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.

why do so many discussions here boil down to a bunch of pedantic wankers talking bollocks ?

Quote from: jibbajibba;576484why do so many discussions here boil down to a bunch of pedantic wankers talking bollocks ?

This is the internet.

Quote from: jibbajibba;576484why do so many discussions here boil down to a bunch of pedantic wankers talking bollocks ?

Because the forums have lost their once stronge immune system against bullshit.

Quote from: Melan;576488Because the forums have lost their once stronge immune system against bullshit.

Quoted For Truth

Quote from: jibbajibba;576484why do so many discussions here boil down to a bunch of pedantic wankers talking bollocks ?

I noticed something about the time 4e came out, proponents of 4e (and later of WOTC D&D in general) developed a need to have WOTC versions of the game not really have new stuff added. They started to claim all sorts of stuff those with problems with WOTC D&D did not like was always like that -- even in OD&D or AD&D1e. This started those of us who knew better arguing with them and presenting actual information from the rules of early editions and gaming publications of the era showing this was not actually so.

It's fine to like Attacks of Opportunity (or other new WOTC additions to D&D) and think they are just what D&D always needed, but does not mean they were always in the game. Nothing like WOTC AoO rules existed in early D&D, their first appearance in anything like the WOTC form was in the Players Option stuff for 2e, published in 1995 or so -- after about 20 years of D&D rules without AoO. Presenting misinformation about early D&D is not going to people who don't like WOTC editions change their mind. It just annoys those who are really familiar with TSR D&D.

There does seem to be some confusion.  Just because a rule in a newer edition had its genesis in an earlier edition, does not mean that the rule has always existed.

Quote from: StormBringer;576409Holy 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.

"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'.

I love the fact that you complain that I'm of using the words "free attack" as a "keyword to tag a bunch of rules"... and then complain that the "free attack" keyword doesn't exist in the rule I'm citing.

Quote

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.

Thanks! That's a great example of your functional illiteracy! (I never said that.)

Let's boil this down:

(1) Your continued insistence that attacks of opportunity aren't free attacks, despite the fact that this is exactly what both 2E PO and 3E explicitly say they are, is idiotic. Really, really idiotic.

(2) Your continued insistence that AoOs were not created in order to unify a number of different mechanics in AD&D which granted free attacks (of various types) and adjusted/ignored initiative order is simply willful ignorance.

Further discussion of this topic with someone so deeply vested in their ignorance and so fundamentally crippled by their functional illiteracy is simply not worth my time. If anybody other than StormMoron has a legitimate discussion they want to partake in on this topic, though, I'd be interested in doing that.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;576498Further discussion of this topic with someone so deeply vested in their ignorance and so fundamentally crippled by their functional illiteracy is simply not worth my time. If anybody other than StormMoron has a legitimate discussion they want to partake in on this topic, though, I'd be interested in doing that.

I have presented the facts as they stand in post # 75.

Am I the only one who stopped reading individual posts several days ago and only see this:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;576501Am I the only one who stopped reading individual posts several days ago and only see this:

You are not alone.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;576501Am I the only one who stopped reading individual posts several days ago and only see this:

Honest to God:  I don't give two shits about AoO.  

I am really, really, really sick of these anti-fact people shitting up threads with non-arguments that boil down to 'nuh-uh' with the pure confidence borne from only-child syndrome that mommy's little fucking angel can't possibly be wrong.  And then completely denying exactly what was said by them previously.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;576499I have presented the facts as they stand in post # 75.

It won't help.  By "legitimate discussion", Justin means "ready to agree with me unconditionally".

But thanks for posting that list.  Even though it won't help, because we will now see every evasion imaginable to avoid talking about it.

Quote from: StormBringer;576504Honest to God:  I don't give two shits about AoO.  

Neither do I.  All I know is that the way AD&D is actually played, it's faster to resolve combat than 3e or 4e, and that's what I look for in my personal preference.  From that original claim, this whole thing has grown into semantic wankery.

Yeah, I'm no angel either.  But I'm done having those types of discussions because the main point was lost long ago.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;576498I love the fact that you complain that I'm of using the words "free  attack" as a "keyword to tag a bunch of rules"... and then complain that  the "free attack" keyword doesn't exist in the rule I'm citing.

Yes, retard, because if you want to use it as a keyword, it had better show up in the rules you are citing.  You want to pretend 'free attacks' has some connective meaning, but you don't want to actually connect anything with it.  Maybe you should skim your rhetoric notes for a bit before responding.

QuoteThanks! That's a great example of your functional illiteracy! (I never said that.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563244(It goes on from there to explain that  two man-sized figures can only fit in a square if they're fighting a  snake; if they're fighting a bipedal opponent they can't.)

You are aware that anything you post here stays in the database and is available for later perusal, right?  This isn't like your circle of high school friends that conveniently forget what you have said previously, and you can't just 'lose' the really moronic things you have posted like when you have your own blog.

Quote(1) Your continued insistence that attacks of opportunity aren't free attacks, despite the fact that this is exactly what both 2E PO and 3E explicitly say they are, is idiotic. Really, really idiotic.

Nope, only that they didn't exist prior to "2.5".  Are you sure you are responding to my posts and not the ones you make up in your head?  Or are you going to double down on the "AoO have always existed in every edition"?

Quote(2) Your continued insistence that AoOs were not created in order to unify a number of different mechanics in AD&D which granted free attacks (of various types) and adjusted/ignored initiative order is simply willful ignorance.

My apologies, Mr Tweet, I didn't realize you were using a different alias these days.  If you have the time, could you post that list of all these disparate actions that granted 'free attacks' in AD&D as a reference point?

QuoteFurther discussion of this topic with someone so deeply vested in their ignorance and so fundamentally crippled by their functional illiteracy is simply not worth my time. If anybody other than StormMoron has a legitimate discussion they want to partake in on this topic, though, I'd be interested in doing that.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563244(It goes on from there to explain that  two man-sized figures can only fit in a square if they're fighting a  snake; if they're fighting a bipedal opponent they can't.)