TheRPGSite

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.

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. :D

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. :D

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

Additionally, the charts listing precisely what actions and moves provoke an AoO are all in here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm), 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.

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.

You're welcome. :)

Jesus, like GURPS isn't rules-lawyer heaven... :p

RPGPundit

The AoO makes its first appearance in D&D in the J. Eric Holmes-edited Dungeons and Dragons boxed set from 1977, for what it's worth. This is the second version of the game ever produced, after the brown books and before AD&D1.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThat 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.

I'll give you that the group argued over rules a lot in the D&D game, and not just over AoO (though it had the most).

Oddly enough, the exact same group of people went on to become my Rifts group, which rarely ever has an argument over rules.  Part of that is that I'm (arguably) a better GM than the guy who ran D&D.   But I think the level of detail in the D20 games are part of it, too.

I'm not saying it's a bad rule, or causes problems by itself.  But for certain groups of people, rules like that certainly exacerbate the situation.  IMO, more vague rules that leave exact interpretations up to the GM seem to cause less problems.

Quote from: James McMurrayExamples? Either an action explicitly states that it provokes an AoO or it doesn't provoke.

Here's one I can remember - a Bard using a song.  The DM said it was a spell ability and thus provoked.  The Bard player argues that it is functionally equivalent to talking, and thus doesn't provoke.

Quote from: James McMurrayNot 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.

It's a matter of perspective.  You see it as a minor adjustment, I see it as throwing the balance off too much.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: jgantsHere's one I can remember - a Bard using a song.  The DM said it was a spell ability and thus provoked.  The Bard player argues that it is functionally equivalent to talking, and thus doesn't provoke.

Depending on what song it was, it either provoked or didn't.  Supernatural (Su) abilities don't, but Spell-like (Sp) abilities do.  So Countersong (Su) would not provoke but Fascinate (Sp) would.

I have no trouble with the concept, it's the execution that bothers me.

Partial Replacement Mechanic

Attack of Opportunity: Whenever somebody within reach does something it is possible you may do something of your own to him. Such as interrupt a wizard casting a spell, or a bard singing a song. To determine if you can take action -- make an "Attack of Opportunity" (AoO) in other words -- you must make a Reflex Save against a DC of 15 if unengaged, a DC of 30 if engaged with another. if the Reflex Save succeeds you may then take action against the person who triggered the AoO. Please note that it doesn't matter what the other person does, so long as he does something. Even talking could allow an AoO, if your character notices it.

The DC is set high because we tend to miss things you'd think we'd spot. When dealing with something else we tend to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. Thus the much higher DC for such situations.

Quote from: CalithenaThe AoO makes its first appearance in D&D in the J. Eric Holmes-edited Dungeons and Dragons boxed set from 1977, for what it's worth. This is the second version of the game ever produced, after the brown books and before AD&D1.

which is funny, cause i seem to have ignored it then, too.  
Never let it be said that i let rules get in the way of having fun..  :D

Quote from: mythusmageI have no trouble with the concept, it's the execution that bothers me.

Partial Replacement Mechanic

Attack of Opportunity: Whenever somebody within reach does something it is possible you may do something of your own to him. Such as interrupt a wizard casting a spell, or a bard singing a song. To determine if you can take action -- make an "Attack of Opportunity" (AoO) in other words -- you must make a Reflex Save against a DC of 15 if unengaged, a DC of 30 if engaged with another. if the Reflex Save succeeds you may then take action against the person who triggered the AoO. Please note that it doesn't matter what the other person does, so long as he does something. Even talking could allow an AoO, if your character notices it.

The DC is set high because we tend to miss things you'd think we'd spot. When dealing with something else we tend to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. Thus the much higher DC for such situations.

I don't like it being a reflex save. I can understand the reasoning but I think it makes rogues way too good at it and fighters way too weak. I also think being able to do it if they do anything at all is way too powerful. Shouting "Help!" shouldn't drop your concentration enough to let someone hit you.

Quote from: mythusmageI have no trouble with the concept, it's the execution that bothers me.

