Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 3426821" data-attributes="member: 19857">A good game of what?&nbsp; I never ran D&amp;D with minis until 3e and my games were just fine.&nbsp; I happily run plenty of RPGs, including 3e D&amp;D, without minis.In games without minis combat tends to be more narrative than tactical - my players talk a lot more about what their characters are going to do and how they're going to do it.&nbsp; In games with minis, my players tend to just move their minis around and try to maximize their capabilities from the system.&nbsp; Both styles can be fun to play, but neither seems better than the other to me.Back to the original question - removing AoO will have a domino effect on a lot of things.&nbsp; If you're going to keep the tactical portion of the game, you have to decide how movement into and out of combat occur.&nbsp; Are characters forced to stop as soon as they are adjacent to an enemy?&nbsp; If not, does the enemy get some kind of free swing?&nbsp; How about when an attacker retreats from a combat they're engaged in?&nbsp; What about spellcasters standing right next to an opponent - does the opponent have to have a readied action if he wants to disrupt the spellcaster?&nbsp; Does he get a free swing?Back in the day we'd house rule a lot of that.&nbsp; The reason why the AoO rules exist is to codify a lot of things that were taken care of by house rules in previous editions OR were taken care of by people saying &quot;you can't do that&quot; (for those players who felt that if there wasn't a rule in the book for it, it couldn't be done).&nbsp; If you remove AoO rules, be prepared for a lot of situations to come up where you look at what a player is trying to do and it will be something that your knee-jerk response is &quot;you can't do that!&quot; or &quot;that shouldn't be that easy!&quot;&nbsp; One of the big design concerns for 3e over previous editions was to try to get rid of the situations where people would say &quot;you can't do that&quot; and instead give a mechanism for them and an opportunity for players to succeed or fail at them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 3426821, member: 19857"] A good game of what? I never ran D&D with minis until 3e and my games were just fine. I happily run plenty of RPGs, including 3e D&D, without minis. In games without minis combat tends to be more narrative than tactical - my players talk a lot more about what their characters are going to do and how they're going to do it. In games with minis, my players tend to just move their minis around and try to maximize their capabilities from the system. Both styles can be fun to play, but neither seems better than the other to me. Back to the original question - removing AoO will have a domino effect on a lot of things. If you're going to keep the tactical portion of the game, you have to decide how movement into and out of combat occur. Are characters forced to stop as soon as they are adjacent to an enemy? If not, does the enemy get some kind of free swing? How about when an attacker retreats from a combat they're engaged in? What about spellcasters standing right next to an opponent - does the opponent have to have a readied action if he wants to disrupt the spellcaster? Does he get a free swing? Back in the day we'd house rule a lot of that. The reason why the AoO rules exist is to codify a lot of things that were taken care of by house rules in previous editions OR were taken care of by people saying "you can't do that" (for those players who felt that if there wasn't a rule in the book for it, it couldn't be done). If you remove AoO rules, be prepared for a lot of situations to come up where you look at what a player is trying to do and it will be something that your knee-jerk response is "you can't do that!" or "that shouldn't be that easy!" One of the big design concerns for 3e over previous editions was to try to get rid of the situations where people would say "you can't do that" and instead give a mechanism for them and an opportunity for players to succeed or fail at them. [/QUOTE]

Verification