Quote from: jibbajibba;576011Lets be honest these do sound a bit like AoO.......

Anecdote: Last year I DMed a S&W game for a few gamers who never played old school D&D. One of them was a friend who was involved with the German edition of D&D3 (and 4e).

When I used the rule you cited he exclaimed, "cool, old D&D had Attacks of Opportunity?"

Quote from: StormBringer;575968How about you begin just a single discussion in good faith, and I might consider retracting my statements.

I don't understand where you're coming from here.  This is a thread that I didn't start.  My first post was to point out that because 3x is very different from 1st edition and 2nd edition, the fact that people don't understand the differences is largely irrelevant.  Understanding the differences is only important if you see them as 'related'; not if you consider them completely separate and having as little in common with each other as they do with GURPS.  

Justin Alexander than pointed out that 1st edition has 'AoO-like mechanics'.  You said that they weren't similar...

Quote from: StormBringer;575943We've been over this.  No, they weren't "AoO-like".  If you turned your back and ran, the attacker would get a free attack.  That's it.  That's all it was.

Now, it seems to me that you're creating a distinction between an Attack of Opportunity and a 'Free Attack'.  

I pointed out that an Attack of Opportunity is defined as a free attack:

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575945An Attack of Opportunity is a 'free attack'.  

It's a 'free attack' because your opponent does something that doesn't let them defend themselves.  Like casting a spell or turning their back on the enemy.
 

You said I was wrong, so I quoted the SRD:

Quote from: SRDAttacks Of Opportunity
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.

So, how am I not beginning a discussion in good faith here?  

This is a conversation.  I happened to agree with Justin Alexander's point, and you disagreed.  I presented some evidence in support of his position and you've started whining like a baby.  

The mature response is to either admit that you were wrong in this particular case or present evidence to the contrary.  

But if you don't want to be mature, that's okay, too.  I can just go back to calling you a dumbass when you say something stupid, rather than trying to have a discussion where both sides can learn something.  

For what it's worth, I always used something like an Attack of Opportunity if the orcs (or whatever) tried to run past the fighter to engage the wizard in 2nd edition.  It's been long enough that I don't remember WHY I did it, but if it wasn't in the rules, it seemed pretty reasonable.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;576093I pointed out that an Attack of Opportunity is defined as a free attack:

It's not defined as a free attack, it's described as a free attack.  Two things that are defined the same way are considered equal, two things that are described the same way might not be similar at all, depending on the thing itself.

Attack of Opportunity is a more or less strictly defined term of art in 3.x.  'Free attack' is one way to describe it.  There are no matching mechanics in AD&D, and only a very few situations that are vaguely similar.  Trying to equate the two serves only one purpose; the pathological need to make 3.x and AD&D more alike.

If Uncle Gary wanted AD&D to have Attacks of Opportunity, guess what?  Wargames already had that, they are called "zones of control", and they are almost exactly like AoO:

Quote

• Zone of Control (ZOC). Another one of the basic rules in gaming. Zone of Control     represents the six hexes surrounding a unit that the unit controls. This allows some units     to spread out as they would to cover more territory while concentrating others for a     crucial attack. Zones of Control represent everything from the physical presence of parts     of the unit in that hex to the ability of the unit itself to cover those controlled hexes     with fire or to shift its weight in that direction should an enemy unit approach. Zones of     Control may have many different effects on movement and combat to reflect the variables in     the Zone of Control's usage for a particular game. The most common effects on movement of     a Zone of Control are:
  
  • Locking; units must stop immediately upon entering an enemy-controlled hex and         may leave only as a result of combat (either the enemy unit is destroyed or the friendly         unit is attacked and forced back).
    
  • Rigid (often called "Locking" ZOC); units must stop upon entering an         enemy-controlled hex and may leave only at the beginning of a movement phase (usually it         is not permissible to move directly from one enemy Zone of Control to another).
    
  • Elastic (often called "Fluid" ZOC); units may enter and leave Zones
    
  • of Control by paying movement point costs just as they would for entering different         kinds of terrain.
  • Open; Zones of Control have no effect on movement.
   
  

The various effects of Zones of Control on combat are as follows:
      

• Active; this requires every unit in a Zone of Control to attack enemy units       adjacent to them during a combat phase.
  
• Inactive; Units do not have to attack.
  

There are also effects upon supply and the ability to retreat as a result of combat.
      

• An interdicting Zone of Control prohibits the line of hexes for retreat or supply       from being traced through all enemy-controlled hexes, even if a friendly unit is occupying       that hex.
  
• A suppressive Zone of Control prohibits the passage of supply or retreating units       through a Zone of Control hex unless that hex is occupied by a friendly unit.
  
• Permissive Zone of Control does not affect the path of supply or retreat in any       way.
  

