Removing AoO from D&D

[IceBear]

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.

That actually came up in my very first game. I described AoO as occurring because you're full attention is being applied to an enemy and thus he takes advantage of this. When the mage decided to run behind the ogre fighting the fighter and I went to take an AoO against the mage, all of the PCs argued that the ogre should suffer an AoO against the fighter. While this isn't literally in the rules, we believe that this is in keeping with the spirit of the AoO rules, so I would allow an AoO here. We tend to use the AoO rules as a guideline but to use common sense where someone would suffer one or not.

IceBear

 

[Shard O'Glase]

That actually came up in my very first game. I described AoO as occurring because you're full attention is being applied to an enemy and thus he takes advantage of this. When the mage decided to run behind the ogre fighting the fighter and I went to take an AoO against the mage, all of the PCs argued that the ogre should suffer an AoO against the fighter. While this isn't literally in the rules, we believe that this is in keeping with the spirit of the AoO rules, so I would allow an AoO here. We tend to use the AoO rules as a guideline but to use common sense where someone would suffer one or not.

IceBear

I'm actually happier if the rules for AoO are more guidlines, with a few examples, than how they are phrased as absolutes. So i like how you are running it I guess. Me I use the concept of AoO as a guidleine as well.

and I also let people avoid AoO at the cost of possible actions. The most common way is a readied action, i wait until X looks too occupied to notice then I run past. It might be this round, it might be 2 rounds from now, it might be never, but this allows non-tumblers to get by without provoking an AoO.(I give people spot checks,(DC is targets BAB+10, they get a +2 circumstance bonus to the DC if they succeed at a bluff check if the person is trying to fake being occupied or asleep or whatever, and if the target has combat reflexes I add+5 to the dc to notice)

 

[dlurking]

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?

nope.

now, if the stone golem wanted to run by the little gnome and not get hit by the gnome, he'd have to slow down to parry some blows, otherwise the little gnome is going to hit him.

there's that AoO.

it doesn't matter that the 5000 lb stone golem doesn't care if the little gnome does his 1d6 -2 damage, if he doesn't slow down, he's going to take it.

-dlurking

 

[Voadam]

That actually came up in my very first game. I described AoO as occurring because you're full attention is being applied to an enemy and thus he takes advantage of this. When the mage decided to run behind the ogre fighting the fighter and I went to take an AoO against the mage, all of the PCs argued that the ogre should suffer an AoO against the fighter. While this isn't literally in the rules, we believe that this is in keeping with the spirit of the AoO rules, so I would allow an AoO here. We tend to use the AoO rules as a guideline but to use common sense where someone would suffer one or not.

IceBear

So making an attack provokes an AoO from any non-targets who threaten the attacker in your game? That seems fine if applied all the time, it could even lead to a neat chain reaction of AoOs. It will make swarming a foe much more effective tactically and make defending against a group more dangerours.

 

[Mistwell]

Why is this not in the house-rules forum?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

So making an attack provokes an AoO from any non-targets who threaten the attacker in your game? That seems fine if applied all the time, it could even lead to a neat chain reaction of AoOs. It will make swarming a foe much more effective tactically and make defending against a group more dangerours.

I'm not sure how he does it, but for me I saw your standard attack rate as the number of attacks you could make safely. Once you exceed that by taking an AoO, foes that are threatening you(though threatening you was a narrower application in this case, my rule is more engaged with you than merely threatening you) see an opening. Though this can still lead to a chain of AoO.

 

[IceBear]

So making an attack provokes an AoO from any non-targets who threaten the attacker in your game? That seems fine if applied all the time, it could even lead to a neat chain reaction of AoOs. It will make swarming a foe much more effective tactically and make defending against a group more dangerours.

No, that's where the common sense part comes in, and we do try to be fair about it. In the example I gave, the only way the ogre could have attacked the mage was to turn completely around (I know, no facing in 3E, but you know what I mean) and thus open himself up to the fighter. If the mage had moved in such a way that the ogre could have attacked him without turning then there would not have been an AoO. In all honesty, it hasn't come up often that making an attack would open you up to an AoO.

Edit: Just saw Shard's rule. I might use that as it makes the rule more concrete and less arbitrary.

IceBear

 

[Shard O'Glase]

OT but after reading Icebears post I was curious has anyone implemented any facing rules. I did because things felt imcomplete without them. +1to hit from behind,+5 to the Dc of spot checks, I wanted to start small and I haven't upped them past this since I'm fairlry satisfied.

 

[IceBear]

I haven't created any facing rules. Like I said, the ogre was fighting a fighter standing in the square directly in "front" of it. The mage then moved through the squares opposite the fighter. Common sense dictates that the ogre had to turn away from the fighter to take the "free" attack against the mage. It was this "turning away" that we decided causes the AoO. If the mage had moved through the squares in "front" of the ogre, I could see the ogre attacking the mage while still keeping most of it's defensive focus on the fighter to not suffer an AoO.

IceBear

 

[AuraSeer]

now, if the stone golem wanted to run by the little gnome and not get hit by the gnome, he'd have to slow down to parry some blows, otherwise the little gnome is going to hit him.

there's that AoO.

it doesn't matter that the 5000 lb stone golem doesn't care if the little gnome does his 1d6 -2 damage, if he doesn't slow down, he's going to take it.

Yes, that's the way it works in the normal rules. I think you're missing the point, though.

In the proposed system, it's impossible to do anything that would provoke AoO. That means it's not possible to move through a threatened space. The golem would be forced to stop in front of the gnome, and take multiple rounds to edge his way past. Even if the golem were ordered to ignore all foes and proceed down the corridor, some law of physics would take over and prevent it from doing so.

This nonsensical situation hilights a flaw in the proposed ruleset. That's what Petrosian is pointing out.