TheRPGSite

Why is there anger directed towards CharOp in editions of D&D produced by Wizards of the Coast and not towards other games (eg. GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, etc.)?

Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D? Or is it because D&D is the most popular/recognized system?

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D?

I just answered this in the other thread, but I think this is it.

You had 25 years of D&D where CharOp wasn't the focus, and you really couldn't do it nearly to the extent you can in 3e.  So you've got the identity of the game already set, and then suddenly a new edition comes out where CharOP is a huge focus and exploitation from rules mastery becomes common.  Do any other game systems have such major differences between editions?

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Why is there anger directed towards CharOp in editions of D&D produced by Wizards of the Coast and not towards other games (eg. GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, etc.)?

Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D? Or is it because D&D is the most popular/recognized system?

A little of both. Also the sort of attitude pre-3 had towards chargen was already pretty rare outside of D&D when 3e showed up. There may have been some half-legitimate fear of the playstyle dying.

Outside of that, the existence of exploits, necessary feats/spells/whatever, and trap feats/spells/whatever left a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths. GURPS and the rest were at least perceived as being better balanced, and balance does start mattering when players have more say in chargen.

Nowadays, I'm not really sure why the animosity persists, given the existence of the OSR/clones/spinoffs.

I'll repeat my answer there, here with some additions:


HERO talks about the issue directly and at length in the rulebook itself. It's always been an issue. You don't see it here as I think I'm the only current player of HERO on the whole board (or at least the only one who talks about it).


The rulebook advice is that the GM keeps a firm eye on the construction (and later XP use) of the character. HERO is a rather special case in that *anything* can be built, and thus the character of the whole setting depends upon what and how everything is built.


In my own case, all characters are generally created by the GM himself with player input. This is due to few people having an interest in HERO's construction methods (which is detailed and for an RPG rather complex) and the GM's interest in keeping everything consistent in the setting.

I think part of it is what causes a lot of vehemence in these wars, Distinction Denial.  A lot of players never played anything before 3e, as a result they have absolutely no idea how different it truly is.  As a result, the observations of those who did experience other versions of D&D and realize it really is a completely different game are usually dismissed out of hand as sour grapes, grograge, whatever the cool insult of the day is.  And so it begins...

Not the only reason, but a big one.  Also the other major CharOp games started out CharOp and have always been so.  D&D has undergone so many changes from 2 to 3, and 3 to 4, that they're really not even the same type of game anymore, except under definitions so wide as to be meaningless.

IMO, CharOp anger in a level-based system is more normal than it would be in a point-buy game.  Levels are typically intended to be equivalent, particularly in 3e where everyone shares the same experience table.  Point buy options, by virtue of costing different amounts of points, are not.  So there's a base assumption that if you have 'X' in a point buy game, you paid for it and should be able to use it.  Complaints may arise that the costs are wrong, etc, but that's about it.  But when your level 5 guy is obviously on a totally different plane than my level 5 guy, and I have no option of getting where you are with my character concept, then I'm going to be unhappy.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D? Or is it because D&D is the most popular/recognized system?

i think it is because of this. Also for the first two editions of D&D min/maxing was frowned upon not just by the D&D community, but in a lot of officially released material. 3E kind of reversed that and so those of us who took a dim view of min/max were a bit surprised as it dawned on us that 3E catered to it in a way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;575278I think part of it is what causes a lot of vehemence in these wars, Distinction Denial.  A lot of players never played anything before 3e, as a result they have absolutely no idea how different it truly is.  As a result, the observations of those who did experience other versions of D&D and realize it really is a completely different game are usually dismissed out of hand as sour grapes, grograge, whatever the cool insult of the day is.  And so it begins...

If it's a different game, it shouldn't matter.  I told WotC that I wasn't interested in 4th edition (I wasn't).  It's nice to have the edition you play supported, but it's not required.  They don't steal your books away.  I have pretty much all the books for 2nd edition (I want to get the Green source books like Vikings, but all the rest) so I could play that if I want.  I can play 3.5 if I want.  Releasing a new version doesn't HAVE to be anything like the last version, as long as it's good.  

In my opinion, 3rd was better than 2nd, and it was worth converting to.  4th failed that test.  D&D Next looks like it's going to fail that test, too.  

It's okay if they release different games.  It's also okay to try to influence their future releases to cater to your style.  But if you're perfectly happy with your edition of choice, no worries.

For myself, I'm not perfectly happy with 3.5.  I think it's the best so far, but there's room for improvement.  I was hoping D&D Next would emulate some of the things 3.5 got right and maybe fix some things it got wrong.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575308It's okay if they release different games.  It's also okay to try to influence their future releases to cater to your style.  But if you're perfectly happy with your edition of choice, no worries.

Of course WFRP3 didn't invalidate existing WFRP2 content, but it did mean there would be no more WFRP2 content.  The publisher isn't the issue however, the rancor is created amongst the gamers themselves.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575305i think it is because of this. Also for the first two editions of D&D min/maxing was frowned upon not just by the D&D community, but in a lot of officially released material. 3E kind of reversed that and so those of us who took a dim view of min/max were a bit surprised as it dawned on us that 3E catered to it in a way.

That's a major reason. "Sticking to the RAW" too much can easily become just the kind of thing this quote warned about:

Quote from: Some Guy in WisconsinIt is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players.

Which seems to aim for a healthy balance of all things - use, don't abuse, and don't let others get away with it either. A primarily social solution to a primarily social problem.

Another thing I would bring up is that CharOp brings out a lot of issues in the rules which aren't there for people who don't practice the playstyle, or may even be seen as positive features instead of game-breaking bugs. The WotC design team, who collected a lot of their feedback from communities wher CharOp flourished (notably the RPGA and the WotC forums), took a lot of steps to remedy these problems without considering their impact on people with different, or differently weighted preferences. The results were rather far-reaching, both on individual rules, and on the significance of rules on gameplay. It helped drive away a lot of us, some via 3.x, and some via 4e.

I acknowledge other people like playing within precise boundaries and using the possible mechanical advantages at their disposal to their fullest, but personally, I have little interest in doing that. I don't like it, I don't like wargames, and my only interest in chess is to admire a nice set as an art object or maybe to play a quick round with someone who sucks at it just as much as I do. Creative problem-solving, sure (this Sunday, we defeated a minotaur by setting an ambush and making it charge into two readied polearms for that double damage); using characters effectively, sure, but beyond that level, it gives me nothing, and there is a point where it starts to become just as boring as ten-page character backstories.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575264Do any other game systems have such major differences between editions?

I'm glad you asked. Let's take Gamma World.