For example, a blocking, active, interdicting Zone of Control is the most restrictive   kind. Units must stop upon entering, may not leave except as a result of combat and must   attack any enemy units that are in their Zone of Control. In addition, units may not   retreat into one of these hexes if forced to as a result of combat and  may not trace   any supply through them. On the other hand, a unit with an open, inactive, permissive Zone   of Control in effect has no Zone of Control.
 

Oh, look, it's defined as a "basic rule of gaming", so I guess that means 3.x is a wargame, using your logic.

Look, words have meanings.  You don't get to redefine them on the fly just to support your argument.  Especially when those words are part of a jargon.  AD&D did not have "AoO-like mechanics".  There are perhaps three situations where an extra attack is warranted, and they are very specific.  Being avid wargamers, Uncle Gary and Uncle Dave could have easily implemented zones of control; they were virtually the backbone of the games they were used to.  But they didn't implement zones of control.  It's up to you to figure out why.

From now on, if you want to engage a discussion in good faith, don't try to sneak in a veiled agenda.  And if you don't know the background of the topic under discussion, it is usually best to ask questions rather than make positive assertions.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;576093This is a conversation.  I happened to agree  with Justin Alexander's point, and you disagreed.  I presented some  evidence in support of his position and you've started whining like a  baby.

You didn't present any evidence, because you don't have any.  All you have is hearsay from other people.  That isn't evidence, that is you pushing an agenda.  When you have evidence, or even so much as the 1st edition AD&D DMG in your possession, you can complain about your evidence being ignored.  This is another case where words have meanings.  Repeating the incorrect statements other people make is not 'evidence'.

QuoteThe mature response is to either admit that you were wrong in this particular case or present evidence to the contrary.

Really?  The "mature" response?  What are you, 12 years old?

QuoteBut if you don't want to be mature, that's okay, too.  I can just go  back to calling you a dumbass when you say something stupid, rather than  trying to have a discussion where both sides can learn something.  

You didn't come here with a 'willingness to learn', so don't even try that bullshit.  If saying something stupid is the trigger for calling someone a dumbass, I guess I will just copy and paste 'dumbass' a few thousand times in all my future responses to you.

QuoteFor what it's worth, I always used something like an Attack of  Opportunity if the orcs (or whatever) tried to run past the fighter to  engage the wizard in 2nd edition.  It's been long enough that I don't  remember WHY I did it, but if it wasn't in the rules, it seemed pretty  reasonable.

Whoop-de-shit.  I have never used anything like an Attack of Opportunity, so yours is negated.  Protip:  The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

I still don't understand what you're saying.  Are you now equating 'Zone of Control' with 'Attack of Opportunity', which, in addition to being DESCRIBED very differently, don't work anything like each other?  

It sounds to me like you're saying an Attack of Opportunity is 'just like' a Zone of Control, and is 'nothing like' a 'free attack when an opponent can't adequately defend himself', which is only the DESCRIPTION of an Attack of Opportunity rather than the DEFINITION of an Attack of Opportunity.  

Is that right?  

But if I go to my 1st or 2nd edition books and I quote some text about 'free attacks', what then?  If it exists will you admit to being a dumbass?  

I don't have a pathological desire to build parallels between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition.  They certainly DO have commonalities, but I'm fine with them being considered 'totally separate games', too.  Judged soley on its own merits, 3rd is my favorite.  

But Justin Alexander responded to this:

Quote from: StormBringer;575892Absolutely.  I mentioned in another thread that late 2e was pretty much a dry run for 3.0, and it would have turned out pretty much the same whether or not WotC had bought TSR.  AoO and several other core 3.x concepts first appeared in the Player's Option books.

So the question is, did Attack of Opportunity have an antecedent in prior editions of D&D, the way Magic Missile does, or the way a Wizard gets 1d4 hit points per level or a shortsword does 1d6 damage?  

Justin Alexander asserted that AD&D has 'free attacks' in some situations which are very similar to the 'free attacks' granted by the Attack of Opportunity mechanic.  You seem to admit that there were 'free attacks', and they APPEAR to work very similarly to the 3.5 AoO (if you run away from an opponent, they get a free attack).

Quote from: StormBringer;575943We've been over this.  No, they weren't "AoO-like".  If you turned your back and ran, the attacker would get a free attack.  That's it.  That's all it was.

There are OTHER TIMES you might get a 'free attack' (ie, AoO) in 3.5, but AoO for MOVEMENT are predicated on this idea.  Leaving a threatened square provokes.  That could mean 'running away' or it could mean 'running past'.  Does the enhanced flexiblity really differentiate them THAT MUCH?  

In any case, it sounds to me like pointing out that the language of the 3.5 Attack of Opportunity definition (because that's what the description you refer to was) very closely matches your DESCRIPTION of 'free attacks' in earlier editions is not something you consider 'evidence'.  So, let me ask again: Would quoting text from AD&D (1st or 2nd edition) describing free attacks in a similar manner to 3.5 Attacks of Opportunity count as 'evidence'?  

