Removing AoO from D&D
- Thread starter kobold
- Start date
StarWars and Spycraft probably removed AoO because melee combat is much rarer in those settings. When WotC added stuff for lightsabers, they re-added AoO because it made melee combat more likely. Basically, if your setting relies on ranged combat, AoO aren't as important. If you setting relies on melee combat, AoO are useful.
-dlurking
-dlurking
Re: Re: Removing AoO from D&D
So, let me see if i get this straight...
in a standard 10' starship corridor, if there is a guy leaning on the wall on the left with a dagger in his hand and i take a full dead sprint along the left side, then when i come alongside him at full velocity space time continuum shifts and suddenly i am moving at 5' per 6 seconds, not the full run i was used to?
Cool!!!
I remember seeing that in several of the star wars movies!
And here we all thought those slow-mo fight thingies were just for dranatic sfx.
As for simulating real life, see above.
The complaint you seem to have here is with HP. being able to just take the AoO damage is no different than being able to take a fireball, a blaster hit, or a burst of engine exhaust... they all deal with the fact that from 1 hp to 500 hp you are just fine and dandy. characters are willing to risk taking damage at higher levels, whether we are talking AoOs or dragons because the hp system works that way. (one could see this as a problem or as a feature which enables heroic acts.)
If you are worried that weapons do not cause enough damage, or that characters suffer too few ill effects from hits at certain levels, then you should be looking at the HP/damage rules, not blaming AoOs for the fact that it works for them just like it does for everything else in the rules.
Plane Sailing said:
So, let me see if i get this straight...
in a standard 10' starship corridor, if there is a guy leaning on the wall on the left with a dagger in his hand and i take a full dead sprint along the left side, then when i come alongside him at full velocity space time continuum shifts and suddenly i am moving at 5' per 6 seconds, not the full run i was used to?
Cool!!!
I remember seeing that in several of the star wars movies!
And here we all thought those slow-mo fight thingies were just for dranatic sfx.
Plane Sailing said:
As for simulating real life, see above.
The complaint you seem to have here is with HP. being able to just take the AoO damage is no different than being able to take a fireball, a blaster hit, or a burst of engine exhaust... they all deal with the fact that from 1 hp to 500 hp you are just fine and dandy. characters are willing to risk taking damage at higher levels, whether we are talking AoOs or dragons because the hp system works that way. (one could see this as a problem or as a feature which enables heroic acts.)
If you are worried that weapons do not cause enough damage, or that characters suffer too few ill effects from hits at certain levels, then you should be looking at the HP/damage rules, not blaming AoOs for the fact that it works for them just like it does for everything else in the rules.
dcollins
Explorer
Re: Re: Re: Removing AoO from D&D
Your example is not what such a rule simulates. The assumption in such a combat system would be that the opponent does not just stand motionless against the wall, but rather that they're smart enough to take a single step and physically get in your way as you try to run past. Again, it's abstract combat -- and D&D/AD&D used to be far more abstract than the current rules are.
It's not like this would be a crazy rule: all kinds of prior RPGs did something like this. Original D&D did, AD&D forced you to stop in the same way, Champions, most wargames work like that, etc...
Petrosian said:
Your example is not what such a rule simulates. The assumption in such a combat system would be that the opponent does not just stand motionless against the wall, but rather that they're smart enough to take a single step and physically get in your way as you try to run past. Again, it's abstract combat -- and D&D/AD&D used to be far more abstract than the current rules are.
It's not like this would be a crazy rule: all kinds of prior RPGs did something like this. Original D&D did, AD&D forced you to stop in the same way, Champions, most wargames work like that, etc...
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Re: Re: Re: Removing AoO from D&D
Get out of bed the wrong side this morning?
Petrosian said:
Get out of bed the wrong side this morning?
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Conaill said:
Seconded. Please confine your answers to arguments, and keep condescending comments out of it.
To the matter at hand:
I, too, advice against doing away with AoO, unless you want to put very much effort into it. It maybe a little hard to understand, especially for newcomers, but it should be considerably less effort to learn that mechanic than replacint it with something else that works equally well (or even better). In a setting with almost no melee combat, you might even need no AoO, but D&D is much about melee, so you need AoO (or some replacement).
The alternatives we had in the past are even worse then AoO (which isn't that bad anyway):
We had situations where you just weren't allowed things. That's not the way 3e works! 3e doesn't forbid things, it gives you disadvantages for them (like arcane spell failure instead of forbidding arcane casting in armor).
We had situations where you had to announce things at the beginning of the round. If you got hit before you could get stuff off, you lost your action.
So AoO is still the best way they have thought of yet, and it might be quite difficult to find something better.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: Removing AoO from D&D
Good points.
It is certainly possible to yank AoOs out of the system. IMO it also yanks a lot of fun and heroism out of the game: all you can replace it with is "You can't do that!"
When I am playing a mass combat or war game, I expect to live with the peculiarities of "average" behavior. But I expect my Hero to be allowed to dare run by a kobold ... provided he is willing to pay the cost.
