AoO is the 'Offside rule' of gaming.

'Offside Rule" ?  Interesting way to phrase it .
 My group has never needed it . We're not playing D20...but the basic concept we get  and we don't use miniatures for the most part.  We do sketch things out on a sheet of paper sometimes.

Pundit, sorry if I implied that you were defending "AoOs" or some such like that .  I "got it" that you didn't like them.  And I really didn't identify myself as Person "A' in the example so much.
 I just didn't know what the heck an "attack of Oppurtunity" was - thats all. Had to grab a book and look it up.

- E.W.C.

I've never played D&D without the rules and don't see any reason to exclude them.  True they work best with a battlemat and minis but you can handwave it slightly and use guesswork and maps.  Plus fighters get the shaft big time if AoO's are left out as there are a number of feats and specialist weapons that make use of them.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe 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.

Don't forget, sometimes you want to draw an AoO.  I recall one combat where we were in a really bad position; I drew two or three AoOs and that gave us the upper hand.

I don't like AoOs, but I use them because so many spells, feats, and other mechanics are designed with AoOs in mind.  Also, once you get the general hang of them (which took me a LONG time) they really make for great crunchy, tactical play.  My players eat that shit up.

Quote from: LostSoulDon't forget, sometimes you want to draw an AoO.  I recall one combat where we were in a really bad position; I drew two or three AoOs and that gave us the upper hand.

This is a very, very rare circumstance.  You want a tank or high AC character to draw them so that follow up characters do not.  The thing is that the attack isn't required, it's a 'may' effect.  So if the GM thinks the bad guys are savvy to your tactics this wont work out.

I'm not a big fan of them--my group tends to use them only when they really make sense, such as attempting to run past a gauntlet of spear-wielding orcs.  We just don't often get into the crunchiness enough to employ them regularly.

I see them as a throwback to wargaming (cc: minis, battlemat, etc.)

If you like that sort of thing, cool...i don't.  If i wanted to play a minis game, i'd play WH40K or WHF...in that setting, I don't mind reading about reach, AAO, threatened grid spaces, or whatever.

I grew up playing D&D like it WASN'T a war game...not going to start now.
(which is why i'm currently digging C&C...)

Again for the hard-heads, this is simply MY OPINION...ymmv. I don't care what other people do or don't do.

I've been playing 3.x literally since before it hit the shelves, and we've always used the AoO rules. In all the years of playing with different people nobody I know has ever had a problem with them. I've seen people complain about how comlicated they are on forums, but the complaints have never made any sense to me because it's an incredibly easy concept: you have a zone around you, usually 5', and anytime someone within that zone performs an action from a relatively small list you get to try to hit them.

I can see where they might get a little rough if you're not using a battlemat, but even then it just comes down to the GM saying "you get an AoO" whenever one is triggered.

Like others have said, the devil is in the details.

While all you guys might be perfectly fine with AoO, half the people in the D&D group I was in hated them.  And I hated them perhaps most of all.

Not all of the situations with AoO are clear cut.  There were dozens of situations where someone thought an action shouldn't produce an AoO, but the DM did.  And then everyone would argue for an hour or more about it.

As for being a tactical element - I felt they restricted tactics.  Essentially, I was limited to "roll to hit" style combat - because damn near every other action other than a basic attack always seemed to cause an AoO.

The worst part about AoO is that they are so ingrained in the rules, that you can't remove the damn thing out without making a complete mess of the rules because so many feats, etc, seem to depend on them.

Quote from: jgantsNot all of the situations with AoO are clear cut.  There were dozens of situations where someone thought an action shouldn't produce an AoO, but the DM did.  And then everyone would argue for an hour or more about it.

  That doesn't sound like a problem with AoOs, it sounds like a problem with a shitty group full of cynical rules-lawyers.

  Nobody has any business arguing over rules EVER.  If a group can't handle as crunchy a game as D&D without descending into argument every time someone moans that the rules don't make sense) then either split up the group or play a different game.  That's a problem with a fucked up social contract and group dynamic, nothing to do with rules.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical...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.

I figure we'll learn in play so it comes naturally, or we'll die in hordes, or both.

RC supports tactical play, over time I'm sure it will come naturally, in the meantime I'll be hiding under the tree cover.

Working it out though?  The word work comes into that sentence, which is where it leaves me behind.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonThis is a very, very rare circumstance.  You want a tank or high AC character to draw them so that follow up characters do not.  The thing is that the attack isn't required, it's a 'may' effect.  So if the GM thinks the bad guys are savvy to your tactics this wont work out.

You don't tell the DM what you're up to.  You just do it and hope he takes the attacks.  Even if he doesn't, then you get into a good position for flanking and such.

I did this with my ranger, AC 18 at 3rd level.

I've also had players do this to me, and it's a cool little maneuver.

QuoteNot all of the situations with AoO are clear cut. There were dozens of situations where someone thought an action shouldn't produce an AoO, but the DM did. And then everyone would argue for an hour or more about it.

Examples? Either an action explicitly states that it provokes an AoO or it doesn't provoke.

QuoteThe worst part about AoO is that they are so ingrained in the rules, that you can't remove the damn thing out without making a complete mess of the rules because so many feats, etc, seem to depend on them.

Not true. You just ignore any feat or spell that mentions it. you'll lower the power of reach weapons a lot, and raise the power of disarms, spellcasting, etc. a little bit, but other than that things proceed as normal. You might have one or two oddities caused by feat prereqs, but it should be fairly simple to decide to ignore the prereq, ignore the entire feat chain, or replace the prereq with something else.

Hey Guys,
 You've now explained what the rule is (and is not).
 I'm not very likely to use the "Attack of Oppurtunity" thing because I don't run or play Dungeoens & Dragons D20 3.0/3.5 .

I did the original post because I really didn't know what it was or how it functioned in a game.  Got the general idea now.  Really I do.

GURPS is my main game, with some interest in possibly running SAVAGE WORLDS or the SERENITY game system.

 Thank you  for a short snapshot of why D20 doesn't appeal to me that much.

- E.W.C.