If Justin Alexander's assertion is correct, what would 'valid' evidence look like?  I mean, you'd really have to be a dumbass to say that you're right and NOTHING could convince you otherwise - that's pretty much how I define a dumbass.  I'm open to being wrong.  It happens a fair bit.  But if you want to defend to the death the idea that the 'free attack' referred to in earlier editions when an enemy runs is very different from the 'free attack' granted by the Attack of Opportunity generated when an enemy runs in 3.x, I'm not going to stop you.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;576268I still don't understand what you're saying.  Are you now equating 'Zone of Control' with 'Attack of Opportunity', which, in addition to being DESCRIBED very differently, don't work anything like each other?  

Hmm...  This sounds vaguely familiar...

QuoteIt sounds to me like you're saying an Attack of Opportunity is 'just like' a Zone of Control, and is 'nothing like' a 'free attack when an opponent can't adequately defend himself', which is only the DESCRIPTION of an Attack of Opportunity rather than the DEFINITION of an Attack of Opportunity.  

Let's keep this in mind for a couple of paragraphs.

QuoteBut if I go to my 1st or 2nd edition books and I quote some text about 'free attacks', what then?  If it exists will you admit to being a dumbass?  

If you can quote some text from your 1st edition books, it will be a hell of a lot closer to that 'evidence' thing you seem so keen on having other people present.

And it doesn't even have to say 'free attacks'.  Just demonstrate how it is substantially similar.  Any attack out of the normal sequence would be a good start.  'Turn your back on an opponent' is fairly weak, in my opinion, but we already have that one.  Find some more now.

QuoteI don't have a pathological desire to build parallels between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition.  They certainly DO have commonalities, but I'm fine with them being considered 'totally separate games', too.  Judged soley on its own merits, 3rd is my favorite.  

They do have similarities.  I am not sure where the need to demonstrate as many as possible arises, no matter how tenuous.

QuoteSo the question is, did Attack of Opportunity have an antecedent in prior editions of D&D, the way Magic Missile does, or the way a Wizard gets 1d4 hit points per level or a shortsword does 1d6 damage?  

So, now we see you aren't even really reading the posts you so vehemently oppose.

Quote from: StormBringer;575892AoO and  several other core 3.x concepts first appeared in the Player's Option  books.

See how that says AoO appeared in the 2nd Edition Player's Option books?  Specifically Combat and Tactics, to clarify.  Notice how it doesn't say "AoO never showed up prior to 3.x".  It also doesn't even so much as imply all prior editions, like you are trying to do.  It precisely places AoO in the later supplements to 2nd Edition; hence, it didn't even appear in the early years of 2nd Edition, which means it's not in the DMG or PH.  Instead, you will find it six years later in the Player's Option: Combat and Tactics book, which was published in 1995.  

However, I will admit a minor correction: that could be considered 'mid-2nd' edition, if you go by the years of publication for new editions.  2nd was more or less dead in the water by about 1997 or 1998, although 3.0 didn't come out until 2000 officially.  In any case, as I have said before, whether or not TSR had been bought out by WotC, the third edition would have very likely looked about the same either way.

QuoteJustin Alexander asserted that AD&D has 'free attacks' in some situations which are very similar to the 'free attacks' granted by the Attack of Opportunity mechanic.  You seem to admit that there were 'free attacks', and they APPEAR to work very similarly to the 3.5 AoO (if you run away from an opponent, they get a free attack).

One instance.  Exactly one instance.  Does writing a few lines of poetry make one the equal of Robert Frost?  Can any vehicle with four wheels be called a "car"?  Whatever else you learned in the 'everyone gets a trophy' school you attended, I am pretty sure they didn't teach you that a single point is sufficient for drawing a line.

QuoteThere are OTHER TIMES you might get a 'free attack' (ie, AoO) in 3.5, but AoO for MOVEMENT are predicated on this idea.  Leaving a threatened square provokes.  That could mean 'running away' or it could mean 'running past'.  Does the enhanced flexiblity really differentiate them THAT MUCH?  

Yes.  Find the section in either edition of AD&D that allows for an attack out of sequence for either of those conditions.

Also, 'threatened square' = 'zone of control'.

QuoteIn any case, it sounds to me like pointing out that the language of the 3.5 Attack of Opportunity definition (because that's what the description you refer to was) very closely matches your DESCRIPTION of 'free attacks' in earlier editions is not something you consider 'evidence'.

Read very, very carefully this time:  There is exactly one instance where a character or monster would get an unprovoked attack; if their opponent turns their back and runs.  That's it.  If you have some psychological need to call that an 'Attack of Opportunity', be my guest.  Just don't expect everyone to agree to your terminology.  Believe it or not, 3.x isn't the best thing since sliced bread, and applying its terminology retroactively to previous versions won't change that.  It only makes you look like a neophile that refuses to understand history (in this case, the history of AD&D) on its own terms, demanding that it conform to you view of what's 'best'.

QuoteSo, let me ask again: Would quoting text from AD&D (1st or 2nd edition) describing free attacks in a similar manner to 3.5 Attacks of Opportunity count as 'evidence'?  

It would be a start, and a good deal better than regurgiquoting nonsense from other people equally unversed in the topic.

QuoteIf Justin Alexander's assertion is correct, what would 'valid' evidence look like?  I mean, you'd really have to be a dumbass to say that you're right and NOTHING could convince you otherwise - that's pretty much how I define a dumbass.  I'm open to being wrong.  It happens a fair bit.  But if you want to defend to the death the idea that the 'free attack' referred to in earlier editions when an enemy runs is very different from the 'free attack' granted by the Attack of Opportunity generated when an enemy runs in 3.x, I'm not going to stop you.

Ok, here is a list of all the situations that allow what you call a 'free attack' in 1st Edition:
Turning your back on an opponent and fleeing.

List all the things in 3.x that allow a 'free attack', and we can compare.

Because the contention isn't that there are some arbitrary small number of instances in 1st Edition that might be considered the same kind of mechanic as Attacks of Opportunity.  See below.

Quote from: beejazz;575954Moving out of a foe's space provokes an AoO. AoOs  include the AD&D rule (as described; I'm not claiming familiarity)  plus some other junk. These guys are talking about a similarity of  category, not claiming that the rules are identical.

If you are making that claim, that there is a similarity of category, I would say that while I may not entirely agree, the concept you present is at least reasonable and worth discussing.  I cannot, however, agree that is the position of others:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575906Although they were first grouped together under a common terminology and  structure in the 2E PO supplements (the "2.5 edition"), AoO mechanics  go all the way back to 1E's core rulebooks (where you'll find AoO-like  mechanics for spellcasting, withdrawing, and grappling).

This is a clear example of trying to make the untenable position that "AoO mechanics" are present in 1st Edition in a manner significantly similar to those present in 3.x.  In order to make that sound reasonable, we have this contradictory statement in an attempt to push matters back as far as possible:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575906And it wasn't a "late 2E" phenomenon.  TSR's splatbooks arrived in December 1989 a few months after the core  rulebooks were released.

Attacks of Opportunity didn't appear in the first paragraph on the first page of the first splatbook for 2nd Edition.  We even see above that they "were first grouped together under a common terminology and  structure in the 2E PO supplements", which weren't published until 1995.  As I mentioned above, that could be considered 'mid 2nd Edition' if 1989 is used for the publication of 2nd Edition and 2000 as publication for 3.0.  I consider 1997 the be the practical end of 2nd Edition, however, as that is when TSR started making plans for bankruptcy and the eventual sale to WotC.

That is a pretty minor detail, in my view, and I wouldn't drag out a huge argument over it.

Quote from: TrueGygaxFan;576323Just remember that the DM can always win the fight even if you op your char because he gets to decide how many dragons you fight.  This is why you should not play broken classes like Rogues because they get too many abilities and can kill everything with Sneak Attack.

This has got to be the product of a program like the random poetry generator.

Quote from: StormBringer;576291One instance.  Exactly one instance.  Does writing a few lines of poetry make one the equal of Robert Frost?  Can any vehicle with four wheels be called a "car"?  Whatever else you learned in the 'everyone gets a trophy' school you attended, I am pretty sure they didn't teach you that a single point is sufficient for drawing a line.

Yes.  Find the section in either edition of AD&D that allows for an attack out of sequence for either of those conditions.

One instance is sufficient for my purposes.  

The 3.5 Designers drew on earlier editions of the game.  They made a real effort to standardize certain effects.  

Running from your opponent allows a free attack because it is impossible to adequately defend yourself.  In earlier editions, a spellcaster lost his Dexterity adjustment to Armor Class to represent that he couldn't adequately defend himself.  Since combat rounds were 1 minute, the idea of 'circling opponents' was generally accepted; but with a 10 second round, that ability was greatly reduced.  

The 3.5 designers took a particular minor aspect of the game, applied it to a host of similar situations, to create a generally unified mechanic.  AoO in practice are not UNIQUE to 3.x; but they are PREVALENT in 3.x.  Personally, I think the idea of being able to interrupt a caster BECAUSE he is casting his spell is better than being unable to do so, even if you're standing right next to him if you aren't 'fast enough'.

Quote from: StormBringer;575943We've been over this.  No, they weren't "AoO-like".  If you turned your back and ran, the attacker would get a free attack.  That's it.  That's all it was.

Pop quiz: I'm talking about an edition of D&D where characters get a free attack when other characters run away from them; armed characters get a free attack when unarmed characters attempt to grapple them; and melee fighters are given the opportunity to hit spellcasters before their spells are completed. What edition am I talking about?

Hint: It's a trick question.

3E, of course, includes AoOs for some stuff that AD&D didn't. OTOH, AD&D also grants AoO-like free attacks for stuff that 3E doesn't. (For example, AD&D grants free attacks against magically sleeping or held opponents.)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575958And even then you don't get an extra attack, you only get to attack first.