If you are someone who doesn't draw out maps for combat and finds miniatures tedious, removing AoOs is probably a reasonable choice. If you use a battlemat and/or miniatures, the AoO rules as is are going to save you trouble in the long run.
Before 3e, my DMs had arbitrary lists of "stupid things that give free attacks to enemies" and "stupid things to are not allowed to do". Those house rules effectively were AoO rules -- only less consistent and more difficult to understand.
dcollins said:
Good points.
It is certainly possible to yank AoOs out of the system. IMO it also yanks a lot of fun and heroism out of the game: all you can replace it with is "You can't do that!"
When I am playing a mass combat or war game, I expect to live with the peculiarities of "average" behavior. But I expect my Hero to be allowed to dare run by a kobold ... provided he is willing to pay the cost.
If you are someone who doesn't draw out maps for combat and finds miniatures tedious, removing AoOs is probably a reasonable choice. If you use a battlemat and/or miniatures, the AoO rules as is are going to save you trouble in the long run.
Before 3e, my DMs had arbitrary lists of "stupid things that give free attacks to enemies" and "stupid things to are not allowed to do". Those house rules effectively were AoO rules -- only less consistent and more difficult to understand.
Shard O'Glase
First Post
I think AoO are better than the you can't do that alternative.(especially the I can't shoot someone at 5' with my gun rule in star wars) But that doesn't mean i like AoO. I think removing them form D&D that balances a lot of factors on things like reach would be fairly dificult though, so I wouldn't bother.
One of my big problems with AoO is the logical reason why they exist is usually stated as if you do something stupid you can get hurt in a fight.
situation 1, bob the fighter is standing in a corridor and an orc just tries to run past him. Dumb, bob is there ready and waiting with a big ol sword. Hey yeah I see that as stuipid.
situation 2, bob the fighter is going toe to toe fighting Grack the frothing at the mouth raging barbarian whoose swinging a big ol sword as well. An orc tries to run past, Bob says hey an AoO I'll swing at the dumb ol orc. Sorry this is just as dumb, Bob just turned his attention away from Grack to take a swing at someone running past.
AoO in themselves create quite a few actions that are just as dumb in a fight as the thing that provoked the AoO in the 1st place, but for these ha-ha I'm not punished.
One thing I've contempalted doing is not giving an extra attack for an AoO, but allowing someone to jump ahead in initiative for an AoO, allowing them to abort to even a full attack. But honestly I think playtesting it is more trouble than it worth, since my problems with AoO aren't that huge.
One of my big problems with AoO is the logical reason why they exist is usually stated as if you do something stupid you can get hurt in a fight.
situation 1, bob the fighter is standing in a corridor and an orc just tries to run past him. Dumb, bob is there ready and waiting with a big ol sword. Hey yeah I see that as stuipid.
situation 2, bob the fighter is going toe to toe fighting Grack the frothing at the mouth raging barbarian whoose swinging a big ol sword as well. An orc tries to run past, Bob says hey an AoO I'll swing at the dumb ol orc. Sorry this is just as dumb, Bob just turned his attention away from Grack to take a swing at someone running past.
AoO in themselves create quite a few actions that are just as dumb in a fight as the thing that provoked the AoO in the 1st place, but for these ha-ha I'm not punished.
One thing I've contempalted doing is not giving an extra attack for an AoO, but allowing someone to jump ahead in initiative for an AoO, allowing them to abort to even a full attack. But honestly I think playtesting it is more trouble than it worth, since my problems with AoO aren't that huge.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Removing AoO from D&D
i never said motionless. i said standing, leaning with a dagger.
what the rule does is to allow him to STOP me, whether i am a person or a stone golem weighing 10000 lbs or an insubstantial ghost he can neither see nor touch, right?
What the AoO rule does is give him the OPPORTUNITY to stop me. if he can stop me, if he can attack and do enough damage, if he can tackle me with a grapple, and so on, then the AoO rule allows him that opportuinty.
The difference between AUTOMATICALLY STOPPING MY RUn and ALLOWING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO STOP MY RUN is apparently lost on some people, perhaps many people, but it does matter.
We disagree greatly on that.
If i had a 5000 lb stone golem running down a corridor (customized stone golem since they normally do not run) and someone told me that their 3' tall gnome with a 5 strength and a sickle stopped the golem in his tracks and forced the golem to take 5' baby steps, my first response would be "you are crazy."
Wouldn't yours?
Since i have played champions since the early days of 80s and since i have champions3-4-5 editions and some of second...
i can say that, unless i missed something, then at least since 3rd and definitely absolutely uneqivocably in champions 4th and 5th (which covers mid-80's to current) they had no such rule. you are simply wrong, or you are citing an earlier edition.
meanwhile, a lesson...
VtM had a rule for jams.
if you rolled a net botch on your attack roll you had jammed your gun.
Unfortunately, since they did not bother to take 3 second to think this thru (wondering if some posters here learned their game analysis from WW?) they would realize what they had just done.
The chance of getting a botch result on your to hit dice was INVERSELY proportional to your chance to hit the target.