Partial Replacement Mechanic

Attack of Opportunity: Whenever somebody within reach does something it is possible you may do something of your own to him. Such as interrupt a wizard casting a spell, or a bard singing a song. To determine if you can take action -- make an "Attack of Opportunity" (AoO) in other words -- you must make a Reflex Save against a DC of 15 if unengaged, a DC of 30 if engaged with another. if the Reflex Save succeeds you may then take action against the person who triggered the AoO. Please note that it doesn't matter what the other person does, so long as he does something. Even talking could allow an AoO, if your character notices it.

The DC is set high because we tend to miss things you'd think we'd spot. When dealing with something else we tend to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. Thus the much higher DC for such situations.

I don't think this helps at all.

Instead, it adds another die roll to the combat.

-O

As I mentioned in my post, the best house rule I've come across for those who want to simplify AoOs is in Iron Heroes. If you do anything other than attack, withdraw or go total defense while being threatened, you provoke an AoO. I think free actions like talking might be an exception as well, but that's the entire list. It's simple, and easy to remember, and I suggest it for people who are having trouble using the chart.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't like it being a reflex save. I can understand the reasoning but I think it makes rogues way too good at it and fighters way too weak. I also think being able to do it if they do anything at all is way too powerful. Shouting "Help!" shouldn't drop your concentration enough to let someone hit you.

You takes your chances. Besides, he only gets a chance to hit you.

Now you could make it a Wis Check instead if a Reflex Save doesn't do it. But I wanted to factor in experience. Besides, you'd expect rogues to be more on the ball. After all, noticing things out of the ordinary is part of their stock in trade.

Edit: Or, now that I think of it, make it a Spot Check.

As to more die rolls, what till you see my combat variant. Even more dice rolls, and math! :D

Quote from: mythusmageBesides, you'd expect rogues to be more on the ball. After all, noticing things out of the ordinary is part of their stock in trade.

Except that AoOs aren't "noticing something out of the ordinary." They're based on the victim losing concentration, not the attacker seeing some sort of triggering event. And no, I don't expect rogues to be better at combat then fighters. That's just me though, YMMV.

Quote from: James McMurrayExcept that AoOs aren't "noticing something out of the ordinary." They're based on the victim losing concentration, not the attacker seeing some sort of triggering event. And no, I don't expect rogues to be better at combat then fighters. That's just me though, YMMV.

Then somebody at Wizards basically misunderstood why wargames have attacks of opportunity. Unit A sees unit B doing something, and takes advantage of the opportunity to do something to unit B.

BTW, I'm not talking about rogues being better at combat, I'm talking about rogues being better at noticing stuff. It does you little good to spot the cleric chanting an invocation when you can't hit the broadside of a barn.

QuoteBesides, you'd expect rogues to be more on the ball. After all, noticing things out of the ordinary is part of their stock in trade.

Umm, that's exactly what sneak attack is all about.  Being able to spot an opening, and going for the weak spot.

But that's a seperate effecct from AoOs.  You want more AoOs, you take Combat Reflexes, and put that Dex bonus to work.

Quote from: mythusmageThen somebody at Wizards basically misunderstood why wargames have attacks of opportunity. Unit A sees unit B doing something, and takes advantage of the opportunity to do something to unit B.

Sure, it could be them misunderstanding what the game they wrote is meant to be, but I doubt it. Who cares why wargames had attacks of opportunity? The last time I checked D&D wasn't a war game.

Quote from: James McMurraySure, it could be them misunderstanding what the game they wrote is meant to be, but I doubt it. Who cares why wargames had attacks of opportunity? The last time I checked D&D wasn't a war game.

Well, D&D has changed in the last ten years.

What's your point? It's changed a lot. But it's still not a war game.

This page in "DM OF THE RINGS" is the best blast againat "attack of oppurtunity" that I've seen : http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=792

Gods!, no wonder I'm more comfortable with GURPS.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarThis page in "DM OF THE RINGS" is the best blast againat "attack of oppurtunity" that I've seen : http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=792

Gods!, no wonder I'm more comfortable with GURPS.

