Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'm perfectly capable of understanding AoOs but I would want them removed from any game I were to play in because, frankly, if I wanted to piss about with little men on matts I'd be down at the dwarf wrestling bar.

I agree that tactical, grid based combat doesn't work well for, err, folk who don't want that.  For D&D though I feel like game balance gets out of whack when you take the grid away.

Thing is -- I think they make sense, I think they're kinda cool, and I like that they a chunk of tactics.

I just don't like having to rememeber when you get an OpAttack and when you don't.

Er...also, I don't play d20.

I use them.  I don't even use minis and a battlemat (yet, we may probably get one in a week or two).  Haven't had a problem with 'em yet.

Since everything's off-board, they just get resolved like so (an example from a game I ran two weeks ago):

Cleric: "I charge the ogre and swing at him!"

Me (as GM): "Okay, but he's got this massively huge tree trunk in his fists, so as you rush the last ten feet, he takes a swing at you before you can get within range to pop him with your mace..."

S'not that complicated, IMO.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI agree that tactical, grid based combat doesn't work well for, err, folk who don't want that.  For D&D though I feel like game balance gets out of whack when you take the grid away.

  ...which is kind of why I don't play D&D.  Well... I'm playing it at the moment but it's RC and going by a certain disastrous use of a sleep spell, I'm not the only person who can't be arsed to work out proper spell tacticals.

Heck, my group used them twenty years ago with ad&d. Turn you back and flee a battle? Free attack. Try to drink a potion whilst in the midst of melee? Free attack. Try to use a thrown weapon or missile weapon whilst in the midst of melee? Free attack. Run past a melee zone? Free attack.

We just saw it as common sense. If you are near the combat zone and not really taking enough care about, then you pay the consequences. For us, the AoO rules have just formalised what we've been doing since we started playing. Same with feats, actually. Our DM must have been psychic or something...

Quote from: KoltarHey , no problem then.
 I just didn't know the rule you were referring to .
 In the 6 and half years that D&D 3.0/3.5 has been out  I think I have played it at most twice. Hell, one of those times I was the "DM" for a demo version of the game. It was very short scenario that WOTC had sent out. Obviously that rule never came up in play or I would have remembered it.

- E.W.C.

Right, but my point was that I don't know where you got that "quote" of me from, but its obviously taken COMPLETELY out of context.  The "player A" thing probably tells me that its a fake dialogue I wrote at some moment, where Player A goes on to unwittingly demonstrate how AoO are IN NO WAY SIMPLE.

So, for the sake of intellectual honesty, could you show people where you got that quote, instead of posting the equivalent of "look, theRPGPundit says he likes Attacks of Opportunity"?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'm perfectly capable of understanding AoOs but I would want them removed from any game I were to play in because, frankly, if I wanted to piss about with little men on matts I'd be down at the dwarf wrestling bar.

On the otherhand I prefer AoO over the dwarf wrestling bar....except on Tossing Tuesdays, that's a hoot and Cement Mixers are 1/2 price all night.

Quote from: One Horse TownWe just saw it as common sense.

And there you have the problem. Too many gamers simply have no common sense. For all the screaming and wailing about wanting realistic combat, there sure seems to be a lack of any tactical sense out there. Turn your back on a bad guy, try to run past an armed combatant, charge in at a guy with a longer reach - you're gonna get popped, in the game or in real life. Not so fucking tough to get.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonAnd there you have the problem. Too many gamers simply have no common sense. For all the screaming and wailing about wanting realistic combat, there sure seems to be a lack of any tactical sense out there. Turn your back on a bad guy, try to run past an armed combatant, charge in at a guy with a longer reach - you're gonna get popped, in the game or in real life. Not so fucking tough to get.

Very true. Never assume common sense.

Yeah, I use them. I would say, they are the norm in mainstream D&D- certainly every game I've been a visitor in used them.

Attacks of Opportunity are what make the D&D 3.x a game of skill. Otherwise your'e just rolling dice and marking off damage.

The whole point of nearly any combat in D&D is to use tactics to lure or trick your opponents into taking attacks of opportunity, and avoid taking those yourself.

Nearly everything in D&D combat is built off of the AoO.