Not true. The 1E rules explicitly grant a free attack roll to the armed target of a grapple. (Although the armed opponent can't take advantage of it if they've been surprised due to rules which are pretty similar in practice to the flat-footed condition in 3E.)

You might be thinking of the 2E rules, which got rid of the free attack. (Although they still included rules explicitly granting the target a chance to hit the unarmed grappler first, regardless of initiative results.)

All of these various "free attack" and "in this situation, ignore initiative and character X gets to attack first" rules were conflated into the AoO mechanics in 2E's PO. Another example would be the rule in 1E that "initiative is NOT checked at the end of charge movement. The opponent with the longer weapon/reach attacks first."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575971In 3e, in melee combat, AoO can be prompted with a lot of frequency.  Under the specific scenario that it has to happen in AD&D?  I can't recall when it's ever come up.  If it only happens 0.0001% of the combat rolls, it's so insignificant that statistically it doesn't really happen.

Even if the only AoO-like mechanic in 1E was the "free attack when they flee from melee" (and it wasn't), we're still talking about a mechanic that would, at the very least, come up on most failed morale checks.

Let's say we're fighting a group of eight goblins. They've got a base morale score of 57% and we'll add 15% to that on that the theory that "fall back, fighting" doesn't provoke the breaking off from melee AoO.

This means that when you kill two goblins, there's a 53% chance the AoO rule will be used. When you've killed four of them, there's an 83% chance that the rule will be used. (If the fourth goblin killed was their leader, then that's a 98% chance of the rule being used.)

I guess you just never fought that many goblins in AD&D, eh?

Quote from: StormBringer;575952

QuoteAn Attack of Opportunity is a 'free attack'.

Wrong.

The third sentence in the SRD describing attacks of opportunity: "These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity."

Quote

QuoteIt's a 'free attack' because your opponent does something that doesn't let them defend themselves.

Also wrong.

The first two sentences in that section: "Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free.

Emphasis added so you can really appreciate your complete and utter failure to understand the rules you're attempting to discuss.

And since we're also talking about how these rules evolved from 1E to 2E to PO to 3E, here's a selection from the description of AoOs on pg. 13 of Player's Option: Combat & Tactics: "This [attack of opportunity] is a free attack that does not take the place of any actions the threatening creature had already planned."

Quote from: StormBringer;576291

Quote

QuoteLate 2E splat was a blueprint for the 3E model. The 'Eureka!' moment when selling player upgrades piecemeal became the base model for marketing.

And it wasn't a "late 2E" phenomenon. TSR's splatbooks arrived in December 1989 a few months after the core rulebooks were released.

Attacks of Opportunity didn't appear in the first paragraph on the first page of the first splatbook for 2nd Edition.

How the fuck did you read "player upgrades" in ExploderWizard's post and think "I bet they're talking about attacks of opportunity"?

I've been aware of your functional illiteracy for awhile now, but this one takes the cake.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;576345I've been aware of your functional illiteracy for awhile now, but this one takes the cake.

I'll just agree with your general post, but dude, you're the poster boy for number 13. Just sayin'

Quote from: deadDMwalking;576328One instance is sufficient for my purposes.  

Then your purposes are either insufficient or propaganda.

QuoteRunning from your opponent allows a free attack because it is impossible to adequately defend yourself. In earlier editions, a spellcaster lost his Dexterity adjustment to Armor Class to represent that he couldn't adequately defend himself.

The latter didn't provoke an attack out of sequence, so your premise is incorrect.  As always, you have managed to prove the opposite of what you claim; if a 'free attack' was the result of not 'adequately defending oneself', both of your examples would provoke such attacks.  They don't, so AD&D doesn't have 'AoO-like mechanics'.  QED.

QuoteThe 3.5 designers took a particular minor aspect of the game, applied it to a host of similar situations, to create a generally unified mechanic.  AoO in practice are not UNIQUE to 3.x; but they are PREVALENT in 3.x.  Personally, I think the idea of being able to interrupt a caster BECAUSE he is casting his spell is better than being unable to do so, even if you're standing right next to him if you aren't 'fast enough'.

What you think is irrelevant.  Someday, you might figure that out.  The point isn't what you think should happen, the point is exactly what happens.  In this case, spell casters in AD&D (prior to Combat and Tactics) do not draw an automatic attack by opponents when they begin spell casting, and your feelings about the matter have no impact on that.

You have yet to provide even a partial list of actions that provoke AoO in 3.x, besides moving into and out of a threatened square.

And speaking of 'threatened squares':

QuoteIf the character doesn't start in a threatened square, but moves into  one, the character has to stop there, or else he or she provokes an  attack of opportunity as he or she leaves that square.

