Some newbie DM combat and miniatures questions...
- Thread starter nethervoid
- Start date
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
So - you'd find it perfectly acceptable for someone to stop fighting and pick his nose in the middle of combat with no appreciable penalty?nethervoid said:
Or, perhaps more importantly simply run past his foe to stab the juicy mage at the back. Or simply drop his weapons and flee, with no chance of being cut down.
Without AoOs, it's impossible to maintain any form of battle line in D&D. As others have said, the main point of an AoO is to tell people what NOT to do in a roiling melee.
I don't think you understand what AoOs actually do. Your ruling suggest that having two people stand directly on opposite sides of you makes one of them easier to hit, and if one of them stops fighting and picks his nose he's no easier to hit than when he was concentrating on combat...
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Just to point out - in 2e (and perhaps in 1e), when you fled a combat, those you were fighting got free swings at you when you ran. AoOs DID exist in 2e.Man in the Funny Hat said:
nethervoid
First Post
A lot of these posts are really good, explaining why AoOs make combat sense, specifically to control real estate in combat. The one thing that still doesn't make sense, and probably will never (some things just can't be perfected), is how a person fighting someone else directly in front of them, swinging and parrying blows, can take a free shot at the guy simply moving past him. That really doesn't make sense. The guy moving past seems to have more of an option to get a pot shot in than the guy in pitched combat, deflecting blows from an enemy. If he stops to take a pot shot, wouldn't the guy he was originally fighting be able to get a really juicy attack while the guy is trying to hit the character passing by? If the guy passing by is at a 90 degree right angle to the original combat, the AoO guy is going to have to turn his head perpendicular away from the original combat, opening himself up bigtime to a free, unblocked attack.
Still, I like how you guys have explained AoOs and miniatures. Thanks! I wish the books would explain them more like this. (maybe they do - haven't gotten all the way through them yet) It makes a lot more sense to have AoOs. I'll play for a few sessions at least before I mess with them.
In retrospect, I think I really don't care as much about the complexity except for the fact that the more complicated the combat rules, the more strictly it seems they should adhere to real-life combat and physics, etc. When what is exactly happening is more open to speculation, it's easier to let it slide; while on the other hand, when things are specifically tied to exact bonuses, distances, and angles, the rule is easier to hold up to physics and gravity, etc, like "wait a minute - is that even possible?"
Still, I like how you guys have explained AoOs and miniatures. Thanks! I wish the books would explain them more like this. (maybe they do - haven't gotten all the way through them yet) It makes a lot more sense to have AoOs. I'll play for a few sessions at least before I mess with them.
In retrospect, I think I really don't care as much about the complexity except for the fact that the more complicated the combat rules, the more strictly it seems they should adhere to real-life combat and physics, etc. When what is exactly happening is more open to speculation, it's easier to let it slide; while on the other hand, when things are specifically tied to exact bonuses, distances, and angles, the rule is easier to hold up to physics and gravity, etc, like "wait a minute - is that even possible?"
I must strongly agree with some of the advice given already.. most especially,
1. pretend it is a new game, and forget what you "know" about how it should play
2. Try it as written and make sure you fully understand how it all fits together before making changes. Your comments about AoOs sound like you do NOT yet fully grasp them.
1. pretend it is a new game, and forget what you "know" about how it should play
2. Try it as written and make sure you fully understand how it all fits together before making changes. Your comments about AoOs sound like you do NOT yet fully grasp them.
nethervoid said:
See, this is one of the areas where "old style" and "new style" don't necessarily match up. 3.x assumes NO facing. There is no "in front of" or "in back of". That's why it takes 2 creatures on opposite sides of a creature to flank it; 3.x assumes that creatures are always shifting in their "Combat area" to keep all threats covered. Instead of using miniatures, you may want to use circular tokens of some kind (to remind you that ALL sides are "front" in theory); the rules assume the use of markers... making those markers more than coins or some other object is purely up to you.
Once you run the game a few times "as is", if you find you still want to use some kind of facing, you may want to look at Unearthed Arcana.. it talks about adjusting the core rules to incorporate facing.
Aaron L
Hero
Dont worry about Attacks of Oppurtunity. Theyre simple and logical, and youll have them down before the end of your first game. My group went from 1E to 3E the day the handbook came out and had them down in 20 minutes or less. And you dont need miniatures in any way, shape, or form. Just use a peice of graph paper and mark positions and movement on it.
DarrenGMiller
First Post
wedgeski said:
I agree. I came over to 3.x from 1E and hated AoO's. I didn't use minis for a long time. I tried to use custom rules and optional rules and anything and everything to fix it. Then, I went back and reread the entire section on combat. SLOWLY. REPEATEDLY. I decided to try it with minis by the RAW. I had some new players who were into minis and tactics and they encouraged it. In the end, the game has become more fun. I don't remember every rule exactly each time, but I can ask someone or look it up if I am unsure. It is not as difficult as it seems and is fun enough that the fun makes up for any additional complexity (minis actually make combat easier). One of my long-standing players (who came over from Vampire and 2E) actually quit because he didn't like the tactical focus of true 3.5E combat. He didn't like using minis and thought the combat system as written was "unrealistic." Just shows it is not for everyone.
DM
Silveras said:
Excellently stated - 3.x's "quantum facing" can take a bit of adjusting to. Also, bear in mind that, assuming two adjacent combatants of Medium size, they don't fill up their respective 5' squares entirely. If you mark off a 5' square on the floor (perhaps not literally - a large tiled kitchen is handy for this purpose), you'll see that's a fairly large area. If you were to have a sword in your hand and swing it around, though, that area tends to shrink a bit. The 5' square is a convenient abstraction. At any point in each round, the two combatants might be face to face with their swords locked together, one lunging after another, backing away to provide enough room for a wide swing, making rude comments about their foes mother etc. etc. At least for myself, keeping the fact that these are simply abstractions meant to streamline the adjutication of rules makes it easier for me to fill in the gaps with something much more descriptive.
When the individual moving through the threatened area moves in such a way as to provoke an AoO, his defenses are down. He's more concerned with moving than with defending himself while he moves - thus, an AoO is provoked. There are ways to move (Tumble, for instance) without provoking said AoO. Following my earlier example, you may have run past me heedlessly at a moment where my enemy had been thrown off balance, or stepped back or had his weapon in a guarded position, allowing me just enough time for a quick sword thrust/eye poke/slap/pinch/bite/etc. whatever as you ran by. Like others have already said, it helps to ensure that all parties involved have as clear of a shared view of the scenario as possible, and that combatants know that there are consequences for their actions. The comment above stating that AoOs let you know what *not* to do in combat is an excellent one.
Last edited:
