In a post on some other thread , RPGPundit said this:

QuotePerson A: The attacks of opportunity rule isn't really that complicated

 In that example ....I guess I was  "Person A" (or not) .

 Thing is I had to scratch my head and say "What the f*ck is an attack of oppurtunity?"
So I look through my GURPS books. Didn't find it there. (hhmm, okay)  Then I think it must be some rule from that 800 lb gorilla of gaming that I don't even play:  Dungeons & Dragons   3.0 or 3.5.

 Yep!

On page 117 :

QuoteYou threaten the area next to you, even when it's not your action.
An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area
provokes an attack of oppurtunity from you. An attack of opportu-
nity is a single attack, and you can only make one per round .
Actions that provoke attacks of opportunity include moving
(except as noted above in the Movement section), casting a spell,
and attacking with a ranged weapon.

Nope, I'm not going to defend that thing/mechanic. How the heck does that work in actual game play?  Does anybody use that?

 The rare times we have combat in my campaigns, I just say  "You know that guy is within range and gets a turn to ?" to my player ...and they say "Yeah I know I might be screwed. "

- E.W.C.

Huh? I hate AoOs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: KoltarNope, I'm not going to defend that thing/mechanic. How the heck does that work in actual game play? Does anybody use that?

In my experience, the AoO rules are not that complicated.  The main pain is players become much more spatially aware - that is, in any combat they want to know exactly where they are standing and where their opponent is standing.  Pretty quickly, the battlemat gets pulled out.  Then come the minis and after that, it isn't too long before some guy pulls out a ruler.  
 
If you like that style of game - cool.

It's a lot of fun to use. There are feats that increase the number of AoOs and various special abilities that extend the area the character threatens. AoOs are provoked by fairly sensible actions - if you get knocked on your ass and stand up when someone's threatening you, they can take an AoO on you, for example.

There's a chart in the actual PHB that allows you to quickly reference actions if you can't remember what does and doesn't provoke one. If that's still too complex, a common houserule is to make anything other than going total defense (a type of action), attacking and withdrawing provoke one. Iron Heroes uses that rule IIRC.

Control of AoOs is a sign of really good tactical play, and it allows melee characters a level of battlefield control other than just "I charge and swing at him." Removing them from the game removes a lot the tactical complexity, since it makes reach attacks (from large monsters and polearms) much less useful, guts the purpose of quite a few feats (Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes, frex) and the tactics they enable, makes grapples much easier to pull off, and allows spellcasters to dominate melee with touch spells.

Quote from: RPGPunditHuh? I hate AoOs.

RPGPundit

 Hey , 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.

I have no problem with them and use them (I've yet to experience a 3.5 game that hasn't). I fail to see the issue.

Quote from: KoltarSo I look through my GURPS books. Didn't find it there. (hhmm, okay)

If you look in the precursor to GURPS, The Fantasy Trip (TFT), you'll find that it differentiated characters that were "Engaged" in combat from characters that were "Unengaged" which is a different way of implementing the same "Zone of Control" concept.  

The idea is to prevent characters from running past or around other characters that could logically intercept them.  It becomes more important the longer a combat round is and the farther a character can move during it's turn during a single round.  

I've used Attacks of Opportunity in D&D 3.5 as both a GM and player and never found them to be a problem.  Of course my group normally uses some sort of Battlemat for most tactical combats a nyway (a few lines and pawns are worth a thousand words) so having to use a grid for battles wasn't a big problem.  I like the idea enough that I'm looking to implement Zones of Control in the combat system I'm currently working on.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI have no problem with them and use them (I've yet to experience a 3.5 game that hasn't). I fail to see the issue.

Same here.  I have never, ever run into issues with AoOs that should provoke the wailing and gnashing of teeth that they have.

I use a combat grid and minis, for the record.

It's similar to the wargame concepts of opportunity fire (opfire) and zones of control (ZOC) which I am familiar with. A trained person in a good spot not otherwise fully occupied is going to be able to get in a swing or shot at someone who crosses their line of sight.

AoO grew out of similar but not unified or clarified concepts in previous versions of D&D. AoO in D&D3E wasn't well worded with a diagram that for me only confused the matter. An article (Dragon?) that ENWorld has on pdf helped & the explanation in games like d20 Modern is better. Locally a lot of people (myself included) didn't use them correctly at first (too many) and I tend to ignore them still esp. if I'm not using a playmat.

See step and wait, opportunity fire, and other opportunity actions in GURPS advanced combat.

I think AoOs are a great addition to the system. You really need to break out a battlemat to understand it. It's actually pretty simple and it helps simulate things like combat awareness, ambushes and zone control. It also helps cement the fact that combat is supposed to be a congruent, swirling melee and t would really give an edge to ranged/magic users without them.


I really don't nderstand what peoples problems are with them?

Quote from: KrakaJakYou really need to break out a battlemat to understand it.

  You just answered your own question.

I use them.  I can't imagine not using them, except for online play.  AoOs are one of the most fundamental parts of the tactical element to D&D.

D&D without AoOs is kinda missing something.

We use 'em, we like 'em, we use minis and like them, too (the minis argument is different one, though). Yeah, we head a few had scratching sessions in the early days, but have got 'em smooth as custard these days. Plus what Pseudo said.

Honestly, of all the things to nit pick on D&D, I see AoO as among the least offensive.

Ned

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI have no problem with them and use them.

Same here.  I have met some gamers that just don't get them though.  I've played with several groups where members just couldn't wrap their heads around AoOs, however, so I do get that some folk have trouble with them.

I think AoOs are a big part of the tactical fun of D&D combat.

I don't think the problem is with AoOs, they're not conceptually difficult.  The problem is convincing those players to accept seeing movement as a tactical dimension requiring thought.

I'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.