- Ed C.

In fairness, you can have that kind of debate about almost anything.

And a GURPS fan (and I say that as a long-time player of GURPS) is on pretty thin ice in this arena....

Isn't it Gurps where you swing the two-handed weapon, and then you have to spend a round 'recovering' the weapon?


Oh well. I'm not here to slag on Gurps actually.

I like Attacks of Opportunity as a rules concept, because they make the tactical game part of D&D interesting, and allow player skill to shine. A decent player (and especially a well coordinated team) can use his own tactics and skills to control a battle, and not just turn all battles into a stat comparison of their characters.

A classic example is the fighter bullrushing an enemy past a rogue, who sneak attacks him on the Attack of Opportunity...and ends his movement in a flank with another combatant or in a hazardous area setup by the party spellcaster (grease, web, what-have-you). So when the enemy tries to move again you get.. another round of attacks of opportunity. I've seen some really smart players do some amazing things.  

 FWIW, I read the cartoon, and not only could I follow it easily, I can tell the author could too. (Legolas doesn't get an AoO in any case because he was using a missile weapon).

Quote from: kregmosierI 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.

my thoughts as well.  as a one-off i could enjoy that level of crunch, but not as a regular part of the campaign.  and it was a pain to dm, when i did it.  one of my players was a rogue who really knew how to use the system and would tumble etc. all over, really using and controlling the battlefield.  it was amazing to watch, actually.

definitely some of that was my fault, not studying the system and how d&d had changed from the old days.  our sessions ran fine (i just deferred the AoO calls to him if there was any doubt after a while) and people had fun.  but i won't dm 3.x again--not my bag.

glad that others have fun with it.  RPG's shouldn't be about hopping little figures around a board, tho, IMO.  YMMV etc.

Quote from: KoltarThis page in "DM OF THE RINGS" is the best blast againat "attack of oppurtunity" that I've seen : http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=792

Gods!, no wonder I'm more comfortable with GURPS.

- Ed C.

It looked more like a blast against morons to me.

Quote from: KoltarThis page in "DM OF THE RINGS" is the best blast againat "attack of oppurtunity" that I've seen : http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=792

Gods!, no wonder I'm more comfortable with GURPS.

We have discussions just like that all the time in my group, yet we all seem to still have a lot of fun.

Quote from: KoltarDoes anybody use that?

Sure. Personally, I don't consider them to be that complicated. Certainly not complicated enough for all the fuss.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiSure. Personally, I don't consider them to be that complicated. Certainly not complicated enough for all the fuss.

Seanchai

Yes.  Then again, lots of things seem to be not worth all the fuss that rpg fans kick up over them online.  :)

We use 'em. I don't really think it's that hard, but it's like all rule-sets. Eventually, people are going to come upon something that doesn't totally click. Maybe it's too abstract, or... well in AoO's case, I think it's because there's a list of things that do and don't cause one and people get hung up on memorizing the list.
I think.
I don't think the game breaks if you don't use them, but you do lose value of some Feats and abilities, so I think it's better just to go ahead and figure it out. Maybe print out a little list or jot them down on an index card for easy reference if you find it comes up a lot.

I do that with my Wizard spells, I do it with my Exalted charms, and when I played AD&D, I did it with THAC0 because for whatever reason, I could never figure that thing the fuck out.

Geez!!

 I just thought the particular comic page was funny and was on topic for this thread from more than a month back.

- Ed C.

Attack of Opportunities are invoked by one of two things, generally:

• Moving through a threatened area (people with weapons threaten all the squares around them.  People without weapons don't unless they're skilled martial artists.  People with polearms threaten further out, etc.)
• Lowering your guard long enough to give someone a shot at you through your defenses while in a threatened area, like chugging a potion or casting a spell.

I think determining what creates situation #2 is the part that flabbergasts most people.  There's a chart for it, but it's also easy to spot-rule.

