing so is painfully obvious. If it can't be avoided, staring at the battlemat for 5 minutes isn't going to change anything.