GW 1st & 2nd edition very much old school D&D style game.
GW 3rd edition "Faserip" style system with colour coded charts
GW 4th edition mix of AD&D2e and proto D20
GW 5th edition Alternity based system with complete rethink of setting and player races.
GW 6th edition D20 based system with complete rethink of setting, tone and player races.
GW 7th edition D&D4e based system with complete rethink of setting, tone and player races.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Why is there anger directed towards CharOp in editions of D&D produced by Wizards of the Coast and not towards other games (eg. GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, etc.)?

Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D? Or is it because D&D is the most popular/recognized system?

D&D was CharOp friendly since the beginning, just like the others. You just didn't have Internet so CharOpers could easily compare strategies.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Why is there anger directed towards CharOp in editions of D&D produced by Wizards of the Coast and not towards other games (eg. GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, etc.)?

I've seen anger, and lots of it, directed towards CharOp in GURPS and HERO. I don't know about the rest, but D&D is hardly unique.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575264I just answered this in the other thread, but I think this is it.

You had 25 years of D&D where CharOp wasn't the focus, and you really couldn't do it nearly to the extent you can in 3e.  So you've got the identity of the game already set, and then suddenly a new edition comes out where CharOP is a huge focus and exploitation from rules mastery becomes common.  Do any other game systems have such major differences between editions?

Yeah this is pretty much it.

I avoided the hell out of GURPS, HERO, Champions, etc. for this very reason. To see it completely take over D&D was disappointing.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;575344I've seen anger, and lots of it, directed towards CharOp in GURPS and HERO. I don't know about the rest, but D&D is hardly unique.

Speaking of GURPS, CharOp is one (of a number) reason why I won't use the system. It's heavy focus on Stats was such that it prevented many character concepts from being affordable even if they weren't as a effective.

I already talked about this issue before, so I'll link to the Monte Cook article. (http://montecook.mulehill.com/line-of-sight/ivory-tower-game-design)

tl;dr the 3rd Edition designers made choosing the right options more complicated and involved than necessary; the system's complicated enough, you shouldn't intentionally make subpar options look cool.

On the other hand, Toughness has saved two of my characters, both Fighters. It just doesn't scale well, except maybe in E6.

Quote from: Melan;575428On the other hand, Toughness has saved two of my characters, both Fighters. It just doesn't scale well, except maybe in E6.

Improved Toughness is more viable of an option, especially when you'll be spending 1/7th or 1/8th of your feat choice options on something marginally useful.

In fact, the most worthwhile feats are those outside of the PHB.

Charops happens when referees abdicate the responsibility for managing their campaign.

Char Ops happens in GURPS and Hero but it obvious when it does due to the descriptive nature of the character traits. You look at and go "huh?"

Both of these RPGs are presented as toolkits from which the referee construct their campaign. So unlike D&D's "everything is core" attitude it expected that the referee will be not be using everything the system has to offer.  

I have a newcomer to my GURPS Majestic Wilderlands and had to tell him several times that the handout defines which Skills, and advantages I allow not the rulebook.  Of course being my hobby the handout isn't completely up to date so it can be frustrating at times as I  revise it.

For one of the areas he was interested in, Spirit Magic, I explained that beyond a few vague ideas I have not detailed that aspect of my setting. So if he interested in pursuing that area for his character than we can look at the stuff GURPS has and refine it from there. But in the end the final call is mine.

If I am satisfied with how something works in the campaign, then that how it going to be regardless of what SJ Games says does. I am the final arbiter of what rules goes into the game.

I refereed several 4e games this way. Once after several major errata to the core rules, a player tried to play it to his advantage and I shut it down. I didn't know about it and I was going with what I could look up with what I had.

Then he tried to abuse it but I shut that down by simply telling him to describe what his character  was doing as if he was there. Then I told him what he needed to roll. He complained a bit but stopped after he saw that I treated everybody fairly and that my way allowed for more options as it adapted 4e to what the players wanted to do rather than the other way around.

And then I got my usual "Rob, you DM 4e differently than everybody else I know.'

Quote from: Imperator;575335D&D was CharOp friendly since the beginning, just like the others. You just didn't have Internet so CharOpers could easily compare strategies.

Are you familiar with OD&D, B/X, and AD&D?

Not exactly charop heaven here (started slightly creeping in with UA for AD&D)

In OD&D and B/X you optimize by choosing the class you rolled the highest stat in. Done.

Quote from: Imperator;575335D&D was CharOp friendly since the beginning, just like the others. You just didn't have Internet so CharOpers could easily compare strategies.

Of course there is room for some character optimization, in the loosest sense of the word, in pre-3e D&D, every time a player makes a choice about his character (e.g. which weapon to use, which spell to memorize). But when most people mention CharOp, it's Pun-Pun (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER.) and the like that they're thinking of.

The amount of choices that a player gets creating and leveling up a TSR-era D&D character (with the possible exception of AD&D 2e) is trivial next to the smorgasbord of "builds" available to a 3e character. You can "dip" into a different class, you can play the feat tree, you can join a prestige class, etc.

It's the metagameyness of it all that detracts from the experince, for me and for most others. I play with some very clever people, at least one of whom who has an impressive eye for finding and exploiting this sort of thing, but he limits himself to character concepts which fit the game world (or as we say, "uses his powers for good" :D) and is never, ever a dick about it.

Quote from: The Butcher;575495But when most people mention CharOp, it's Pun-Pun (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER.) and the like that they're thinking of.
.

Pun-Pun tells us two things

1)3e is way too permsive in leting PCs have things that come out of a monster stablock.

2)The person at WotC who wrote the Manipulate Form ability and the editor who let it go to print were on some serious drugs.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575534Pun-Pun tells us two things

1)3e is way too permsive in leting PCs have things that come out of a monster stablock.

2)The person at WotC who wrote the Manipulate Form ability and the editor who let it go to print were on some serious drugs.

3) The GM who would let it happen is a moron.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;5755363) The GM who would let it happen is a moron.

I thought that went without saying

Quote from: The Butcher;575495But when most people mention CharOp, it's Pun-Pun (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER.) and the like that they're thinking of.

Don't you think that this is setting up a strawman and stapling it to the back of anyone who happens to say "I like doing character builds"?

I mean, would anyone here defend such an extreme example?

Quote from: gleichman;575575Don't you think that this is setting up a strawman and stapling it to the back of anyone who happens to say "I like doing character builds"?

I mean, would anyone here defend such an extreme example?

Thunder-fucking-dome!

Come on, Brian, get a life.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575573I thought that went without saying

Ah, but the whole thing leads us back to the discussion about if it's the GM's responsibility to curb that sort of thing, or if, because it's possible under the RAW, the GM is required to allow it to take place.