Quote from: RedFoxI think determining what creates situation #2 is the part that flabbergasts most people.  There's a chart for it, but it's also easy to spot-rule.

Yeah.  Sometimes I just flat make a call one way or another to keep the game rolling.  Better to make a quick mistake than bog the game down too much.  Since I usually err in favor of the PCs, no one objects.

Quote from: KoltarGeez!!

 I just thought the particular comic page was funny and was on topic for this thread from more than a month back.

- Ed C.

You were right. But it's funny because of how stupid those players have to be to fail to grasp AoOs, not because AoOs are so complex.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou were right. But it's funny because of how stupid those players have to be to fail to grasp AoOs, not because AoOs are so complex.

Bugger off, James!  I have been those guys and will probably be them again on Wednesday.  :p

Quote from: jrientsBugger off, James!  I have been those guys and will probably be them again on Wednesday.  :p

Word.  Everyone has a learning curve.  Some people I know still don't know how to do something they do twelve times an hour in a typical game (like make a skill check).

Quote from: RedFoxWord.  Everyone has a learning curve.  Some people I know still don't know how to do something they do twelve times an hour in a typical game (like make a skill check).

 LOL!!!!

 1) put dice in hand.
2) rattle, then roll dice
3) look at the number.

4) check against the character sheet...

5) look at GM and say "Duh"  or "Huh?" (auditioning for a GEICO caveman ad)

- Ed C.

Quote from: RedFoxWord.  Everyone has a learning curve.  Some people I know still don't know how to do something they do twelve times an hour in a typical game (like make a skill check).

I feel that pain.  I still have to tell people in my Rifts campaign (going on 1.5 years now) when you roll percentile and when you roll a d20.

Quote from: jrientsBugger off, James!  I have been those guys and will probably be them again on Wednesday.  :p

You used to think that Point Blank Shot and Multi-shot gave you immunity to Attacks of Opportunity, and will again?

I'm not saying that anyone that has a little confusion with AoOs every now and then is a moron, but that strip was very over the top. Those guys are definitely idiots, not just in that strip, but in all the others I've read.

Then again I think THAC0 was a needlessly complex system, and love AoOs. What do I know? :)

Quote from: KoltarLOL!!!!

 1) put dice in hand.
2) rattle, then roll dice
3) look at the number.

4) check against the character sheet...

5) look at GM and say "Duh"  or "Huh?" (auditioning for a GEICO caveman ad)

- Ed C.

You have totally missed the point of the GEICO Caveman!


/No roast duck with mago salsa for you!

Quote from: James McMurrayThen again I think THAC0 was a needlessly complex system, and love AoOs. What do I know? :)

So do I.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou used to think that Point Blank Shot and Multi-shot gave you immunity to Attacks of Opportunity, and will again?

I can honestly see the dunderheaded argument one could make about a feat called Point Blank Shot making it easier to shot people who are only five feet away.

QuoteThen again I think THAC0 was a needlessly complex system, and love AoOs. What do I know? :)

OH NO YOU DINNIT!  Thaco was a simplification, you big jerk! It eliminated a bunch of stupid chart lookups!  God forbid anyone ever have to do some basic subtraction!  Grrr.  :grumpy:

Quote from: jrientsOH NO YOU DINNIT!  Thaco was a simplification, you big jerk! It eliminated a bunch of stupid chart lookups!  God forbid anyone ever have to do some basic subtraction!  Grrr.  :grumpy:

Particularly the subtraction of *gasp* negative numbers!

I didn't say it was horribly complex. I said it was needlessly complex. (3 + 4 - 8 - (-8)) is unnecesarily complex when you can just say 7. THAC0 did it's job, but it could have been simpler.

Don't get me wrong. I played D&D for decades and used THAC0. I don't think it's so bad that it makes the game unplayable, or even much less enjoyable. But almost every time I brought a new person into the group it caused problems for a little while.

Quote from: RedFoxYes.  Then again, lots of things seem to be not worth all the fuss that rpg fans kick up over them online.  :)

True. But is it fans—or detractors?

