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

[Geoff Watson]

You could go back to 1e and rule that any action that would provoke an AoO is not allowed.

Geoff.

 

[Ranger REG]

Why do AoO's exist?

To let you know you cannot simply pass/slip by a front-line fighter to get to a rear-line wizard without consequence, especially in a corridor just 10 feet wide.

 

[Dracandross]

Using this moment to insert a pet idea of my own ...

As an alternative, how about a rule that an AOO costs your next attack?
That is, if an AOO is taken, the next action taken by the attacker must
be a attack or a full attack action, with the AOO costing the first attack
of the action? (This makes iterative attack abilities, including flurry-of-blows,
very valuable.)

Well it's kinda stupid, why would you take AoO unless its provoked by spellcasting (mostly you cant kill one with AoO or they wouldnt try that maneuver anyway. Then AoO should have considerable +hit modifier at least to make it somewhat usable option.

Also 1 round is 6 seconds, in which you have time to land more than 1 blow. If opponent drops his sword and starts to chant spell or just runs past you why you wouldnt be able to whack him like hell while he has nothing to fend off your attacks. Just try it hold stick in your hand and your friend tries to hit you and then drop it and see how many more hits you get. Not that its superrealistic but it really fixes some problems of initiative. Even as its easy to avoid AoOs with feats but that makes it costy.

-Dracandross

 

[Jeff Wilder]

From a game-design standpoint, AoOs exist for two reasons. First, they help simulate the "it's dangerous to cast spells in melee" aspect of previous editions of the game. Second, they add an incredible amount to the tactical fabric of large melees.

The first is not that big a deal, IMO. Most wizards are in danger enough if they're within reach of an opponent. The AoO makes them marginally safer and more effective, but only marginally.

The second is a much bigger deal, IMO ... so much so that I'd suggest simply dropping the use of miniatures for tactical play, if you're going to drop AoOs.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The original d20StarWars didn't have AoO and worked fine. Dozens of RPGs have existed without AoO and worked fine.

Star Wars was primarily a missile-based game, and, like most RPGs without AoOs, didn't have characters as fragile as D&Ds wizards.

It's true you could substitute rules for AoOs, but why bother? Once learned, AoO rules are easy and quick to use. There's that learning curve everyone seems to have -- almost always surmounted by the "AoOs are provoked by leaving a square" -- but it's a small price to pay for the tactical interest AoOs add, IMO.

 

[Stormrunner]

"no AoOs" means reach weapons get nerfed big time.

Suppose I have a longspear and you have a shortsword and are standing 20' away from me. In real life, if you try to run up to me and stab with your sword, I will probably get at least one chance to poke you with my spear before you can get close enough, simply because my weapon is longer. In 3.5 terms you are provoking an AoO by movement.

If the DM says "no movement AoOs", you can run right up to me and stab me and there's nothing I can do about it. Furthermore, now you're too close for me to counter-attack, unless I move away before attacking. SO the guy with the longer weapon can do nothing to fend off the dude with the short weapon, and short-weapon-dude can force long-weapon-guy to constantly retreat. Pike hedgehogs and similar real-world-effective formations are useless. It starts to feel very unrealistic, and I can say from experience it's really frustrating to lose a character to an enemy who, with a shorter weapon but 1-point-better initiative, charges across the entire width of the room and kills your PC while your character stands there unable to defend herself at all, despite having a reach weapon in hand, because "it's not her turn yet".

 

[Plane Sailing]

Star Wars was primarily a missile-based game, and, like most RPGs without AoOs, didn't have characters as fragile as D&Ds wizards.

It's true you could substitute rules for AoOs, but why bother? Once learned, AoO rules are easy and quick to use. There's that learning curve everyone seems to have -- almost always surmounted by the "AoOs are provoked by leaving a square" -- but it's a small price to pay for the tactical interest AoOs add, IMO.

I personally don't find AoO add anything useful to the game. I prefer the various mechanics that other RPGs have come up with to handle restricting actions in certain circumstances. Fragility of wizards doesn't come into it - I don't think I've ever *seen* a wizard taking an AoO between 5ft step and cast or concentration check to cast without causing an AoO. Almost all AoO in D&D that I've seen have been movement related ones; only a tiny proportion have been provoked through other means. All RPGs have to deal with the question of 'why can't I just run straight past the guard' in one way or another.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

"no AoOs" means reach weapons get nerfed big time.

Only if you make the assumption that someone removing AoOs just throws them away and doesn't consider implementing a simpler alternative. That is a bit of a straw man argument, because I don't think anyone would seriously consider doing that.

One obvious potential alternative is that you can only move through threatened areas via a series of 5ft steps, which would give spears a lot more of their historical effectiveness in combat than AoO rules do (where you suck up the chance of taking 1d8 damage from the spear and are then in exactly the same situation you describe as being bad... in my rule above it would be very difficult for the shortsword wielder to actually close with the spear guy as long as the spear guy has room to manouvre - much more like my limited real world experience of trying to take on someone with a spear length weapon when armed with a shortsword length weapon - it was almost impossible to close with them.

Cheers

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Fragility of wizards doesn't come into it - I don't think I've ever *seen* a wizard taking an AoO between 5ft step and cast or concentration check to cast without causing an AoO. Almost all AoO in D&D that I've seen have been movement related ones; only a tiny proportion have been provoked through other means.

I was actually talking about movement-related ones. As fragile as arcanists are in D&D, the game needs AoOs (or some other system, and, as I said, why bother) to discourage people from zipping right through the front ranks and geekin' the mage.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Only if you make the assumption that someone removing AoOs just throws them away and doesn't consider implementing a simpler alternative. That is a bit of a straw man argument, because I don't think anyone would seriously consider doing that.

You'd be mistaken, because "just get rid of them" is a seemingly common variant on the AoO rules.

Geoff.