What do you use the Tumble skill for? That's for slipping through threatened zones while avoiding Attacks of Opportunity.

What do you use reach weapons for? Thats for threatening extra zones. You want to close with an ogre armed with a pike? You have to do it carefully.

The Enlarge Spell? Increases reach, and thus increases threat zone range (and weapon damage).  

What do you use Bull Rush for? That's for pushing an enemy into or beyond someone else's threatened zone. The classic is to bull rush an enemy past an allied rogue, who not only takes an AoO, but gets sneak attrack damage.

What do you use Mobility for? Thats for getting an AC bonus when you end up in someone else's threat zone. Spring Attack? Same deal- you go in, attack, and spring back out. If you have a reach weapon that means you can attack, and then spring away beyond the 5' step. At that point the opponent can't even counter without getting another Attack of Opportunity.

Concentration? Same deal. That provides a bonus to the check so that you can cast while threatened and avoid an AO.

What about Combat Reflexes? Thats for getting extra Attacks of Opportunity- if you want to be a lone guy holding off a horde of enemies, you need some Combat reflexes.  

These are just a few examples.
There's other tactics too: flanking, squeezing, surrounding, sundering, tripping, .. but nearly everything in a D&D battle is based on skilled  player tactics to control the battlefield, and that means using attacks of opportunity to your advantage.

Is there something I'm missing? Seriously – I've looked at that rule (in post #1) several times and I can't for the life of me see what's so obscure or difficult, or even how it could be interpreted as problematic.

Quote from: droogIs there something I'm missing? Seriously – I've looked at that rule (in post #1) several times and I can't for the life of me see what's so obscure or difficult, or even how it could be interpreted as problematic.

The devil is in the details.  When are you threatening (there are cases where you aren't)? What are the "certain actions"? Overall the concept is very straightforward. I think the problem comes in the exceptions and details that were put into it. They weren't organized in the most 'natural' way and confuse and fluster some people. *shrug* Yeah, there are look-up tables to keep it all straight. A couple I think. But then you have to look them up. And for some reason they don't seem easily memorized as they are presented.

EDIT: Incidentally I don't have a problem with them. First time I saw them I thought they were the bee's knees. I thought it was an phenominal improvement in how spell interuption was previously handled. But right from the start I could see some others did have issues with them.  I remember even before the 3e release ENWorld had these graphics up and an alternate explaination of them. People just seemed so confused by them. *shrug*

P.S. I'm not sure, does 3.5 address how to deal with them in on the z-axis? I know 3e didn't explicitly, and that was really my only issue with them. But we just treated it as vertical movement equivalent to horizontal movement at it seemed to work.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonAnd there you have the problem. Too many gamers simply have no common sense. For all the screaming and wailing about wanting realistic combat, there sure seems to be a lack of any tactical sense out there. Turn your back on a bad guy, try to run past an armed combatant, charge in at a guy with a longer reach - you're gonna get popped, in the game or in real life. Not so fucking tough to get.

Except that the AoO rules do absolutely nothing of the sort. They allow for all kinds of ridiculous situations in combat, while making other things that should be fine nearly impossible.

If the rule was: "the GM is entitled to allow a free attack on your PC anytime he thinks you are trying to do something that would grant one", I'd have no problem with that.

RPGPundit

For reference, droog, the entirety of the Attack of Opportunity rules are here.

Additionally, the charts listing precisely what actions and moves provoke an AoO are all in here, though they're spread out a bit.  In the actual Player's Handbook, they're all on the same two-page spread, if I recall correctly.  They're also on every DM screen.

Quote from: RPGPunditRight, but my point was that I don't know where you got that "quote" of me from, but its obviously taken COMPLETELY out of context.  The "player A" thing probably tells me that its a fake dialogue I wrote at some moment, where Player A goes on to unwittingly demonstrate how AoO are IN NO WAY SIMPLE.

So, for the sake of intellectual honesty, could you show people where you got that quote, instead of posting the equivalent of "look, theRPGPundit says he likes Attacks of Opportunity"?

RPGPundit

 Not a problem. it was from this thread : http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4525&page=2
 Where the original topic was Doktor Teufel. You gave three examples of what was fair and not fair when in a hypothetical argument with another poster.

- E.W.C.