Sounds awfully similar to rules concerning zones of control:

QuoteLocking; units must stop immediately upon entering an enemy-controlled hex and         may leave only as a result of combat (either the enemy unit is destroyed or the friendly         unit is attacked and forced back).

Active; this requires every unit in a Zone of Control to attack enemy units       adjacent to them during a combat phase.

Now, 3.x doesn't require movement to stop in a 'threatened square', but moving out provokes the AoO, which may not be a good idea.  Along the same lines, the AoO isn't required to be taken, but I doubt it will be passed up very often, as it is a 'bonus' attack at the normal attack bonus, whether or not they have already attacked that round.  So the general mechanic is nearly the same as a 'zone of control'.

And just to be clear:
Zone of Control[/quote]:

QuoteAnother one of the basic rules in gaming. Zone of Control     represents the six hexes surrounding a unit that the unit controls.

Threatened square:

QuoteYou threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even  when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all  squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).

So, your statement

Quote from: deadDMwalking;576268I still don't understand what you're saying.   Are you now equating 'Zone of Control' with 'Attack of Opportunity',  which, in addition to being DESCRIBED very differently, don't work  anything like each other?  

is wholly and completely incorrect.  See the value of reading in order to understand topics?

The next time I say something is wrong, how about you take the initiative to find out why, instead of wasting my fucking time walking you through it step by step only to come to the same conclusion once again:  you don't know what you are fucking talking about, and think bluster will carry the day for you.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;576093The mature response is to either admit that  you were wrong in this particular case or present evidence to the  contrary.  

This is good advice.  Since you don't have evidence to the contrary...

Quote from: StormBringer;576353The latter didn't provoke an attack out of sequence, so your premise is incorrect.  As always, you have managed to prove the opposite of what you claim; if a 'free attack' was the result of not 'adequately defending oneself', both of your examples would provoke such attacks.  They don't, so AD&D doesn't have 'AoO-like mechanics'.  QED.

My claim is that in earlier editions, there were multiple ways of trying to represent similar things.  In AD&D, a spellcaster lost the ability to defend themselves, so they lost their Dexterity modifier to AC.  Someone running away also couldn't defend themselves, and they provoked a free attack.  My point is that 3.5 tried to standardize a large number of 'exception' rules to ensure they work similarly.  

Quote from: StormBringer;576353Sounds awfully similar to rules concerning zones of control:

Zone of control works in different ways.  Forcing combat until one side is destroyed (for instance) is nothing like an AoO.  Being 'sticky' is nothing like Attacks of Opportunity.  But I can admit that there is SOME similarity between having a threatened area and having a 'zone of control' that may cause 'status effects' for other units passing nearby.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;576345Pop quiz: I'm talking about an edition of D&D where characters get a free attack when other characters run away from them; armed characters get a free attack when unarmed characters attempt to grapple them; and melee fighters are given the opportunity to hit spellcasters before their spells are completed. What edition am I talking about?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575906Although they were first grouped together  under a common terminology and structure in the 2E PO supplements (the  "2.5 edition"), AoO mechanics go all the way back to 1E's core rulebooks  (where you'll find AoO-like mechanics for spellcasting, withdrawing,  and grappling).

Looks like you are talking about 1st and 2nd edition.

Oh, do you mean what edition are you talking about now, after your complete lack of knowledge about D&D prior to 3.x is once again made plain?  Now you are moving the goalposts and talking about the only edition you are familiar with, and often also incorrect about.

Quote3E, of course, includes AoOs for some stuff that AD&D didn't. OTOH, AD&D also grants AoO-like free attacks for stuff that 3E doesn't. (For example, AD&D grants free attacks against magically sleeping or held opponents.)

Holy shit!  You are trying to expand the meaning of 'free attacks' so as to be totally worthless and then apply it to anything and everything you want?  Who could have possibly seen that one coming?  It's almost like you are going to start using 'free attacks' as a keyword to tag a bunch of unrelated rules in a desperate attempt to shore up your flagging ego about being dead fucking wrong again!  I'll bet you can link to an article on your blog to help your argument.

And no, you don't get 'free attacks' against sleeping or held opponents.

QuoteMagically Sleeping or Held Opponents:
If a general melee is in progress, and the attacker is subject to enemy actions, then these opponents are automatically struck by any attack to which they would normally be subject, and the maximum damage possible according to the weapon type is inflicted each time such an opponent is so attacked.

"Normally be subject", not "in addition to", so it doesn't matter how much you stretch the definition to serve your inane agenda, it still isn't a 'free attack'.

QuoteNot true. The 1E rules explicitly grant a free attack roll to the armed target of a grapple. (Although the armed opponent can't take advantage of it if they've been surprised due to rules which are pretty similar in practice to the flat-footed condition in 3E.)

Page numbers or it didn't happen.  Your recollection of 1st Edition is notoriously biased and often wrong, and your interpretations of almost all the rules therein don't even begin to approach the level of wrong.

