D&D 3E/3.5 Why do AoO's exist? Would it wreck 3.5 if I removed them from my game?

[Emirikol]

Why do AoO's exist? Would it wreck 3.5 if I removed them from my game? Are there classes that depend upon it?

jh

 

[jensun]

Why do AoO's exist? Would it wreck 3.5 if I removed them from my game? Are there classes that depend upon it?

jh

I dont recall any classes which have classabilities that rely on or use AoO particularly.

However, there are a lot of feats that do just that.

I think removing them will seriously crimp the already limited options available to melee based PC's. Especially the fighters whose class ability essentially devolves to a bunch of feats.

 

[Bacris]

You'd be adding yet another feather in the cap of casters vs non-casters in terms of power, because now they can't just run up in the middle of a group of enemies and do a burst effect without concern about getting attacked / interrupted.

 

[Henry]

Thr following are affected by Op-attacks, or a lack of them:

Mobility feat
Spring attack feat
Combat reflexes feat
the tumble skill
Dervish Prestige Class from Complete Warrior
Elocator prestige class from Expanded Psionics Handbook

This is for sure only a partial list, but I'm sure others could help fill this in. It's not that you can't, but you need to be sure you have all your bases covered if you do remove or alter it.

In fact, there may well be some House Rules Forum threads on this very subject.

 

[Emirikol]

How heavily would rogues be affected?

jh

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

They would benefit form this more than lose out, as they can move to flank with impunity, giving them more sneak attack options, and freeing up skill points in tumble

It would also alter some monsters, as I think part of thier CR is based on the fact they have reach, and reach gives more AoO's

Feegle Out

 

[Rhun]

I don't think it would be game breaking. I mean, I played 1E/2E without AoOs. So, I think it could be easily house ruled without much work. With that said, though, I like the depth and the "tactical" feel it gives to combat. A player has to think on his characters actions, and if he acts brashly could suffer the consequences.

 

[the_mighty_agrippa]

AOOs are designed to keep people from doing stupid things. A ban would render a lot of feats worthless but it is not game-breaking. I think PCs benefit more from the AOO rules than the DM.

 

[Nail]

Why do AoO's exist?

To reward smart movement, and to provide several interesting tactical options in combat.

Would it wreck 3.5 if I removed them from my game?

3.5e is not affected by how you run your game.

Are there classes that depend upon it?

Yep. Every class that engages in combat.

 

[maggot]

I've played a game without AoO, and flanking was trivially easy helping out rogues a good deal (allowing effectively automatic tumble success at full speed). And reach weapons and large creatures were rendered far less effective.

In general, combat felt less "real". People could run between two ogres with 5' space between them, fighters could always get a flank for an extra +2 to hit, there was almost no way to prevent rogues from flanking.

This was a low level game so everyone had only one attack and using a move to get a flank was extremely common. Maybe at higher levels it wouldn't be so strange because you would be giving up something (extra attacks) to flank.