Quote from: Sacrosanct;576509Neither 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.

I swear, these people cannot possibly leave the basement.  They would get routinely punched in the face for pulling this shit even from Hari Krishnas.

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

This is likely the best decision.

Quote from: RandallS;576494I 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.

Flawless victory.  It's sad this is too long for my signature block.

I think that a lot of it is from the perspective of what you've played most (regarding this whole AoO thing).

I have one friend in particular.  He's been a friend of mine for going-on 32 years now, and he's been in my gaming group since I was 12.  He is a touch on the slow side in some things, quite bright in others.  Math and conditions are his 'slow' things, though.  For him, AoO's are Satan Incarnate.  He can -never- remember what triggers when, where, and why.  AoO's alone turned him off of 3E (and the entire PO series) long before he knew any of the other problems in 3rd (mainly because our group doesn't run into those problems - we're adults).

The 'attack from running' thing, however, doesn't trigger his AoO fear.  To him, the 'rule' is 'if it runs, you get an attack'.  AoO's added a bunch of stuff to the rule in his opinion.  For others, they see the 'run and get attacked' as an early proto-AoO because their perspective comes from the AoO side.  If you believe in a rule, you'll see evidence of it previously.  If you believe what was written first WAS the rule, then you'll see a bunch of junk added on.  Both are right, and both are wrong.

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;576592The 'attack from running' thing, however, doesn't trigger his AoO fear.  To him, the 'rule' is 'if it runs, you get an attack'.  AoO's added a bunch of stuff to the rule in his opinion.  For others, they see the 'run and get attacked' as an early proto-AoO because their perspective comes from the AoO side.  If you believe in a rule, you'll see evidence of it previously.  If you believe what was written first WAS the rule, then you'll see a bunch of junk added on.  Both are right, and both are wrong.

Which is a good point.  I think a natural curiosity about where and how something came about is quite healthy and leads to other explorations regarding the rules and how to apply them.

Based on the actual rules cited, it does appear that there are not multiple individual cases of Free Attacks in earler rulesets.  There is one.  A claim that 3rd AoO merely "cleaned up" or codified all these random disparate Free Attacks seems a stretch, one not borne out by rules examination.

However, is the "Bonus against a Fleeing Opponent", which led to "Free Attack against a Fleeing Opponent" part of the ancestry of what became "Attacks of Opportunity"?  Sure. It's obviously part of it - just like interrupts from Magic: The Gathering, and Zones of Control from board and wargames are also parts of it as well.

Claims that 0/B/1 had "Attacks of Opportunity" though are thin and stretched enough that continuing, persistent and strenuous claims along those lines does make one wonder why someone is so invested in spreading that meme.  Because Internet? Maybe.

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;576592The 'attack from running' thing, however, doesn't trigger his AoO fear.  To him, the 'rule' is 'if it runs, you get an attack'.  AoO's added a bunch of stuff to the rule in his opinion.  For others, they see the 'run and get attacked' as an early proto-AoO because their perspective comes from the AoO side.  If you believe in a rule, you'll see evidence of it previously.  If you believe what was written first WAS the rule, then you'll see a bunch of junk added on.  Both are right, and both are wrong.

Whether it's implemented as an Attack of Opportunity or a Zone of Control, the reason for the rule is the same, which is to prevent the free movement of a unit through combat without those that they were fighting or move past having an opportunity to attack them.  I think the most serious problem people have with AoO in 3.5 is that they couldn't be easily ignored because they were tied into Feats, Skills, and other elements of the game.  That these rules were atomic and easily ignored in earlier editions of D&D is why people are having to go back and quote rules in those earlier editions that I'm sure were regularly ignored by a lot of the people playing them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;576597Based on the actual rules cited, it does appear that there are not multiple individual cases of Free Attacks in earler rulesets.  There is one.  A claim that 3rd AoO merely "cleaned up" or codified all these random disparate Free Attacks seems a stretch, one not borne out by rules examination.

I would say the other thing AoOs were meant for was interruption. Instead of rolling init after declaring actions, you roll init once in 3x. So they had to squeeze interruption in somehow. In this case it's more of a stretch, but they were still trying to squeeze something old into a new initiative system.

AoOs on entering a person's space or distracting actions like potion use are the outliers from what I've seen posted here. I can see a case for either of these once the precedent of those last two (fleeing and spellcasting) has been set.

My "cleaned up" AoOs use a new action type, have fewer exceptions (goodbye five foot step, withdrawal, etc), and end actions that provoke them on a hit (not just spellcasting, but archery, potions, movement, whatever). I've used those latter two as houserules in 3x and they both work pretty well so far. But the ending actions thing probably puts them closer to ZOC than 3x's AoOs were.

Quote from: jeff37923;576325This has got to be the product of a program like the random poetry generator.