QuoteYou might be thinking of the 2E rules, which got rid of the free attack. (Although they still included rules explicitly granting the target a chance to hit the unarmed grappler first, regardless of initiative results.)

Perhaps in the future, your positive assertions can explicitly include page numbers.

QuoteAll of these various "free attack" and "in this situation, ignore initiative and character X gets to attack first" rules were conflated into the AoO mechanics in 2E's PO. Another example would be the rule in 1E that "initiative is NOT checked at the end of charge movement. The opponent with the longer weapon/reach attacks first."

"In this situation, ignore initiative" applies to exactly one situation, charging a pike line.  And these were not 'conflated' in the Player's Option books, because they were in 1st Edition.  Or did you forget what version you were talking about again?

QuoteEven if the only AoO-like mechanic in 1E was the "free attack when they flee from melee" (and it wasn't), we're still talking about a mechanic that would, at the very least, come up on most failed morale checks.

Then name the rest of them, or you are a fucking liar.  You keep talking about all these conditions and situations that are just like AoO, but you don't actually name any of them except the same 'turn and run' and the other two which aren't really like AoO four or five times each and pretend you have fifteen different items.

QuoteLet's say we're fighting a group of eight goblins. They've got a base morale score of 57% and we'll add 15% to that on that the theory that "fall back, fighting" doesn't provoke the breaking off from melee AoO.

This means that when you kill two goblins, there's a 53% chance the AoO rule will be used. When you've killed four of them, there's an 83% chance that the rule will be used. (If the fourth goblin killed was their leader, then that's a 98% chance of the rule being used.)

On the ones that are currently engaged in melee combat with a character, you stupid fuck.  And no where in there does it say anything about 'threatened squares', so there is even less similarity to 3.x

QuoteI guess you just never fought that many goblins in AD&D, eh?

I guess you think that every single goblin, even in a group of 200, is somehow subject to this rule you just made up out of thin air?

QuoteThe third sentence in the SRD describing attacks of opportunity: "These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity."

I've already been over this.  For not reading what I already wrote, you are a fucking moron.

QuoteThe first two sentences in that section: "Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free.

And now you are approaching complete fucking moron.

QuoteEmphasis added so you can really appreciate your complete and utter failure to understand the rules you're attempting to discuss.

And for confusing a simple description with actual rules, you have shot into full retard at hypersonic speed.  Congratulations!

QuoteAnd since we're also talking about how these rules evolved from 1E to 2E to PO to 3E, here's a selection from the description of AoOs on pg. 13 of Player's Option: Combat & Tactics: "This [attack of opportunity] is a free attack that does not take the place of any actions the threatening creature had already planned."

Oh, shit!  Then most of what you have already described doesn't apply because they don't take the place of actions already planned.  Fucking moron.  Learn how to read.  Also, that was in the Combat and Tactics book, not 1st Edition or the core books in 2nd Edition, so you can't actually use that to show how the "rules evolved from 1E to 2E to PO to 3E", because you haven't shown they exist in 1st Edition at all, nor did they exist in 2nd Edition until late in the development cycle.

I mean, fuck.  You make the most ridiculous statements and look like a complete fucking moron just so you don't have to retract a stupid argument that is convincing no one to begin with?  Jesus, get back on the medication.

QuoteHow the fuck did you read "player upgrades" in ExploderWizard's post and think "I bet they're talking about attacks of opportunity"?

A minor quibble, but I may have jumped the gun.  On the other hand, you have almost nothing else about pre-3.x versions correct, so it isn't too outrageous to assume you fucked this up, too.

QuoteI've been aware of your functional illiteracy for awhile now, but this one takes the cake.

Says the one who thinks the size of a square is different if the players are fighting a snake.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;576370My claim is that in earlier editions, there were multiple ways of trying to represent similar things.

Your 'claim' doesn't mean shit, because you don't know what you are talking about.  Care to provide some of that 'evidence' you are always demanding from other people?  Or would you like to take this opportunity to shut the fuck up and stop trying to defend ideas you clearly don't understand?

QuoteZone of control works in different ways.  Forcing combat until one side is destroyed (for instance) is nothing like an AoO.  Being 'sticky' is nothing like Attacks of Opportunity.

Where does a zone of control 'force combat until one side is destroyed'?  Are you sure you want to expand the range of things you know nothing about but insist on defending anyway?

QuoteBut I can admit that there is SOME similarity between having a threatened area and having a 'zone of control' that may cause 'status effects' for other units passing nearby.

Wow.  Then you only admit to knowing absolutely zero on this topic as well as pretty much any other topic.

Quote from: StormBringer;576411Where does a zone of control 'force combat until one side is destroyed'?  Are you sure you want to expand the range of things you know nothing about but insist on defending anyway?

I was referring to this part of your quote that works nothing like threatened areas.

Quote from: StormbringerLocking; units must stop immediately upon entering an enemy-controlled hex and may leave only as a result of combat (either the enemy unit is destroyed or the friendly unit is attacked and forced back).

