Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rhenny" data-source="post: 5945613" data-attributes="member: 18333">My biggest problem with AoO is that once players and monsters expect that they'll happen, movement options tend to become more limited.&nbsp;&nbsp; In my 3e and 4e games, players tended to engage and stick to it.&nbsp; They rarely make any decisions to disengage or try to block other opponents, etc. because most of the time they fear taking AoO.&nbsp; Once, a wizard decided to cast shield and run through 4 foes to get to an object the group needed.&nbsp; He was only hit once.&nbsp; I applauded his maneuver, but it was an isolated experience.Another problem with AoO is for the DM and the player.&nbsp; Often, as DM, I find it hard to decide if a monster would rush to attack the wizard or the guy who is shooting arrows at it if the monster knows that it will have to cross through one or more threatened areas.&nbsp; An intelligent foe needs to calculate the cost/benefit of such an action, which takes time and brain-power.&nbsp; Even animals understand the threat that other humanoids with weapons pose to them, so they too may be struck with a moment of indecision.&nbsp; The indecision is both in game (as the PC or monster) and out of game (as the player or DM has to make the decision).&nbsp; Sometimes these decisions exhaust me, and they always make the turn last longer.The more I play without AoO, the more I tend to like it.&nbsp;&nbsp; The keys to making it work are the following:1) Assume that adventurers and monsters have enough combat training or experience to know when and how to move in threatened areas.2) Realize that both sides are bound by the same rules, so it is fair.3) Utilize other abilities (defender, hold the line, ray of frost, grapple/restrain), attacks, reactions/readied actions, positioning, terrain (choke points and obstacles), etc.Of course, there should be an official way to add AoO if a group wants them, so WotC needs to decide on an official mechanic for this option.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rhenny, post: 5945613, member: 18333"] My biggest problem with AoO is that once players and monsters expect that they'll happen, movement options tend to become more limited. In my 3e and 4e games, players tended to engage and stick to it. They rarely make any decisions to disengage or try to block other opponents, etc. because most of the time they fear taking AoO. Once, a wizard decided to cast shield and run through 4 foes to get to an object the group needed. He was only hit once. I applauded his maneuver, but it was an isolated experience. Another problem with AoO is for the DM and the player. Often, as DM, I find it hard to decide if a monster would rush to attack the wizard or the guy who is shooting arrows at it if the monster knows that it will have to cross through one or more threatened areas. An intelligent foe needs to calculate the cost/benefit of such an action, which takes time and brain-power. Even animals understand the threat that other humanoids with weapons pose to them, so they too may be struck with a moment of indecision. The indecision is both in game (as the PC or monster) and out of game (as the player or DM has to make the decision). Sometimes these decisions exhaust me, and they always make the turn last longer. The more I play without AoO, the more I tend to like it. The keys to making it work are the following: 1) Assume that adventurers and monsters have enough combat training or experience to know when and how to move in threatened areas. 2) Realize that both sides are bound by the same rules, so it is fair. 3) Utilize other abilities (defender, hold the line, ray of frost, grapple/restrain), attacks, reactions/readied actions, positioning, terrain (choke points and obstacles), etc. Of course, there should be an official way to add AoO if a group wants them, so WotC needs to decide on an official mechanic for this option. [/QUOTE]

Verification