Seanchai

Usually detractors. Fans complain about AoOs and THAC0 too, but rarely as long or as loudly.

I like the base d20 mechanics, but I'm not fond of Attacks of Opportunity. I avoid using them.

Quote from: RedFoxAttack of Opportunities are invoked by one of two things, generally:

• Moving through a threatened area (people with weapons threaten all the squares around them.  People without weapons don't unless they're skilled martial artists.  People with polearms threaten further out, etc.)
• Lowering your guard long enough to give someone a shot at you through your defenses while in a threatened area, like chugging a potion or casting a spell.

I think determining what creates situation #2 is the part that flabbergasts most people.  There's a chart for it, but it's also easy to spot-rule.

No, I would say its the convoluted way of explaining it, plus the 20000 stupid munchkin feats and class exceptions that D&D includes as a way for players to powergame and having to know all of these and take them into account, that flabbergasts most people.

That, and the fact that something that is meant to be a "reaction" rule is somehow usable by certain Players as a way to get in extra shots and/or become nigh unstoppable just because they know how to manipulate the badly-written rules.

I am clearly the farthest thing from a D&D "Detractor", but I don't know how people can defend AoO. It may have had a simple purpose, but it is easily the worst-executed rule in all of D&D 3.x

And its also largely fucking present just to try to force you to use miniatures, so that they can sell you miniatures. Fuckers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPG PunditAnd its also largely fucking present just to try to force you to use miniatures, so that they can sell you miniatures. Fuckers.

Hold up, pardner.  3E came out in '99.  It featured AoOs.  I know because I struggled like hell in 2000 to make the damn things work in my Greymoor campaign.  And we used paper figures and MageKnight.  DDM didn't come out until, what, '03?

Are you saying that the secret masters at Wizards had the DDM product line planned years in advance and didn't tell anybody?  If that's your argument I'd like you to get together with the other RPG Pundit.  You know, the one who is telling everyone to stop talking about 4e because Wizards wouldn't try to surprise anyone by silently developing their next cash cow.

Quote from: jrientsHold up, pardner.  3E came out in '99.  It featured AoOs.  I know because I struggled like hell in 2000 to make the damn things work in my Greymoor campaign.  And we used paper figures and MageKnight.  DDM didn't come out until, what, '03?

Are you saying that the secret masters at Wizards had the DDM product line planned years in advance and didn't tell anybody?  If that's your argument I'd like you to get together with the other RPG Pundit.  You know, the one who is telling everyone to stop talking about 4e because Wizards wouldn't try to surprise anyone by silently developing their next cash cow.

I'm sure that in '99 they already had an idea that they were eventually going to get seriously into the miniatures business, yes. That isn't "surprising" someone or in any way disingenuous.

And of course, by the time 3.x came out, and the AoO was already expanded and vastly more complicated with all the feats and class exemptions and rules and little niggling fucking insanity-inducing nitpicks for all the autistic fuckers who think they're clever by manipulating a game to the breaking point and mistaking that for an accomplishment of worth for their character, the miniatures project was in full swing, and D&D's system was clearly defaulted to using miniatures.  Making those of us who despise playing with miniatures and don't want to spend money on it just plain out of luck.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrientsHold up, pardner.  3E came out in '99.  It featured AoOs.  I know because I struggled like hell in 2000 .....

 Naw - YOU hold up .
{{{:-)

D&D 3/E was introduced at the August 2000 GenCon.  NOT in 1999.

  The next year , people could be seen in the hallways of cons like GenCon and ORIGINS playing pick up games of D&D with MageKnight figs.
 If you remember the earliest packaging of the pre-painted D&D minis was so similiar in look to the MageKnight packaging that casual gamers sometimes confused the two.

- Ed C.

Well, crap.  I was a year off.  I must have started that campaign in January '01 then.

I don't think AoO needs to be "defended."  It's a rule.  It works for a lot of people, and a lot of people don't like it.  So what?

Quote from: RedFoxI don't think AoO needs to be "defended."  It's a rule.  It works for a lot of people, and a lot of people don't like it.  So what?