So, it worked like this, if you shot at me and I dodged... you had a better chance of jamming your gun. if you shot at me and i did not dodge, you had a lower chance of jamming your gun. If you are fring at a close target, you have a lower chance of jamming your gun. if you are firing at a far target, you have a higher chance of jamming your gun.
The primary overriding factor in determining whether or not your gun jammed was how hard it was a shot to make. Even your own skill with firearms had little effect, all it provided was a bell curveism.
Now, just because they decided to publish a cockamamey poorly thought out rule that does nothing senseible, should we call it "not craxy?" Should we look to it for salvation and continue it?
i dont think so!
You might, but thats not my headache.
For my games, shooting a target at 100' is not more likely to cause a gun to jam than shooting at a target 20' away.
For my games, the gnome gets an OPPORTUNITY to do something to stop the charging stone golem of speed, but he does not get an "abstract" rule fiat to do so. (Though, if he could pick up a Fiat and throw it at the golem, it might stop him.)
For my games, "abstract" does not HAVE TO EQUAL "nonsensical" or "crazy."
ymmv and clearly does.
dcollins said:
i never said motionless. i said standing, leaning with a dagger.
what the rule does is to allow him to STOP me, whether i am a person or a stone golem weighing 10000 lbs or an insubstantial ghost he can neither see nor touch, right?
What the AoO rule does is give him the OPPORTUNITY to stop me. if he can stop me, if he can attack and do enough damage, if he can tackle me with a grapple, and so on, then the AoO rule allows him that opportuinty.
The difference between AUTOMATICALLY STOPPING MY RUn and ALLOWING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO STOP MY RUN is apparently lost on some people, perhaps many people, but it does matter.
dcollins said:
We disagree greatly on that.
If i had a 5000 lb stone golem running down a corridor (customized stone golem since they normally do not run) and someone told me that their 3' tall gnome with a 5 strength and a sickle stopped the golem in his tracks and forced the golem to take 5' baby steps, my first response would be "you are crazy."
Wouldn't yours?
dcollins said:
Since i have played champions since the early days of 80s and since i have champions3-4-5 editions and some of second...
i can say that, unless i missed something, then at least since 3rd and definitely absolutely uneqivocably in champions 4th and 5th (which covers mid-80's to current) they had no such rule. you are simply wrong, or you are citing an earlier edition.
meanwhile, a lesson...
VtM had a rule for jams.
if you rolled a net botch on your attack roll you had jammed your gun.
Unfortunately, since they did not bother to take 3 second to think this thru (wondering if some posters here learned their game analysis from WW?) they would realize what they had just done.
The chance of getting a botch result on your to hit dice was INVERSELY proportional to your chance to hit the target.
So, it worked like this, if you shot at me and I dodged... you had a better chance of jamming your gun. if you shot at me and i did not dodge, you had a lower chance of jamming your gun. If you are fring at a close target, you have a lower chance of jamming your gun. if you are firing at a far target, you have a higher chance of jamming your gun.
The primary overriding factor in determining whether or not your gun jammed was how hard it was a shot to make. Even your own skill with firearms had little effect, all it provided was a bell curveism.
Now, just because they decided to publish a cockamamey poorly thought out rule that does nothing senseible, should we call it "not craxy?" Should we look to it for salvation and continue it?
i dont think so!
You might, but thats not my headache.
For my games, shooting a target at 100' is not more likely to cause a gun to jam than shooting at a target 20' away.
For my games, the gnome gets an OPPORTUNITY to do something to stop the charging stone golem of speed, but he does not get an "abstract" rule fiat to do so. (Though, if he could pick up a Fiat and throw it at the golem, it might stop him.)
For my games, "abstract" does not HAVE TO EQUAL "nonsensical" or "crazy."
ymmv and clearly does.
Voadam
Legend
Taking out AoO you have some options.
Some feats become superflous and some actions become easier. Also there will be fewer melee attacks possible in combat.
1 option is to take them out and not modify any of the other rules to compensate. Actions like grapple become less dangerous to attempt and spell casting can only be interrupted by readied attacks, ongoing damage, etc. This changes the flow of combat a little and makes things a little more cartoony (but arguably not as much as hit points already do). It can still work fine however.
2 is to take them out and modify the rules to get the same type of flow as having AoO in. Not allowed to do things when threatened, not allowed to run around, etc.
I don't have the 1e SW or CoC or SC but they sound like good places to look.
What you lose is some danger and some options to push on at a cost despite dangers.
Some feats become superflous and some actions become easier. Also there will be fewer melee attacks possible in combat.
1 option is to take them out and not modify any of the other rules to compensate. Actions like grapple become less dangerous to attempt and spell casting can only be interrupted by readied attacks, ongoing damage, etc. This changes the flow of combat a little and makes things a little more cartoony (but arguably not as much as hit points already do). It can still work fine however.
2 is to take them out and modify the rules to get the same type of flow as having AoO in. Not allowed to do things when threatened, not allowed to run around, etc.
I don't have the 1e SW or CoC or SC but they sound like good places to look.
What you lose is some danger and some options to push on at a cost despite dangers.
Similar Threads