Since I was just thinking about Hero in writing another response, here's an example of it:

There's a lot of powers in Hero/Champions that are, in spite of their relative point cost, gamebreaking.  The publishers included them in the game, but put a warning next to them, specifying that the GM should either watch their use carefully, or just outright ban them if he doesn't like dealing with them.  They exist in the RAW, but it's incorporated in the system to have GM interaction.

And Hero is a pure point-buy system, where CharOp is honestly part of the game.  You can spend hours working on crafting the perfect disad to get that extra -1/4 put on your power so that you can afford to pick up another +1 OCV in Hth.

Quote from: One Horse Town;575576Thunder-fucking-dome!

Come on, Brian, get a life.

I'm not sure what you mean here, or how Thunderdome relates. Did someone involved actually defend that example of Pun-Pun in one of the Thundedome threads?

Maybe you mean that the actions of MGuy and Kaelik are so bad that CharOp is ruined as a method of play by association? That would be like burning all Freemasons at the stake because of Pundit don't you think?

Quote from: gleichman;575579I'm not sure what you mean here, or how Thunderdome relates. Do someone involved actually defend that example of Pun-Pun in one of the Thundedome threads?

No, mate. I'm just slightly tired of recent "en-garde!" defend yourself or you're a cunt/lier/dick-head/deluded, type of statements.

Hell, i'm just tired, period.

Quote from: One Horse Town;575580No, mate. I'm just slightly tired of recent "en-garde!" defend yourself or you're a cunt/lier/dick-head/deluded, type of statements.

Hell, i'm just tired, period.

It's been a rough week.

Quote from: gleichman;575582It's been a rough week.

Especially since every thread is the same discussion.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575586Especially since every thread is the same discussion.

That's rather typically IME.

And the Thunderdomes didn't help. Those sound like fun, but were a bad idea from the beginning.

Quote from: One Horse Town;575576Thunder-fucking-dome!

There was an anti-Pun-Pun build, which is possibly even more hilarious.  Both are obvious jokes, and are unintended exploits though.  

The Pun-Pun counter character didn't actually have any abilities to counter Pun-Pun, but it was another infinite loop exploit that gave an infinitely high bonus to generic, cosmic knowledge checks, meaning that if there was a way to defeat Pun-Pun this character would know it.

Quote from: gleichman;575269I'll repeat my answer there, here with some additions:


HERO talks about the issue directly and at length in the rulebook itself. It's always been an issue. You don't see it here as I think I'm the only current player of HERO on the whole board (or at least the only one who talks about it).


The rulebook advice is that the GM keeps a firm eye on the construction (and later XP use) of the character. HERO is a rather special case in that *anything* can be built, and thus the character of the whole setting depends upon what and how everything is built.


In my own case, all characters are generally created by the GM himself with player input. This is due to few people having an interest in HERO's construction methods (which is detailed and for an RPG rather complex) and the GM's interest in keeping everything consistent in the setting.

You're not the only one, I play HERO as well, not as often anymore but here and there.  I also touch GURPS every so often as well.  I would discuss more but I am really tired, catch you guys later.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575573

Quote from: Panzerkraken;5755363) The GM who would let it happen is a moron.

I thought that went without saying

So there. If both sides could just agree on what the fuck they were talking about we'd have a considerably shorter thread. Instead we had 4000+ posts of angry nerds shouting at each other about totally different things.

Quote from: gleichman;575575Don't you think that this is setting up a strawman and stapling it to the back of anyone who happens to say "I like doing character builds"?

I mean, would anyone here defend such an extreme example?

It is an extreme yet also very illustrative example on why CharOp can be disruptive, and needs to be regulated by the GM. A GM who cracks down on Pun-Pun and similar builds is not "a dick" and it doesn't make his game a "magical tea party" of "mother may I". Ugly stereotypes and fringe cases were paraded around on both sides.

Quote from: The Butcher;575637It is an extreme yet also very illustrative example on why CharOp can be disruptive, and needs to be regulated by the GM. A GM who cracks down on Pun-Pun and similar builds is not "a dick" and it doesn't make his game a "magical tea party" of "mother may I". Ugly stereotypes and fringe cases were paraded around on both sides.

Playing coy? I don't understand.

Quote from: gleichman;575579I'm not sure what you mean here...

What he means is that everyone is sick to death of your fucking 'contradict everyone and everything' routine that has become the only reason you post anything.

Quote from: beejazz;575267A little of both. Also the sort of attitude pre-3 had towards chargen was already pretty rare outside of D&D when 3e showed up. There may have been some half-legitimate fear of the playstyle dying.

Outside of that, the existence of exploits, necessary feats/spells/whatever, and trap feats/spells/whatever left a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths. GURPS and the rest were at least perceived as being better balanced, and balance does start mattering when players have more say in chargen.

Nowadays, I'm not really sure why the animosity persists, given the existence of the OSR/clones/spinoffs.

But you can reign that in pretty well by limiting points, right?  I am sure there are people out there that will squeeze every last drop of optimization out of any number of points, but I have to imagine it's a damn sight harder (in Hero, for example) with 75-100pts than with 400-500+.

Quote from: The Butcher;575495Of course there is room for some character optimization, in the loosest sense of the word, in pre-3e D&D, every time a player makes a choice about his character (e.g. which weapon to use, which spell to memorize). But when most people mention CharOp, it's Pun-Pun (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER.) and the like that they're thinking of.

This kind of CharOp abuse is what you get when the company relies on player option splatbook production to fund their development department. It creates an environment in which players are empowered to "chase the supplement", which generally tends to create power creep even at tables that aren't experiencing the CharOp abuse.

This was a model that was actually created by TSR for AD&D 2nd Edition before being gleefully adopted by White Wolf, Pinnacle, AEG, and a dozen others in the '90s. And those of who were active on Usenet or Fidonet or other message networks back in the day can tell you that, yes, there was a lot of CharOp back then.

1st Edition wasn't really immune to it, either. There was just a lot less of it, especially if your DM banned Dragon magazine. (Although the stuff that came out in supplements tended to be a lot more broken.)

3rd Edition isn't actually a particularly radical leap if you compare it to where the D&D game was in 1999. It's a very radical leap compared to where the game was in 1979. But where the game was in 1989 was also a pretty radical leap compared to 1974. Up until 2008, there was a slow accretion of more and more new stuff onto a basic core that was pretty much unaltered.