But I could be talking about how they can keep moving without stopping and thus being subject to an attack.  You know, without immediately stopping.  And, you know, being able to leave without destroying the enemy unit.  And not being forced back if they didn't.  

Quote from: StormBringer;576409I mean, fuck.  You make the most ridiculous statements and look like a complete fucking moron just so you don't have to retract a stupid argument that is convincing no one to begin with?  Jesus, get back on the medication.

This I agree with.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

Here there be facts. No name calling or insults. Anyone is welcome to refute these facts, just please do so with facts of your own.

[Moldvay Basic page B25]

RETREAT: Any movement backwards at more than 1/2 the normal movement rate is a retreat. If a creature tries to retreat,the opponent may add +2 to all "to hit" rolls, and the defender is not alowed to make a return attack. In addition to the bonus on "to hit" rolls,the attacks are further adjusted by using the defender's Armor Class without a shield. (Any attacks from behind are adjusted in the same manner.)

[End]

It would seem per a logical reading of this rule that those fleeing from melee incur a possible AC penalty, and the attackers gain a hit bonus. No mention of free or extra attacks there. Hmmmm...


AD&D handles things a bit differently. Lets see what the rules are here.

[AD&D DMG page 70]

Breaking Off From Melee:
At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and
flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or
attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a
stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing
party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent
pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended
and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance

[End]

In AD&D it is explicitly stated that a fleeing creature is subject to a free attack or attack routine when fleeing from melee. Note that the bonus to hit against a stunned opponent is +4.

What about opportunity attacks against spell casters? Lets see what the DMG has to say about that.

[DMG page 70]

Meleeing An Opponent Spell Caster:

If an opponent spell caster attempting a spell is in melee, and is attacked
by weapon or punched, grappled, or overborne, there is a likelihood of
the opponent not being able to cast the spell. In the case of hits with
weapons or successful striking with a punch, the spell caster will absolutely
be prevented from completion of the spell (and furthermore the entire
spell is LOST). In the case of grappling or overbearing, the spell caster will
absolutely be prevented from spell completion if the attack form is
successful, and the spell is wasted in this case also. Both cases assume the
attack occurring prior to completion of the spell, of course.

[End]

No reference to any attack form being granted by virtue of a spell being cast in close proximity. Quite simply if the caster loses initiative and is struck in melee by the normally allowed attack of their opponent, the spell is lost.

What about reach weapons? Surely a longer weapon threatens a greater area and grants opportunity attacks.

[DMG page 66]

Melee At End of Charge: Initiative is NOT checked at the end of charge
movement. The opponent with the longer wapon/reach attacks first.
Charging creatures gain +2 on their "to hit" dice if they survive any noncharging
or charging opponent attacks which occur first. Weopon length
and first strike ore detailed under Strike Blows.
Only one charge move can be made each turn; thus an interval of 9 rounds
must take place before a second charge movement can be made.


Set Weapons Against Possible Opponent Charge:
Setting weapons is simply a matter of bracing such piercing weapons as
spears, spiked pole arms, forks, glaives, etc. so as to have the butt of the
shaft braced against an unyielding surface. The effect of such a weapon
upon a charging (or leoping, pouncing, falling, or otherwise onrushing)
opponent is to cause such opponent to impale itself and take double
normal damage if a hit is so scored. Example: Character A sets her spear
with its butt firmly braced upon the floor just as a giant tood hops at her
(ottocking); if the spear impales the creature, it will score double indicated
damage (d8 X 2). Note that in this case initiative is automatically given to
the set spear as it will obviously toke effect prior to any attack routine of
the toad, and that two dice are not rolled, but the result of the d8 roll is
multiplied by 2.

[End]

So it seems that longer weapons provide an advantage relating to who attacks FIRST. No extra or free attacks seem to be mentioned.

Lets look at at an unarmed attacker vs an armed opponent. Here is the relevant section:

[DMG page 73]
Opponents With Weapons Used Normally: If the opponent of a grappling,
pummeling or overbearing attack has a weapon, the opponent will always
strike first unless the attacker has surprise. Any weapon hit does NO
damage, but it does indicate that the attacker trying to grapple, pummel or
overbear has been fended or driven off, and the attack is unsuccessful. The
weapon-wielder then has the opportunity to strike at the weaponless one
"for real", if he or she so chooses. Surprised opponents with weapons
have no chance for a fending-off strike, unless the attacker must use all
surprise segments to close to grapple, pummel, or overbear.

[End]

So an armed opponent who is not surprised may strike a grappler first. If successful the attack does stop the grapple but scores no damage. The armed attacker then has the opportunity to strike for damge if desired.

In this case the 'free' attack is a special case for the purpose of breaking up the grapple. Only normal attacks have a chance of scoring any damage.


All together I see ONE instance of a free actual attack being granted in the case of breaking off from melee.

For any other instances please quote or cite page refererences where such contradictions can be found.