Removing AoO from D&D

dlurking said:


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

I am quite confused now.

if you had read my post, you should have realize i was specifically talking about the "stop" vs "has an opportunity to stop" issue for no-AOO vs AOO situations.

Which would make your counterpoint here somewhat non-sensical since thats exactly what i am referring to. Thegnome should get a chance to STOP the golem, and whether or not he succeeds depends on whether or not he CAN.

This is in opposition to the situation you seem to like, that the golem is stopped whether he wishes to or not by the presence of the gnome irregardless of whether the gnome can actually hurt the golem or do anything with his AoO.

that seems confusing.

I will restate my position...

1. An AoO allows a character an EXTRA opportunity to take advanateg of opponet actions deemed "bad to do." The key words are EXTRA and OPPORTUNITY.

2. by making it EXTRA, there is an actual disincentive. If you do these bad things, the enemy gets MORE than he would normally.

3. By making it an opportunity and not an automatic "you are only allowed to make 5' steps in threatened areas", as some are suggesting as "more realistic", you still keep it to sensible reaches... you are given the *opportunity* so make of it what you will.

If this all strikes you as crazy, or the gnome and golem example fiat makes sense to you, we share different realities.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Removing AoO from D&D

Petrosian said:
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?

Your example is quite contrived and you probably realize that. The base rules and situations are not meant to simulate 10,000 lb opponents; the standard situation is man-versus-man-sized creatures.

If you must, to the proposed rule, just add a clause that 2-size differences avoids the "block". Done.

AOOs, while a useful rule, do (a) slow the game down, (b) interrupt the cinematic flow of players taking their round of actions, and (c) are very confusing to beginning- and even journeyman players. It's insincere to act like they're a cure-all mechanic with no downsides whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Removing AoO from D&D

[/B][/QUOTE]

dcollins said:


Your example is quite contrived and you probably realize that. The base rules and situations are not meant to simulate 10,000 lb opponents; the standard situation is man-versus-man-sized creatures.

The dnd game i paid money for handles size differences quite well.

Sorry yours was not as good.

have you sought a refund?

dcollins said:

If you must, to the proposed rule, just add a clause that 2-size differences avoids the "block". Done.
Sigh...

some times people just do not get it.

the point of the example was not 'see!!! see!!! size does matter. The point was that automatic rule fiats that ignore the actual events are silly!!!" OK perhaps it was crazy.

if the gnome could manage to trip the golem, if he has a real high bab or something and he rolls a 20 and the golem rolls a 1, or whatever needs to happen, then he SHOULD get the chance.

Its just as ridiculous to say "BY FIAT... thou shalt not do anything to the golem..." as it is to say "thou shalt not run past a gnome..."

Its actually a fairly simple gaming principle... when you wat to see if someone can do something, let them try....

if i wanted a game of absolute results no matter what, a fiat for every occasion, i might try chutes and ladders or candyland.

dcollins said:


AOOs, while a useful rule, do (a) slow the game down, (b) interrupt the cinematic flow of players taking their round of actions, and (c) are very confusing to beginning- and even journeyman players. It's insincere to act like they're a cure-all mechanic with no downsides whatsoever.

I have never pretended they were some panacea. I have been noticing the, to my mind, severe flaws with a proposed set.

In my experience, AoOs come into play rarely. Most of the time, the potential victim tries to avoid them rather than take them.

A mage will attempt combat casting rather than suffer AoOs. he may even try a 5' step.

A guy who needs to end run around someone will often work tumble skills or mobility feats or such into his skill set.

Guys needing to drink a potion in a fight are not gonna risk losing it to an AoO sunder/so and will step back.

AoOs only normally occur when there is no option and it is desperate. Those situations come up not all that often in my game.

When they do it is resolved as quickly as "make an evade roll" whack thud... since its pretty much just an attack, no moves or anything, it is very quick.

My games lose far more time to READY ACTIONS than to AoOs. Should i decide to toss those in order to speed things up? Saving throws take a lot longer too, especially if you consider how quickly combats would be over with no saves made. Should they be tossed?

As for the cinematic flow of uninterrupted actions.... i do not know what films you have watched, but its not uncommon for heroes to get interrupted in their actions. How many times have we seen hero start towards the big bad only to see minions ATTEMPT to stop his progress? Sometimes they stop him, sometimes they dont and he just casually bats tem aside. (So much for the IT SHALT BE DONE BY FIAT crowds.)

its not cinematic to FIAT that actions cannot be done.

Are READY ACTIONS equally anti-cinematic? You looking to ban those horrid beasties too?

As for confusion about the rules, i remain completely convinced that no rule set could ever be written, and if it could it shouldn't, that wont confuse some people about some things. (post after post on this very thread convinces me even more.) i would have serious doubts as to its usefulness.

looking over the FAQ, looking over the threads which keep appearing, etc... i am very glad that wotc did not decide to axe those rules some people might find confusing. (Tho, had theym the PHB at 32 pamphlet sized pages would probably have been cheaper.)

look, its quite simple, you clealry have a problem with AoOs and no matter how poorly thought out your BY FIAT THOU SHALT NOT proposal seems to me, the rub is that if it is what you want to have happen in your games then by all means its the answer for you. (The more you post, the more i do think it is a perfect mesh of system and player for you.)

So, by all means enjoy your games, unless you have a rule that says you must or must not enjoy your games in which case you should follow that absolute rule absolutely.

good night and god bless
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Removing AoO from D&D

Petrosian said:
look, its quite simple, you clealry have a problem with AoOs and no matter how poorly thought out your BY FIAT THOU SHALT NOT proposal seems to me, the rub is that if it is what you want to have happen in your games then by all means its the answer for you. (The more you post, the more i do think it is a perfect mesh of system and player for you.)

I invite you to return to the first page of this thread and read my first post from 11-05-2002 08:49 PM, in which I defended AOOs as a proper streamlining of certain previous rules. The main issue in this thread is the distinguished poster's inflexible unwillingness to concede that there are both advantages and disadvantages to AOOs (and, yes, ready actions as well), or that there is a long history of fun RPGs that did without any such mechanics.
 


Again, why is this NOT in the house rules section? I mean, it's not like we just meandered over to this subject from a rules question or clarification, this whole topic is all about chaning the rules. That's a house rule. Why is it still here?
 

Remove ads

Top