Removing AoO from D&D
- Thread starter kobold
- Start date
From the core rule, combat reflexes. From other sources, Peerless Archer threatens an area around him with a bow, which would become pointless. Karmic Strike, from oriental adventures, estially give you an AoO when you get hit when you are using the feat.
Beyond that, there would be unforseen changes in combat. People diving through battle lines with ease. Reach weapons get much weaker, as do monsters with reach. Bigger is supposed to be better, generally, for monsters. Removing AoOs would take some of that away from them.
Beyond that, there would be unforseen changes in combat. People diving through battle lines with ease. Reach weapons get much weaker, as do monsters with reach. Bigger is supposed to be better, generally, for monsters. Removing AoOs would take some of that away from them.
Tom Cashel
First Post
kobold said:
First you need to become irredeemably lazy, then go stark raving mad.
Well, before you get into the small stuff (list o' feats needin' to be changed) you will need to answer the big questions.
What are you going to do about the things AOA does for you.
1. Zone of control... AoO prevents you and me being in combat ans me just walking around you while you stand there. It means an orc or two can be a barrier, without being hip-to-hip. What mechanism will you put in play to prevent the casual stroll around the enemy unmolested?
2. keeping your mind on business... AoO puts a certain degree of responsibility on someone involved in melee. Actions which lower your guard or take your attention away (casting spells for instance or using ranged weapons or reading a scroll or drinking potions) are currently hindered by getting AoOs. I kind of agree that your guzzling down a potion should net me some advantage against you. If we are in melee, you have to provide a certain level of attnetion to me, unless you want a problem. Removing AoOsS removes the problem.
AoOs provide a fairly decent mechanism for handling these issues.
Now one immediate thought is to provide a bonus on the to-hit for distracted opponent, but the timeliness fails, since the scroll i might bereading or spell i might be throwing could be teleport.
Way back in AD&D there was a rule, or perhaps house rule, that let you take a free swing at fleeing enemies... AoO seems a fleshing out of that rule.
its not perfect, but before i would consider removing it, i would want to answer 1 and 2 above.
What are you going to do about the things AOA does for you.
1. Zone of control... AoO prevents you and me being in combat ans me just walking around you while you stand there. It means an orc or two can be a barrier, without being hip-to-hip. What mechanism will you put in play to prevent the casual stroll around the enemy unmolested?
2. keeping your mind on business... AoO puts a certain degree of responsibility on someone involved in melee. Actions which lower your guard or take your attention away (casting spells for instance or using ranged weapons or reading a scroll or drinking potions) are currently hindered by getting AoOs. I kind of agree that your guzzling down a potion should net me some advantage against you. If we are in melee, you have to provide a certain level of attnetion to me, unless you want a problem. Removing AoOsS removes the problem.
AoOs provide a fairly decent mechanism for handling these issues.
Now one immediate thought is to provide a bonus on the to-hit for distracted opponent, but the timeliness fails, since the scroll i might bereading or spell i might be throwing could be teleport.
Way back in AD&D there was a rule, or perhaps house rule, that let you take a free swing at fleeing enemies... AoO seems a fleshing out of that rule.
its not perfect, but before i would consider removing it, i would want to answer 1 and 2 above.
AoO's allow you to act reactively to various circumstances. If you remove the AoO system, you could make Readying more flexible to make up for it.
For example, you could allow Readying for a specific trigger without having to specify the specific action to take. Or you could allow Readying a Full Attack (or Move and Attack), provided the character does nothing before the Ready (kinda like a Delay, but with a trigger so it can interrupt an opponent). Or you could allow a Readied character to take his action even if the trigger hasn't gone off yet (can't interrupt an opponent though).
I think all of those changes could easily compensate for the lack of AoO's. For example, if you combine all the variants above, you could say "I Ready an action for when an opponent leaves an area I threaten". If teh trigger goes off (i.e. when you would normally have gotten an AoO plus in 5' step or move-only cases where you wouldn't have gotten an AoO) you get to make a normal attack (but you don't get an *extra* AoO attack) or any other regular action (run away, cast a spell, whatever). If at any point you decide you no longer want to wait for the trigger, you can act at whatever initiative you want (but can't interrupt), just as if you had Delayed you action.
Gets rid of all the AoO problems, incorporates the existing Delay rules, and I think it would streamline combat and make it much more flexible. True, you need a little more planning because you'll never be able to interrupt an action you haven't Readied for, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some fighters Readying more than 50% of the time (because the only thing they lose by Readying is their initiative order).
For example, you could allow Readying for a specific trigger without having to specify the specific action to take. Or you could allow Readying a Full Attack (or Move and Attack), provided the character does nothing before the Ready (kinda like a Delay, but with a trigger so it can interrupt an opponent). Or you could allow a Readied character to take his action even if the trigger hasn't gone off yet (can't interrupt an opponent though).
I think all of those changes could easily compensate for the lack of AoO's. For example, if you combine all the variants above, you could say "I Ready an action for when an opponent leaves an area I threaten". If teh trigger goes off (i.e. when you would normally have gotten an AoO plus in 5' step or move-only cases where you wouldn't have gotten an AoO) you get to make a normal attack (but you don't get an *extra* AoO attack) or any other regular action (run away, cast a spell, whatever). If at any point you decide you no longer want to wait for the trigger, you can act at whatever initiative you want (but can't interrupt), just as if you had Delayed you action.
Gets rid of all the AoO problems, incorporates the existing Delay rules, and I think it would streamline combat and make it much more flexible. True, you need a little more planning because you'll never be able to interrupt an action you haven't Readied for, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some fighters Readying more than 50% of the time (because the only thing they lose by Readying is their initiative order).
IceBear
Explorer
And now both sides stand around waiting for the other guy to do something as they've just ready all the time. And besides these combat issues, you've still got issues with reach being less important and certain feats/powers becoming worthless.
Your idea could work, but as I said before, all of this is more trouble than it's worth (in my mind).
IceBear
Your idea could work, but as I said before, all of this is more trouble than it's worth (in my mind).
IceBear
I see that it may be more trouble than its worth, which is why I put the question to my peers before investing any time in it.
The reason I bring it up at all is a matter of steamlining. Most of the D20 systems being produced do not make use of it, CoC and Spycraft come to mind and many more. My thought that it may speed up combat. IMHO combat takes a bit to long.
The reason I bring it up at all is a matter of steamlining. Most of the D20 systems being produced do not make use of it, CoC and Spycraft come to mind and many more. My thought that it may speed up combat. IMHO combat takes a bit to long.
Similar Threads
