I also despise attacks of opportunity.

They offend my sense of logic: 'Extra'? Why? the warrior with a greataxe suddenly gets super speed because an enemy is drinking a potion? wtf?
Sure, the game may be abstract to a degree, but that feels wrong to me.

They add another attack and damage roll, slowing the game.



I would replace AOO with a huge bonus when attacking the person that is acting in a manner that makes them vulnerable.

So if you run past a fighter guarding a wizard, the fighter, when he is able to attack you, gets a +4 hit, +8 damage, or something like that.

I feel the penalty for 'provoking' should be the risk of getting hurt, but not by an extra attack.

I also think the list of actions that provoke should be small. Like spells, ranged attacks, and ignoring bodyguards.


In the case of ranged and spells vs AOO, I like the idea of initiative being important, and I like the idea of a caster/archer still being able to fire even if they take a nasty hit.


Not a fan of concentration checks as a normal part of combat, only for extraordinary situations like casting spells in a tornado.

Quote from: Bill;577497I also despise attacks of opportunity.

They offend my sense of logic: 'Extra'? Why? the warrior with a greataxe suddenly gets super speed because an enemy is drinking a potion? wtf?
Sure, the game may be abstract to a degree, but that feels wrong to me.

They add another attack and damage roll, slowing the game.

All valid concerns, but...

QuoteI would replace AOO with a huge bonus when attacking the person that is acting in a manner that makes them vulnerable.

So if you run past a fighter guarding a wizard, the fighter, when he is able to attack you, gets a +4 hit, +8 damage, or something like that.

I feel the penalty for 'provoking' should be the risk of getting hurt, but not by an extra attack.

I also think the list of actions that provoke should be small. Like spells, ranged attacks, and ignoring bodyguards.


In the case of ranged and spells vs AOO, I like the idea of initiative being important, and I like the idea of a caster/archer still being able to fire even if they take a nasty hit.


Not a fan of concentration checks as a normal part of combat, only for extraordinary situations like casting spells in a tornado.

This would make an optimal strategy out of:
1)Everyone uses ranged weapons.
2)To dogpile anyone that does something distracting.

Also, if a caster stuns a melee guy? Can't interrupt. Grapple attempt? Can't interrupt. Guy retreats? No melee attack unless you follow him. And so on. Interruption mattered in pre-3 according to WvF. How you gonna squeeze that into 3xs init system without AoOs?

_________________________
As I mentioned upthread, game I'm working on has modified AoO rules. They cost a reaction (which are also used for defense). They have fewer exceptions. They stop actions that provoke them.

The action type/trading actions for the AoO addresses the speed boost (though for myself, two attacks in six seconds isn't immersion breaking; the slow normal rate is because people are defending themselves, and AoOs assume people aren't). It also somewhat addresses roll numbers (though again, standard is max one extra attack roll and I typically roll damage with that). The exceptions are probably the hardest thing to track so I just nixed 'em.

Quote from: Bill;577497They offend my sense of logic: 'Extra'? Why? the warrior with a greataxe suddenly gets super speed because an enemy is drinking a potion? wtf?
Sure, the game may be abstract to a degree, but that feels wrong to me.

Combat has become less abstract, however, which could be the basic issue.  AD&D combat rounds are a minute long, so you can see a fair number of things happening in that time period, even an 'extra' attack if it's warranted.  3.x and 4e have six second rounds, so each attack is literally one attack, or one series of attacks (ie, the 'full attack' option).  Cramming in even that one extra attack starts to strain the limits of credibility and, as you say, makes characters look like the Flash.

Quote from: StormBringer;577507Combat has become less abstract, however, which could be the basic issue.  AD&D combat rounds are a minute long, so you can see a fair number of things happening in that time period, even an 'extra' attack if it's warranted.  3.x and 4e have six second rounds, so each attack is literally one attack, or one series of attacks (ie, the 'full attack' option).  Cramming in even that one extra attack starts to strain the limits of credibility and, as you say, makes characters look like the Flash.

Two attacks in three seconds doesn't strain my SOD. It only normally takes six because people have their guard up. AoOs happen when people have their guard down.

It's easier for me to buy than iterative attacks or AoOs after you take Combat Reflexes.