One monkey. One typewriter.

Quote from: beejazz;576612I would say the other thing AoOs were meant for was interruption. Instead of rolling init after declaring actions, you roll init once in 3x. So they had to squeeze interruption in somehow. In this case it's more of a stretch, but they were still trying to squeeze something old into a new initiative system.

An interesting proposition.  Would you think that is to 'empower' the players?  As I understand it, there isn't really a morale system in 3.x to determine when the monsters would turn and run (to cite one example).

Quote from: StormBringer;576660An interesting proposition.  Would you think that is to 'empower' the players?  As I understand it, there isn't really a morale system in 3.x to determine when the monsters would turn and run (to cite one example).

AoOs apply equally to both sides (nothing about them are PC-only or NPC-only), but favor whichever side has greater numbers slightly. If anything it hits the party a little harder than NPCs (IME), but I guess it all depends on whether you're fighting armies or single monsters. I'm wary of the term "empower" both because of its baggage and multiple meanings. In this case, the rule provides combat options, but doesn't favor the party.

Additionally, the number of exceptions to the AoO rules actually significantly reduced opportunities for interruption compared with prior editions. Something the denners went over in WvF and one of their more valid points. Which is part of why I prefer to strip those exceptions out.

What I was trying to get at though is that 3x's initiative system minus AoOs would strip out the only opportunity* for spell interruption. Unless you either changed the initiative system or squeezed in some other change like two round casting.

Unlike interruption, no new equivalent was squeezed in for morale. This is somewhere I would have liked either the old rule or something with a similar purpose.

*technically I guess there would be continuous damage... so I guess casters could still interrupt casters.

Quote from: StormBringer;576514I swear, these people cannot possibly leave the basement.  They would get routinely punched in the face for pulling this shit even from Hari Krishnas.

For the record, Hare Krishnas aren't nonviolent. They have in fact killed people, including other Hare Krishnas they disagreed with. There's nothing in their philosophy which is inherently nonviolent, and in fact their central holy book, the Bhagavad Gita, is in part an apology for religiously justified violence.

You're probably confusing them with Buddhist monks, though these can be violent too (case in point: the buddhist monks of Sri Lanka who were quite instrumental in the brutal repression of the hindu tamils on that island, who are also famously violent).

RPGPundit

Also for the record, I despise Attacks of Opportunity, and they're one of the most serious problems I have with the 3.x rules.   They are very clearly a different kettle of fish from how previous editions handled combat. Mainly because of the way you can manipulate the AOO rules with exceptions, feats, etc., and in my experience end up using them in ways that are legal to the letter of the rules but definitely not how they were actually meant to be used.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;577436For the record, Hare Krishnas aren't nonviolent. They have in fact killed people, including other Hare Krishnas they disagreed with. There's nothing in their philosophy which is inherently nonviolent, and in fact their central holy book, the Bhagavad Gita, is in part an apology for religiously justified violence.

Interesting.  I have been falling behind on my philosophical reading of late, I will have to pick this up.

QuoteYou're probably confusing them with Buddhist monks, though these can be violent too (case in point: the buddhist monks of Sri Lanka who were quite instrumental in the brutal repression of the hindu tamils on that island, who are also famously violent).

Just an American/Western cultural touchstone of the burned out hippies at the airports who claim association with the Hare Krishnas.  In both cases, I think the modern incarnations have embraced non-violence more strongly, possibly because of the 'turbulent' past, as you say.

How about:

"These guys would drive the Dalai Lama to lose his shit and belt them right in the fucking mouth"

Quote from: RPGPundit;577438Also for the record, I despise Attacks of Opportunity, and they're one of the most serious problems I have with the 3.x rules.   They are very clearly a different kettle of fish from how previous editions handled combat. Mainly because of the way you can manipulate the AOO rules with exceptions, feats, etc., and in my experience end up using them in ways that are legal to the letter of the rules but definitely not how they were actually meant to be used.

RPGPundit

Sounds like you hate the implementation of AoO as opposed to the concept which is that if you run away or move past someone in combat they can take a swing at you.

I think this is a claer situation where a ruling that seems to make sense becomes a Rule that is then manipulated. Its my least favourite thing about games to be honest whether its allowing a Hell hound to ride a motor bike in the Jyhad card game (because its an ally and allies can use equipment) to the lobotomy that was 4e

Quote from: jibbajibba;577472Sounds like you hate the implementation of AoO as opposed to the concept which is that if you run away or move past someone in combat they can take a swing at you.

By itself that isn't a poor concept. The lack of situational modification is what makes it blow goats.

You have a fighter that is engaged with 3 opponents. Some other jackass runs past him from behind and suddenly he can hit this guy without a problem while maintaining his guard against the original 3 guys?

If AOO was limited to those who are not already engaged in melee then it would be less of a problem.