I do think our differences here are more down to communication problems than anything else, but I'm at a loss as to where the problem came in.
I can answer that.
You said:
their impact should be minimized as far as possible. So I actively don't want to add lots more cases where AoOs can be provoked, I don't want lots of feats added to trigger them and take advantage of them, and I don't want the designers exploring that "design space".
So while you can indeed make "common-sensical" arguments for allowing AoOs against helpless opponents, or with a spell, or with a ranged weapon, you're actually applying common sense to something that isn't actually sensible. And in doing so you're applying stress to one of the weak points in the combat engine. IMO, not a good idea.
To me this is a declaration in very strong terms that the whole premise of the discussion is a bad idea and that the conversation should be stopped. You flatly declare you don't wish to see designers exploring the design space around AoO. You flatly declare you find the whole notion of the AoO to be nonsense, poorly thought out, and badly designed. You feel and have stated the ideal design would be one that minimizes AoO's until they almost never come up except in those few cases you consider a necessary evil.
First, while everyone's sense of what makes play enjoyable is different, I disagree with all of that. I disagree with it to the point that I would say:
"I actively want to add cases where AoOs can be provoked. I want feats and combat maneuvers that leverage the AoO system and uses it as a resource, and I want to explore that design space.
You can indeed make common sense arguments for how the AoO should be applied in various cases, whether for allowing AoOs against helpless opponents, or with a spell, or with a ranged weapon. You're applying common sense to something that is actually sensible, and in doing so you're applying stress to one of the strong and robust points in the combat engine. Which is in my opinion a good idea."
Does that suggest to you that are differences are mere matters of miscommunication? Because I don't know how you can suggest that AoO's are a weak point in the system, and I can suggest that they are a strong point in the system, and you can conclude from that that we'd be in agreement if we were communicating more clearly.
And secondly, if that really is your opinion on the matter, I don't see how you have anything to say on the topic of improving the sensibility of AoOs other than, "You are doing it wrong." You've denied that there is a common sense approach here and seem reluctant to reveal whatever revelatory, counter-intuitive, or gnostic wisdom that you think we ought to be using to rule on game situations, nor are you actually suggesting fixes or alternative designs that we could apply. Presumably, based on what you've said, you don't feel those fixes exist. And quite frankly, suggesting that we widely leverage the Ready action - literally the weakest part of the whole 3e combat engine, one that tries to kludge fixes literally the weakest link in the system*, one that is so infamous that at least one person on the boards has in their signature something to the effect of if you are suggesting the Ready action as a fix for anything you've lost the argument - suggests to me that whatever your skill as a designer in other areas may be, you aren't likely to come up with those innovative designs in this area any time soon.
Is there any part of this "bottom line" of yours you think I'm failing to understand? Because if you really do have innovative designs that are less nonsensical than an AoO, I really would love to see your revelation. If you really have something to contribute, by all means do so. Otherwise all I'm hearing is that you think people talking about this area of the rules is badwrongfun.
*(The weakest link in the 3e combat system is that its trying to emulate simultaneous action with its opposite. The reason the AoO innovation is so strong is it actually provides for simultaneous action and quantifies the ability to act simultaneously as a resource to be used, thereby mitigating the problems with linearity. You can see the realization by the designers of just how strong an idea that this is by the introduction of the reaction move in 5e, which is apply the idea of a move to the idea of the AoO. This is one example of deliberately increasing the impact of the AoO system, add lots more cases where it comes up, adding lots of different ways to trigger or take advantage of them, and deeply exploring that design space. By contrast, the reason that the Ready action is actually a necessary evil is that it tries to fix the problem of lack of simultaneous action by spending a very valuable resource that can only be applied linearly. Good design probably minimizes the number of times a player would feel forced to take the ready action.)