One of the ways I used AoO during a game was as the primary means of defense (it was a game where I was experimenting with active defense in melee combat);

It worked exactly like the 2e version of parrying, in that the defender would use an AoO to make an attack roll which replaced his AC against a particular attack.  The difference from 2e was that you could use your regular attacks OR AoO's, which could be pretty numerous if you had the combat expertise feat.

Off hand weapons could be used as well, as well as shields or other parrying devices (which added their AC Bonus +2 to the roll)

I THINK (it's been a few years) that the reason I decided not to use it was that I felt like I would need to reduce the amount of AC from armor, regular armor bonuses were too high to merit using the parrying rules for much outside a few attacks.  But I keep that idea in the back of my mind for if I decide to run a swashbuckling game or something else where the armor would be less of a factor.

Quote from: StormBringer;577507Combat has become less abstract, however, which could be the basic issue.  AD&D combat rounds are a minute long, so you can see a fair number of things happening in that time period, even an 'extra' attack if it's warranted.  3.x and 4e have six second rounds, so each attack is literally one attack, or one series of attacks (ie, the 'full attack' option).  Cramming in even that one extra attack starts to strain the limits of credibility and, as you say, makes characters look like the Flash.

It just seems wrong to me that the warrior can't make an 'extra' aoo vs a 'effectively helpless peasant with a stick' but can get a free attack vs a traine warrior that is movng near him.

6 seconds is a long time.  4 attacks in 6 seconds, with a great axe isn't even 'unrealistic'.  I think you'd only push the boundaries in the magical round where you get off your full attack at high level for 4 attacks, and then your Barbarian with Combat Reflexes got several attacks from AoOs in the same round (I've never seen this happen in 10+ years playing the game).

As far as what "exploits" exist for AoOs, the only thing that comes to mind is tripping an enemy that your ally is adjacent to and bulling rushing (tackling/pushing) and enemy through squares your allies threaten, both which seem entirely intentional.

Neither of these are great though, since a typical party (especially in 3.x) isn't going to necessarily be jampacked full of melee characters to take advantage of these scenarios, and even if you designed your party to take advantage of it, you are doing so at the opportunity cost of having a bunch of sword swingers instead of archers or spellcasters.

I agree that there should be additional facing and flanking rules though, that allow explodedwizards example to not draw an AoO (you shouldn't threaten squares behind you) or that you draw an AoO for turning your back on the enemy.

Quote from: beejazz;577506All valid concerns, but...



This would make an optimal strategy out of:
1)Everyone uses ranged weapons.
Why?

2)To dogpile anyone that does something distracting.
Thats what you get for doing something risky?
It's realistic if someone performs a vulnerable action that people would go after them.

Also, if a caster stuns a melee guy? Can't interrupt. Grapple attempt? Can't interrupt. Guy retreats? No melee attack unless you follow him. And so on.
That's all good

Interruption mattered in pre-3 according to WvF. How you gonna squeeze that into 3xs init system without AoOs?

The spell interuption rules in 3X are a waste of time anyway. Either the caster backs up or makes a trivial skill roll, etc...

I have been ignoring spell interuption from normal combat for over 20 years, and its never been a problem.


Grappling...well..I tend not to use it much, as it has a 'cheap' feel to it.
Its like paralysis...the game is not fun if you are helpless.

_________________________
As I mentioned upthread, game I'm working on has modified AoO rules. They cost a reaction (which are also used for defense). They have fewer exceptions. They stop actions that provoke them.

The action type/trading actions for the AoO addresses the speed boost (though for myself, two attacks in six seconds isn't immersion breaking; the slow normal rate is because people are defending themselves, and AoOs assume people aren't). It also somewhat addresses roll numbers (though again, standard is max one extra attack roll and I typically roll damage with that). The exceptions are probably the hardest thing to track so I just nixed 'em.

Normal rate? Doesn't really work.
An archer or cleric of any signifigant level, for example, is more than able to defend themselves while shooting/casting compared to a strength 6 halfling child that could possibly choose to swing a stick at them.

Quote from: Bill;577531Normal rate? Doesn't really work.
An archer or cleric of any signifigant level, for example, is more than able to defend themselves while shooting/casting compared to a strength 6 halfling child that could possibly choose to swing a stick at them.

The archer dogpiling version of AoOs would work if that's what you were going for (and from your response it sounds like you are). But it would feel a heck of a lot less DnD even than AoOs as written. YMMV and all.