We need something to argue about around here or it just wouldn't be the same.

Quote from: jrientsWe need something to argue about around here or it just wouldn't be the same.

So much more fun stuff to argue than that old saw, though.

What's everyone's favorite Modron?

the one eaten by the slaad :D

Quote from: RedFoxSo much more fun stuff to argue than that old saw, though.

What's everyone's favorite Modron?

we are all the same modron_

Quote from: Abyssal MawThere'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.

You just nailed why I even like 3.5 D&D. Very cool. There are still things I prefer GURPS for but this is very much the reason I'll play/GM 3.5. AoO taken away leaves the game a little less of a game. The other stuff is why I like D&D 3.5 better than just playing minis. Thank you!

Quote from: RedFoxWhat's everyone's favorite Modron?

I really like the modrons as originally depicted in the MMII, just sleek, plane cubes/pyramids/spheres/whatever, no crazy clockwork.  And the higher level dudes looked like friendly grey aliens.  My favorite of the bunch are the starfish-shaped fellows that squirt paralyzing fluid.

One of my players made a modron for my Wilderlands game.  I know, it's not exactly setting-appropriate, but I was making an effort to allow pretty much anything.  I downloaded a +2 ECL variant I found online somewhere, and he thought it was perfect.

Honestly, he's now the most entertaining character in the group.  While the rest of the party is going off exploring, he will spend his time doing things like, "I count the pebbles on the ground in this spot.  How many are there?"

-O

Primus of course. But then again, I was a power gaming munchkin back then, so if it wasn't scary enough to be a challenge it wasn't worth looking at.

Quote from: James McMurrayPrimus of course. But then again, I was a power gaming munchkin back then, so if it wasn't scary enough to be a challenge it wasn't worth looking at.

In my group we can't mention that dude without someone (usually me) singing a few lines from one of the songs by the band of the same name.  I usually go with "My Name is Mud".

I discovered the two in the opposite order, and wondered if they'd named their band after the guy.

Quote from: RPGPundit...and the AoO was already expanded and vastly more complicated with all the feats and class exemptions and rules and little niggling fucking insanity-inducing nitpicks for all the autistic fuckers who think they're clever by manipulating a game to the breaking point and mistaking that for an accomplishment of worth for their character...

Holy crap.  Where were you when I was defending my position on bloated development to Dinglepuss a few months back?

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHoly crap.  Where were you when I was defending my position on bloated development to Dinglepuss a few months back?

!i!

Fuck you too, you incomprehensible cuntscab. I'd repeat the same point here that I made there: You don't seem to want to actually play D&D 3.x. You categorically don't like the character creation mechanics, you don't like the combat mechanics, you don't seem to like any part of the rules set at all, and you don't want to learn to use the rules effectively despite those things. There is just no reason that you should be playing D&D.

You should go play some other game and stop whining about D&D. You would be happier, and the rest of us wouldn't have to put up with your nonsense.

As for your opinion on Attacks of Opportunity, since you are someone who has admitted that they do not know how to and do not want to learn to use the rules of D&D to increase their character's abilities and effectiveness, you are speaking from a position of self-chosen ignorance on their merits or defects. Your opinion on the subject is about as valuable as a fart in a windstorm.

Boo-hoo-hoo.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou don't seem to want to actually play D&D 3.x. You categorically don't like the character creation mechanics, you don't like the combat mechanics, you don't seem to like any part of the rules set at all, and you don't want to learn to use the rules effectively despite those things...

[...snip...]

...since you are someone who has admitted that they do not know how to and do not want to learn to use the rules of D&D to increase their character's abilities and effectiveness...

I dare you to quote where I stated any of that.  The sad thing about your reiterative and paranoid posts is that you plainly read what you want to read no matter what anyone states to the contrary.  Go back on your meds.

!i!

Here's one example, from this  (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4639)thread.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI believe you've put your finger on the issue that galled me so earlier this week in the build thread -- the notion that feats and class progression were designed to be played as an integral and essential part of the game.