Quote from: The Butcher;575637It is an extreme yet also very illustrative example on why CharOp can be disruptive, and needs to be regulated by the GM. A GM who cracks down on Pun-Pun and similar builds is not "a dick" and it doesn't make his game a "magical tea party" of "mother may I". Ugly stereotypes and fringe cases were paraded around on both sides.

I don't think Pun-Pun is illustrative of anything because it's not achievable by Core or "RAW".

In addition to requiring either extensive DM cooperation (despite what the thread says, passing a DC 25 Knowledge (The Planes) check isn't sufficient to summon Pazzuzu by RAW, since all DC checks are specifically examples and guidelines and not rules).

The rest of the chain of events is likewise assuming some kind of CRPG environment where NPCs react to your requests robotically.

The other more mechanical method requires very specious interpretations of the rules.  The whole ability hinges on acquiring the Manipulate Form ability of a Forgotten Realms "creator race", and then reinterpreting the constraints of that ability to be different for some reason because the player has acquired it instead of the actual description of the ability as the monster uses it; which is definitively not a Rules As Written scenario.  

Pun-Pun requires a "common sense" reading of what an ability would do if a player had it instead of a monster, while simultaneously suspending your "common sense" rulings on similarly reinterpreting the ability's restrictions to appropriate in another creature's hands than the one it was created for.

On top of that you need a monster template, which in itself isn't available to players.  If you are pulling shit out of the MM you might as well cite my Great Wyrm Red Dragon that I play straight out of the MM as an example of the excesses CharOp.

Pun-Pun was actually meant to be a thumb in the eye of the CharOp boards, so someone could declare that they "won" at D&D and everyone could stop trying to break the system.

There are stupid CharOp builds such as the machine gun-like Hulking Hurler builds that drag around carts of axes to chuck a dozen a round for a thousand damage, and the Leap Attacking charger builds where the character is literally running and jumping past his opponent every single round of combat.

A lot of the CharOp is silly because it's about using extremely unconventional methods, which results in objectively silly gameplay options, where the "physics" of the gameworld result in the best style of swordsmanship in the setting being from the Kangaroo Greatsword School of Fighting, which is when CharOp gets bad.  Adding the Paladin to the game in 1e was "CharOp" in a sense, but it's a deliberate addition to the game to make it cooler, or better, while really no one thinks that that Leap Attack every round, and machine gun axe-chucker being the best options is an improvement to the game.  

Those kinds of things are exactly like the 2e Dart Specialist Fighter.  The unintended consequences of a poorly thought out mechanic resulting in an ability that is only powerful because it is stupid and tasteless, which is why it gets missed by designers in the first place.  Although I can't imagine what the hell they were thinking with the Hulking Hurler even from a purely aesthetic sense, so maybe I'm being too generous.

Pun-Pun just isn't an example of that though, because you can't even do it by either RAW or RAI without the DM giving you lots okays to do things that aren't allowed by default, even before you have to start cheating by pretending that abilities do things they don't say they do.  That's not "CharOp" in any meaningful sense of the word; and if it is, the DM giving his girlfriend's PC cool stuff that's not even in the PHB in 1e was also "CharOp" (which it wasn't).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;575479Are you familiar with OD&D, B/X, and AD&D?

Not exactly charop heaven here (started slightly creeping in with UA for AD&D)

In OD&D and B/X you optimize by choosing the class you rolled the highest stat in. Done.

I agree, but there are some seeds of min/maxing there in tossing out what you have rolled and simply rolling another character.

I was just looking at the 1st Edition AD&D PHB and came across this:

"Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

Your millage will vary but I can see this as interpreted as "if you don't have two stats of 15 or more, toss out the character and make a new one."

Quote from: Exploderwizard;575479Are you familiar with OD&D, B/X, and AD&D?

Not exactly charop heaven here (started slightly creeping in with UA for AD&D)

In OD&D and B/X you optimize by choosing the class you rolled the highest stat in. Done.

Well, it depends. Of course, I can agree with you that the bigger the amount of rules, the more space you have to min/max. But I've seen people doing insane things using BECMI and Dragon articles and the like, and having arguments with the DM about if this or that class/spell/item should be allowed or not.

So it is possible, though I agree it's harder.

Quote from: The Butcher;575495The amount of choices that a player gets creating and leveling up a TSR-era D&D character (with the possible exception of AD&D 2e) is trivial next to the smorgasbord of "builds" available to a 3e character. You can "dip" into a different class, you can play the feat tree, you can join a prestige class, etc.

It's the metagameyness of it all that detracts from the experince, for me and for most others. I play with some very clever people, at least one of whom who has an impressive eye for finding and exploiting this sort of thing, but he limits himself to character concepts which fit the game world (or as we say, "uses his powers for good" :D) and is never, ever a dick about it.

This matches my experience as well. I have played 3e with normal, well-adjusted people, some of them very good at using the rules to the fullest. We had never a problem with that: simply put, it came to a moment where the game was too complex to GM, and we moved on to other things

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575660This kind of CharOp abuse is what you get when the company relies on player option splatbook production to fund their development department. It creates an environment in which players are empowered to "chase the supplement", which generally tends to create power creep even at tables that aren't experiencing the CharOp abuse.

I think you have a solid point here.

Also, for many persons it depends a lot on how the splat premise is formulated. For example, in nWoD books they go to sometimes painful lengths to make clear that nothing but the core books are core, they include 3 possible explanations for everything so the GM can use, discard and all, and make clear that every bloodline, spell, Discipline or whatnot is strictly optional.

QuoteThis was a model that was actually created by TSR for AD&D 2nd Edition before being gleefully adopted by White Wolf, Pinnacle, AEG, and a dozen others in the '90s. And those of who were active on Usenet or Fidonet or other message networks back in the day can tell you that, yes, there was a lot of CharOp back then.

Again, I agree.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575669I don't think Pun-Pun is illustrative of anything because it's not achievable by Core or "RAW".

I have always seen that things as thought experiments, curious and fun things that would never make it into a game table. As you very well note, in building PunPun there are several heavy deviations from the rules.

It was obvious to me very quickly that 3e was going to be a system mastery edition and system mastery leads to charop. This is why we stayed with houseruled 2e and never moved to 3.