As for defending yourself while shooting... how? Are you dodging? Parrying using the bow? Somehow aiming while doing all this? I can see an exception for thrown weapons, but shooting/defending breaks my SOD more than a three second attack.

Quote from: beejazz;577540The archer dogpiling version of AoOs would work if that's what you were going for (and from your response it sounds like you are). But it would feel a heck of a lot less DnD even than AoOs as written. YMMV and all.

As for defending yourself while shooting... how? Are you dodging? Parrying using the bow? Somehow aiming while doing all this? I can see an exception for thrown weapons, but shooting/defending breaks my SOD more than a three second attack.

The system I proposed is lousy as well as the normal aoo in 3X, I admit that.



But here is a question:

What is the real goal of having aoo in a system?

What actions are so wonderful and game breaking that they need extra punishment?

Upon reflection, I say remove aoo entirely.
Instead, allow guarding of allies that adds to the allies ac.
Give a penalty for firing a ranged/spell attack in melee.

Quote from: Bill;577531An archer or cleric of any signifigant level, for example, is more than able to defend themselves while shooting/casting compared to a strength 6 halfling child that could possibly choose to swing a stick at them.

I think melee attacks against an archer is appropriate.  

Quote from: Sun TzuAt close range, an archer is an unarmed man.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577543I think melee attacks against an archer is appropriate.

My point, allthough stacked in favor of the more experienced and powerful opponent, was that a high level ranger could parry the halfling childs stick in his sleep, while firing a bow.

That makes sense, but I think that's better reflected by high AC.  

Who cares if the halfling child gets a free attack?  He'll hit 5% of the time, and usually won't deal any damage (someone said halfling child with Strength 6; that works out to 1d4-2 assuming a small club).  At that rate we're looking at approximately 40 rounds to do an average of 1 point of damage.  

The free attack works pretty well to reflect that certain actions make it more difficult to defend yourself because against a vastly inferior opponent, those attacks cease to matter.  

When you're trying to distinguish who should get an attack and who shouldn't - that's where the madness lies.  If you're a 10th level Ranger, does the halfling get an attack if he's a 2nd level rogue?  How about 10th level?  Either way he's still not as 'skilled' in martial combat as the Ranger...  

The real problem with the AoO is that people use the 5-foot step to avoid it every time it would actually mean anything.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;5775286 seconds is a long time.  4 attacks in 6 seconds, with a great axe isn't even 'unrealistic'.  I think you'd only push the boundaries in the magical round where you get off your full attack at high level for 4 attacks, and then your Barbarian with Combat Reflexes got several attacks from AoOs in the same round (I've never seen this happen in 10+ years playing the game).

As far as what "exploits" exist for AoOs, the only thing that comes to mind is tripping an enemy that your ally is adjacent to and bulling rushing (tackling/pushing) and enemy through squares your allies threaten, both which seem entirely intentional.

Neither of these are great though, since a typical party (especially in 3.x) isn't going to necessarily be jampacked full of melee characters to take advantage of these scenarios, and even if you designed your party to take advantage of it, you are doing so at the opportunity cost of having a bunch of sword swingers instead of archers or spellcasters.

I agree that there should be additional facing and flanking rules though, that allow explodedwizards example to not draw an AoO (you shouldn't threaten squares behind you) or that you draw an AoO for turning your back on the enemy.

Honestly I think aoo add nothing to the game.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577546That makes sense, but I think that's better reflected by high AC.  

Who cares if the halfling child gets a free attack?  He'll hit 5% of the time, and usually won't deal any damage (someone said halfling child with Strength 6; that works out to 1d4-2 assuming a small club).  At that rate we're looking at approximately 40 rounds to do an average of 1 point of damage.  

The free attack works pretty well to reflect that certain actions make it more difficult to defend yourself because against a vastly inferior opponent, those attacks cease to matter.  

When you're trying to distinguish who should get an attack and who shouldn't - that's where the madness lies.  If you're a 10th level Ranger, does the halfling get an attack if he's a 2nd level rogue?  How about 10th level?  Either way he's still not as 'skilled' in martial combat as the Ranger...  

The real problem with the AoO is that people use the 5-foot step to avoid it every time it would actually mean anything.

That all makes sense. There is still something about getting extra attacks in some situations and not in others that bothers me though.

I realize I am being nitpicky though.

the 5 foot step thing generally trivializes aoo and spell interuption to a point its not really a factor.