And Charop always existed even back in the 1e days. An Elven Fighter/MU in a low level D&D game is a charop choice. The overhead of running that build (additional XP) is clearly outweighed by the power advantages of spells + combat. Demi-humans are nearly always multiclassed in 1e and demi humans get a lot of advantages and in most games the level limits are seldom reached so even if you play RAW its a powerful option.
Likewise I have outlined previously how you can Charop using Human Dual classed PCs. If you roll good numbers. (Take Figther run til 2nd level switch to MU, you are now a MU who has 2d10 hp THACO of a 6th level wizard and can use swords and bows)
It is also arguable that Rangers, and Paladins are a Charop choice. They are clearly superior to Fighters and come with an alignment restriction that are usually fine for the majority of goodly parties. Likewise in an evil party an Assasin is more powerful than a thief, although that is not quite so clear cut especially at lower levels. This is because D&D rewards good stats with access to more powerful classes but at the same time insists that you have 2 good stats (15+) so a ranger is generally an easy class to hit because the rules ensure you hit 2 of your 4 prereq scores, Pretty much by definition any legal PC will be able to be an Assasin

Quote from: Lynn;575671I agree, but there are some seeds of min/maxing there in tossing out what you have rolled and simply rolling another character.

I was just looking at the 1st Edition AD&D PHB and came across this:

"Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

Your millage will vary but I can see this as interpreted as "if you don't have two stats of 15 or more, toss out the character and make a new one."

Stats became more important in AD&D because of the requirements added to play even the base classes. Even B/X had provisions for abandoning 'hopeless' characters even though there were no explicit minimum requirements.

Quote from: Imperator;575683Well, it depends. Of course, I can agree with you that the bigger the amount of rules, the more space you have to min/max. But I've seen people doing insane things using BECMI and Dragon articles and the like, and having arguments with the DM about if this or that class/spell/item should be allowed or not.

So it is possible, though I agree it's harder.

Of course that happens, powergamers are gonna try and powergame with any system.  Earlier editions had a very small core, with largely external options. 3E came with a whole lot of options to start with and many more official additions.

The difference is in the culture of the system. In the examples you gave it is the player who seems like an unreasonable douche for trying to force the inclusion of all the whacked out material.

In 3E its the DM that is made to look like an unreasonable douche if core options are not permitted, no matter how overpowering they may be. The RAW is held in such elevated regard in 3E. From a sales standpoint its nice to have your customer base believe that you know better what's fun for the game than the ones playing it, but it does more harm than good to the hobby overall.

My experience is far too limited to be indicative of anything, but all the 3.x campaigns I ever played in used only the three core manuals.  By comparison, the 2E campaigns I played in used the various kits and Player's Options books, and the 2E campaigns saw many more insane and gamebreakingly bad "builds" than the 3.x campaigns.

Yes, yes, I know that 2E core + supplements vs. 3E core only isn't a "fair" comparison.  I'm not trying to be fair.  I'm pointing out that what 2E was at the end of its lifecycle seemed to me to be significantly "worse" than 3E out of the gate.

Quote from: daniel_ream;575753My experience is far too limited to be indicative of anything, but all the 3.x campaigns I ever played in used only the three core manuals.  By comparison, the 2E campaigns I played in used the various kits and Player's Options books, and the 2E campaigns saw many more insane and gamebreakingly bad "builds" than the 3.x campaigns.

Yes, yes, I know that 2E core + supplements vs. 3E core only isn't a "fair" comparison.  I'm not trying to be fair.  I'm pointing out that what 2E was at the end of its lifecycle seemed to me to be significantly "worse" than 3E out of the gate.

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

Quote from: Exploderwizard;575759Late 2E splat was a blueprint for the 3E model. The 'Eureka!' moment when selling player upgrades piecemeal became the base model for marketing.

Absolutely.  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.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;575479In OD&D and B/X you optimize by choosing the class you rolled the highest stat in. Done.

The vast majority of CharOppers in pre-2E versions of the game played spellcasters: They optimized their characters through spell selection.

Once 2E arrives, the CharOppers spread out a big because kits and proficiencies gave 'em legs across the board.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;575759Late 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.

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

Although 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).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575906The vast majority of CharOppers in pre-2E versions of the game played spellcasters: They optimized their characters through spell selection.

That, or they tried to convince the DMs to give them uber magic items.  

"I'm a paladin and I want my holy sword.  Who cares if I'm only level 6."

QuoteOnce 2E arrives, the CharOppers spread out a big because kits and proficiencies gave 'em legs across the board.



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

I think he's talking about S&P.  The Complete Kits weren't really CharOp because the benefits were very minor.  Woohoo, you got a whole +1 to hit with a bow because you chose the archer kit.  In the grand scheme of things, a +1 bonus total wasn't all that impactful.  The Bladesinger was one of the only really CharOP classes out there.

But when S&P came out?  Wow.  CharOp heaven.

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).

We'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.

An 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.

3.x tended to standardize a lot of rules and give them names.  The free attack when someone casts a spell next to you is very similar to the free attack you get when someone turns their back on you.  Giving them a name and building some commonalities between them isn't a bad thing.

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

Wrong.

QuoteIt'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.

Also wrong.

Quote3.x tended to standardize a lot of rules and give them names.  The free attack when someone casts a spell next to you is very similar to the free attack you get when someone turns their back on you.  Giving them a name and building some commonalities between them isn't a bad thing.

You don't get a 'free attack' on a spell caster in AD&D.  Stick to the version you know.

"Attack of Opportunity" is a very specific mechanic.  It's not just a 'free attack' because you want the widest possible definition so you can claim a similarity between 1st edition and 3.x.  Only very specific actions will trigger an Attack of Opportunity; no such requirements are present in AD&D, nor is there a mechanic that provides a use for those requirements.

Quote from: StormBringer;575952"Attack of Opportunity" is a very specific mechanic.  It's not just a 'free attack' because you want the widest possible definition so you can claim a similarity between 1st edition and 3.x.  Only very specific actions will trigger an Attack of Opportunity; no such requirements are present in AD&D, nor is there a mechanic that provides a use for those requirements.

Moving 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.

We had this discussion just the other day.  The only way to get an attack of opportunity in AD&D is if the attacker is coming at you unarmed and isn't skilled in unarmed combat.  And even then you don't get an extra attack, you only get to attack first.  Now, if the attacker then decides to turn and flee, that's when you get a free attack.

Very specific scenario, and nothing like an AoO in 3e.

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

Quote from: StormBringer;575952Wrong.

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.

How 'bout you apologize for being a jackass and admit you were wrong on the first point.  Once we've covered that, I'll be happy to address the rest of your post.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575967How 'bout you apologize for being a jackass and admit you were wrong on the first point.  Once we've covered that, I'll be happy to address the rest of your post.

How about you begin just a single discussion in good faith, and I might consider retracting my statements.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575958nothing like an AoO in 3e.

It certainly sounds something like an attack of opportunity.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575970It certainly sounds something like an attack of opportunity.

In 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.

Quote from: Soylent Green;575329

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575264Do any other game systems have such major differences between editions?

I'm glad you asked. Let's take Gamma World.

GW 1st & 2nd edition very much old school D&D style game.
GW 3rd edition "Faserip" style system with colour coded charts
GW 4th edition mix of AD&D2e and proto D20
GW 5th edition Alternity based system with complete rethink of setting and player races.
GW 6th edition D20 based system with complete rethink of setting, tone and player races.
GW 7th edition D&D4e based system with complete rethink of setting, tone and player races.

Also, Traveller:

LBB Traveller equals the "rulings-not-rules" approach from OD&D
MegaTraveller equals maybe AD&D2, maybe 3e
Traveller: The New Era was a switch to a completely new system - it would equal an Alternity version of D&D (and it alienated a lot of Traveller players)
Marc Miller's Traveller (T4) was yet another system - it is probably as far removed as a Shadowrun or d6 version of D&D (alienating even more players)
Mongoose Traveller seems like a houseruled, streamlined retroclone of LBB and Mega
Of Traveller 5 I know nothing about

Those were the official versions of Traveller.
Then there were portings to other systems: GURPS Traveller and T20.
And Traveller 2300 which was never part of the Traveller family but still irritated some people until it was renamed 2300 AD.

Mongoose shows that, after the failing of two completely different editions, a return to the source is possible and profitable.
For all the warts Mongoose has, this lets me cling to my hopes that a decent D&D5 is possible.

B/X has a "retreat", which indicates movement out of combat over 1/2 normal move, during which attackers get +2 to hit and the retreating character is allowed no return attacks.

In AD&D, a section in the DMG called "Breaking Off From Melee" (DMG p. 70) which states that when a creature breaks off and flees the melee it "allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine."

Lets be honest these do sound a bit like AoO.......

Also in general D&D play if someone tries to dart past you in combat most DMs would let you take a swing at them if they weren't actually defending themselves. It's not called an AoO its called common sense but let's not act like nobs and pretend it never happened

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 (http://www.hyw.com/books/wargameshandbook/2-c-term.htm) 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 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm): "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 (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/MSRD:Combat#Provoking_an_Attack_of_Opportunity)':

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 (http://www.hyw.com/books/wargameshandbook/2-c-term.htm):

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]:
 (http://www.hyw.com/books/wargameshandbook/2-c-term.htm)

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

Threatened square (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm):

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 (http://www.hyw.com/books/wargameshandbook/2-c-term.htm):

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 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm): "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.

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:

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/232/253/244.gif)

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

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/232/253/244.gif)

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.)

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.

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.

Quote from: Bill;577547Honestly I think aoo add nothing to the game.

A person can run through a pitched melee unscathed without AoOs or the AD&D rule cited as similar. Because they begin and end their movement out of melee range. It's an artifact of a turn based system that favors range (almost to the point of making melee useless in some cases) and for some, yes, needs fixing.

A better alternative based on their actual purpose is to have people block the space they occupy somehow. If you really really hate AoOs, that's probably the best alternative.

Quote from: beejazz;577554A person can run through a pitched melee unscathed without AoOs or the AD&D rule cited as similar. Because they begin and end their movement out of melee range. It's an artifact of a turn based system that favors range (almost to the point of making melee useless in some cases) and for some, yes, needs fixing.

A better alternative based on their actual purpose is to have people block the space they occupy somehow. If you really really hate AoOs, that's probably the best alternative.

Just have high tumbling skill and you can matrix your way through anyhting!

The aoo rules in 3X just irritate me.

I allow a lot of 'blocking' as when I run a game.

Quote from: Bill;577555Just have high tumbling skill and you can matrix your way through anyhting!

The aoo rules in 3X just irritate me.

I allow a lot of 'blocking' as when I run a game.

Not gonna argue the exceptions to the rule are annoying as hell. Charge is the only exception I can kind of see a purpose for.

Quote from: beejazz;577554A person can run through a pitched melee unscathed without AoOs or the AD&D rule cited as similar. Because they begin and end their movement out of melee range.

Can you cite the rule on that?  You provoke an attack of opportunity whenever you leave a threatened square.  It doesn't matter where you end your turn because attacks of opportunity are immediate actions and happen out of sequence.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;577560Can you cite the rule on that?  You provoke an attack of opportunity whenever you leave a threatened square.  It doesn't matter where you end your turn because attacks of opportunity are immediate actions and happen out of sequence.

I'm saying that if there were no AoOs, you could evade the melee entirely by moving through it. Which is part of why there are AoOs. I know that under AoOs as written, they'd all get an attack.

Thisa becomes the conversation I hate where people look at the AoO rule as the RULE and then see how it can be manipulated.

The tail wags the dog.

Stormbringers point on abstract versus real simulation is valid. 1e had 1 minute combat rounds in that system an AoO kind of makes sense because although you are engaged in combat in a 60 second period is someone moves past you its trivial to try and land a blow.

However with 6 second rounds if i have already done a spinning kick and smacked a bloke with my Axe how can I notice or attack a bloke that runs past me....

Now I hate 1 minute combat rounds because they are simply silly. So if I wrote an AoO rule it would run ...

If another combatant moves through an adjacent 'hex/square/area' or attempts to retreat from combat and the character has yet to complete all their attacks this round they make take an Attack of Oportunity at the opposing combatant with a bonus of +2 to hit. This action does count towards their number of attacks for the round but can occur outside of general initiative sequence.

Quote from: jibbajibba;577569Thisa becomes the conversation I hate where people look at the AoO rule as the RULE and then see how it can be manipulated.

The tail wags the dog.

Stormbringers point on abstract versus real simulation is valid. 1e had 1 minute combat rounds in that system an AoO kind of makes sense because although you are engaged in combat in a 60 second period is someone moves past you its trivial to try and land a blow.

However with 6 second rounds if i have already done a spinning kick and smacked a bloke with my Axe how can I notice or attack a bloke that runs past me....

Now I hate 1 minute combat rounds because they are simply silly. So if I wrote an AoO rule it would run ...

If another combatant moves through an adjacent 'hex/square/area' or attempts to retreat from combat and the character has yet to complete all their attacks this round they make take an Attack of Oportunity at the opposing combatant with a bonus of +2 to hit. This action does count towards their number of attacks for the round but can occur outside of general initiative sequence.

That would work well for me in regards to violating someones area. I would also allow a half move to retreat from melee that is all you can do that round, without an aoo being possible. Call it careful retreat.

Quote from: Bill;577590That would work well for me in regards to violating someones area. I would also allow a half move to retreat from melee that is all you can do that round, without an aoo being possible. Call it careful retreat.

Yeah I wrote retreat in italics because I assumed that it would be a formal 'option' meaning move more than 50% of your movement and 'withdraw' would be move back 50% or less

Quote from: beejazz;577561I'm saying that if there were no AoOs, you could evade the melee entirely by moving through it. Which is part of why there are AoOs. I know that under AoOs as written, they'd all get an attack.

How so? By skirting around the melee if there is enough room might work.

In AD&D once you are in melee distance with an enemy then you are considered to be in melee and fleeing from melee has the attendent drawbacks.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;577602How so? By skirting around the melee if there is enough room might work.

Didn't say around. Said through.

QuoteIn AD&D once you are in melee distance with an enemy then you are considered to be in melee and fleeing from melee has the attendent drawbacks.

I know, which is why I included that rule as similar in purpose. It helps remove that weird turn-based artifact (in the absence of AoOs or this similar rule) which makes it so you can run through a melee unhindered and unscathed so long as you begin and end your turn out of melee range.

Is there a 3.x player who can help me translate this? I feel like I'm not getting through somehow. Is it how I'm wording this?

Quote from: beejazz;577604Didn't say around. Said through.



I know, which is why I included that rule as similar in purpose. It helps remove that weird turn-based artifact (in the absence of AoOs or this similar rule) which makes it so you can run through a melee unhindered and unscathed so long as you begin and end your turn out of melee range.

Is there a 3.x player who can help me translate this? I feel like I'm not getting through somehow. Is it how I'm wording this?

So your saying that in old editions if you entered combat and then left combat in the same round you would be retreating and your oponent would get a free attack. Whereas 3e if you passed through an adjacent space as you leave it your oponent would get a free attack.....

No they are in no way similar :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;577633So your saying that in old editions if you entered combat and then left combat in the same round you would be retreating and your oponent would get a free attack. Whereas 3e if you passed through an adjacent space as you leave it your oponent would get a free attack.....

No they are in no way similar :)

And they would both work quite well if this were added:

..as you leave your opponent would get a free attack unless he/she would otherwise still be in melee.

So if you were still engaged with another opponent no opportunity attack applies.

It is a house rule that I have used in B/X and AD&D because it allows allies to cover the retreat of a wounded comrade. Its hard to justify granting a free strike (at a bonus no less) against a fleeing target when there is still an active foe in your face.

Because D&D uses an initiative sequence, even though everyone is acting 'simultaneously', allowing the Attack only as part of someone's attack routine would simply encourage people who intend to do something silly (like run past 40 armed guards) to simply wait until the guards have taken their single attack for the turn.  

A single attack roll doesn't always have to result in a single swing, either.  If you make a full attack and hit 3 out of 5 times, rather than 3 big hits, that can be described as a single BIG hit.  Because combat is mostly abstract, the number of attacks that are possible with AoO doesn't really bother me.  I will point out that the limit of one AoO (normally) for a character tends to mean it's not really any stranger than a high level fighter having 4 attacks in a round - if the number of attacks is bothersome, simply eliminate Combat Reflexes (though personally, I think that would be a mistake).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577661Because D&D uses an initiative sequence, even though everyone is acting 'simultaneously', allowing the Attack only as part of someone's attack routine would simply encourage people who intend to do something silly (like run past 40 armed guards) to simply wait until the guards have taken their single attack for the turn.  

I prefer side based initiative. On a d6 roll without modifiers ties happen quite often and there actually is simultaneous action.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577661Because D&D uses an initiative sequence, even though everyone is acting 'simultaneously', allowing the Attack only as part of someone's attack routine would simply encourage people who intend to do something silly (like run past 40 armed guards) to simply wait until the guards have taken their single attack for the turn.  

A single attack roll doesn't always have to result in a single swing, either.  If you make a full attack and hit 3 out of 5 times, rather than 3 big hits, that can be described as a single BIG hit.  Because combat is mostly abstract, the number of attacks that are possible with AoO doesn't really bother me.  I will point out that the limit of one AoO (normally) for a character tends to mean it's not really any stranger than a high level fighter having 4 attacks in a round - if the number of attacks is bothersome, simply eliminate Combat Reflexes (though personally, I think that would be a mistake).

Why not just make it one big attack in the first place?
My main complaint about aoo and secondary attacks is that they slow down the game for no real gain.

Ranged combat is often superior to melee combat.

Casting spells is usually superior to melee combat.

A mobile enemy that can duck in, attack, and duck out is safe from full attacks.  

Because those actions are superior, melee combat allows you a chance to get a free attack if someone uses them in a 'cheap' way.  If it weren't for the 5-foot step negating all the times the AoO might be used, it helps even the playing field.

Quote from: Bill;577663My main complaint about aoo and secondary attacks is that they slow down the game for no real gain.

I've never really had an issue with it.  Most characters can take 1 per round, lots of characters will be magic users, or ranged.  Most players and DMs will control their characters/monsters to minimize the number that they are subject to.

I did have this problem in 4e past a certain point where lots of players have powers that activate out of turn, and it was ideal to have them because they effectively increased your number of actions.

I played 2e with Combat & Tactics, 3e, 3.5 and Pathfinder and I've never been bogged down with Attacks of Opportunity.  What exactly is it that is provoking so many that it actually slows down combat so much?

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;577676I've never really had an issue with it.  Most characters can take 1 per round, lots of characters will be magic users, or ranged.  Most players and DMs will control their characters/monsters to minimize the number that they are subject to.

I did have this problem in 4e past a certain point where lots of players have powers that activate out of turn, and it was ideal to have them because they effectively increased your number of actions.

I played 2e with Combat & Tactics, 3e, 3.5 and Pathfinder and I've never been bogged down with Attacks of Opportunity.  What exactly is it that is provoking so many that it actually slows down combat so much?

Its the total number of attacks in 3X. Secondary attacks plus aoo. Pathfinder has a fighter feat that gives an aoo vs everone that moves next to you.
Whirlwind attack. Cleave and great cleave. Haste.
Cohorts, animal companions, summoned creatures....
There are a ton of multiple attacks. Tons and tons.

Quote from: Bill;577681Its the total number of attacks in 3X. Secondary attacks plus aoo. Pathfinder has a fighter feat that gives an aoo vs everone that moves next to you.
Whirlwind attack. Cleave and great cleave. Haste.
Cohorts, animal companions, summoned creatures....
There are a ton of multiple attacks. Tons and tons.

Yeah, but the vast majority of those actions aren't AoOs.  If you took AoOs out you might reduce the amount of time spent in combat by a tiny percent, because most people are going to try to provoke as few as possible regardless of what side of the screen they are on.

Also you have to realize that ideally these extra actions are resulting in HP declining faster.  In theory it's going to require the same number of actions to defeat the enemy.  The character without Whirlwind Attack is going to have to eventually roll hits and damage against all of those monsters, but they are going to have to do it one round at a time instead of all in a single round.  Characters that have more actions don't necessarily (although it could if players are doing something unnecessary or foolish) increase the amount of time spent in combat; just the amount of time between turns for other players.

The monster that doesn't suffer a successful AoO when moving through the combat is just going to have to be hit 1 more time to go down at some point later on.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;577690Yeah, but the vast majority of those actions aren't AoOs.  If you took AoOs out you might reduce the amount of time spent in combat by a tiny percent, because most people are going to try to provoke as few as possible regardless of what side of the screen they are on.

Also you have to realize that ideally these extra actions are resulting in HP declining faster.  In theory it's going to require the same number of actions to defeat the enemy.  The character without Whirlwind Attack is going to have to eventually roll hits and damage against all of those monsters, but they are going to have to do it one round at a time instead of all in a single round.  Characters that have more actions don't necessarily (although it could if players are doing something unnecessary or foolish) increase the amount of time spent in combat; just the amount of time between turns for other players.

The monster that doesn't suffer a successful AoO when moving through the combat is just going to have to be hit 1 more time to go down at some point later on.

I am suggesting stronger attacks in place of numerous attacks.
Less stronger attacks = same time to defeat an enemy as more weak attacks, but it takes longer to roll all the attacks.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577661Because D&D uses an initiative sequence, even though everyone is acting 'simultaneously', allowing the Attack only as part of someone's attack routine would simply encourage people who intend to do something silly (like run past 40 armed guards) to simply wait until the guards have taken their single attack for the turn.  

A single attack roll doesn't always have to result in a single swing, either.  If you make a full attack and hit 3 out of 5 times, rather than 3 big hits, that can be described as a single BIG hit.  Because combat is mostly abstract, the number of attacks that are possible with AoO doesn't really bother me.  I will point out that the limit of one AoO (normally) for a character tends to mean it's not really any stranger than a high level fighter having 4 attacks in a round - if the number of attacks is bothersome, simply eliminate Combat Reflexes (though personally, I think that would be a mistake).

but in your guard example if all 40 guards have taken their attacks then they are all engaged in melee and then I have no issue with someone running past them.
I guess you could create the scenario where there are 40 guards and 10 PCs and all the PCs run past all the guards in a kind of kamakazi conga line. But in that case would you want all the guards getting 10 attacks or each guard chosing one person to get an attack against....

and I don't like the 3 small 'hits' might be one big hit for a slew of reasons mostly immersion but also implications on odd little magic items and spells that absorb/reduce X from each attack.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;577637And they would both work quite well if this were added:

..as you leave your opponent would get a free attack unless he/she would otherwise still be in melee.

So if you were still engaged with another opponent no opportunity attack applies.

It is a house rule that I have used in B/X and AD&D because it allows allies to cover the retreat of a wounded comrade. Its hard to justify granting a free strike (at a bonus no less) against a fleeing target when there is still an active foe in your face.

That was why I noted against the number of attacks. I have no issue with you taking that swing even if you are 'engaged in melee' but you miss you melee attack

I would also make someone declare a retreat at the start of a round. So if you declare a retreat I get my attacks at +2 say. I wouldn't then expect to get another set of free attacks. So if you didn't declare a retreat you can't retreat til next round.
It just simplifies the rule a litle and prevents huge numbers of strikes which are unrealistic in terms of a 6 second round.

Quote from: jibbajibba;577720but in your guard example if all 40 guards have taken their attacks then they are all engaged in melee and then I have no issue with someone running past them.
I guess you could create the scenario where there are 40 guards and 10 PCs and all the PCs run past all the guards in a kind of kamakazi conga line. But in that case would you want all the guards getting 10 attacks or each guard chosing one person to get an attack against....

Typically each guard could attack one PC.  Whether they all attack the same PC or four guards each attack the same PC (so all 10 PCs receive one attack) would be up to individual guards.  

Only exceptional guards that have the feat 'Combat Reflexes' would be able to make attacks against all the PCs (at least, 1 + Dex modifier, so probably 4?).  By and large, AoO aren't much of a problem - the fact that the guards COULD get the attack, keeps the players from stripping naked and streaking past them.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577730Typically each guard could attack one PC.  Whether they all attack the same PC or four guards each attack the same PC (so all 10 PCs receive one attack) would be up to individual guards.  

Only exceptional guards that have the feat 'Combat Reflexes' would be able to make attacks against all the PCs (at least, 1 + Dex modifier, so probably 4?).  By and large, AoO aren't much of a problem - the fact that the guards COULD get the attack, keeps the players from stripping naked and streaking past them.

My point would be that if they have already attacked they shouldn't get another attack, be it an AoO or a whatever. That would mean they are engaged in combat and so have already blown their wad.... :)

Quote from: beejazz;577554A better alternative based on their actual purpose is to have people block the space they occupy somehow. If you really really hate AoOs, that's probably the best alternative.

A 'rigid zone of control'.

Personally, if I want to move past someone, I think I should be able to try it.  And they should have a chance to stop me.  

A 'rigid zone of control' doesn't match my experience of reality.  Let's say I want to keep a fly from moving past me.  How do I do that, exactly?

But I don't want characters moving past each other all willy-nilly - that's stupid.  If the buck-naked wizard wants to run through a horde of orcs, you'd expect some to get a hit on him, even if they are mostly focused on someone else.  You know, raise the shield to block that attack and take a wild swing at the guy running past.  

Attacks of Opportunity are GOOD because it gives people a disincentive to do some things without making it impossible for them to do.  

So, it's possible to run past the Fighter and start a melee fight with the Wizard, but it does have a cost.  

I actually would like to see the cost be a little higher, since lots of creatures can risk taking 'one attack' from a particular enemy.  Personally, I'd like the movement to end if the attack HITs.  It still gives you a chance of being able to move past an opponent, but if they hit you, you have to stop your movement (effectively you've entered melee with them).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577796I actually would like to see the cost be a little higher, since lots of creatures can risk taking 'one attack' from a particular enemy.  Personally, I'd like the movement to end if the attack HITs.  It still gives you a chance of being able to move past an opponent, but if they hit you, you have to stop your movement (effectively you've entered melee with them).

Run it that way. And nix the exceptions. Works great IME.

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.

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

Certainly, but this is the problem when you replace rulings with rules.  The tendency in 3.x to try to make rules for every occasion, with exceptions, and special powers to bypass things, etc. all leads to a greater ability to manipulate the system than a simple rule where the individual rulings are left in the hands of the GM.

RPGPundit