Feats and class progressions are pretty core to D&D 3.x.

Here's some more examples from this (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4493) thread.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAdmittedly, my understanding of the breakdown of a combat turn in 3.0/3.5 is imperfect.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaUnderstand that I am, by my own admission, a rank noob.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHow many feats are there out there? How many PrCs? How many of them overlap or duplicate another's intended purpose? How much of it is just making up new rules for those who are too impatient or not imaginative enough to work within the core rules to create the character they want? How much of this is just making shit up to create a pet character?

By your own admission, you don't know the rules very well. You use terms like "feat bloat" and refer to PrCs "breaking the rules". You've also said that you prefer something you call "style" over something you call "substance" where the former seems to mean "my concept of the character and what he does" and the latter seems to mean "the rules of the game". In this very thread, you've said that you don't like attacks of opportunity.

It's unclear what part of D&D you do like. You don't like any of the "resource management" parts. You don't like at least several of the character creation and development rules. You don't like at least one of the combat mechanics (attacks of opportunity), though it's unclear how many of the combat mechanics you even understand in the first place.

If I didn't like the character creation mechanics, and I didn't like the combat mechanics, and I didn't like doing something that's found all throughout the mechanical structure of a game (resource management), I wouldn't say that I liked that game. Yet you do. That's inconsistent as it stands, and you've never explained how you can reconcile your distaste for huge chunks of the game with liking it.

So basically, stop being such a whiny, inconsistent cunt, you whiny, inconsistent cunt.

Yeah, you quoted exactly the bits I figured you would.  You equated my admission that I was just beginning to learn the rules (at the time I'd been playing for roughly a month) and not caring to look up obscure PrCs in explicitly optional books to refusing to play the game well or refusing to use the rules effectively.  Like I said before, you clearly see what you want to see.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou don't like any of the "resource management" parts.

Any of them?  You mean min-maxing over PrC mods?  That's one. I'm trying to think of what other parts I'm missing.

QuoteYou don't like at least several of the character creation and development rules.

[/i]Again, the PrCs, but only as far as the perceived need to look up supplemental rules in optional books.  I have little or no problem with the rest of it -- you made that part up.

QuoteYou don't like at least one of the combat mechanics (attacks of opportunity), though it's unclear how many of the combat mechanics you even understand in the first place.

Now, see?  You made that up, too.  Where did I state that I don't like AoOs?

You know, in the months that have passed, in spite of your best attempts to be an elitist jackass and chase off a new player for not enjoying what you enjoy about the game yourself, I've gone on to learn more of the rules, introduce at least two new players to the game, even buy one of the superfluous supplements (Dragon Magic of all things -- my son's nuts for dragons, so what can I say?), and actually enjoy the game as it's presented in the core books, easily adapting it to our play style.  All of this without obsessing needlessly over 15th Level multi-classing feat mods from The Master Baker's Guide to Pie-Tossing.

Oh, and for the record (and to swing this post back on topic) I don't mind AoOs that much.  Like some have said already, the more common sense ones can be applied without the need for minis and grid combat.  The rest are conveniently ignored.

!i!

You fucking hypocrite. You bitch and moan about "feat bloat" and how PrCs "break the rules" and how you hate all the "optional rules" when I mention using one or two non-core books, only to turn around and buy a non-core book filled with those very things (Dragon Magic) and use it? That's hypocrisy, and it shows how hollow all the dumb shit you say is.

As for not liking attacks of opportunity, you shouldn't admiringly quote someone who's bashing AoOs and then claim that you like AoOs. I suspect it's a similar situation to your dishonest attitude towards non-core material.

My problem with you isn't that you enjoy different things than me in D&D - plenty of people do. My problem is that you're an ingrate, a hypocrite, a whiner, incoherent and inconsistent. I do not like people who are like that, and you are.

Boo-hoo.  My problem with you is that you're a shrill, mentally unstable jackass who tries to nit-pick his way into "winning" an argument.  You read crazy moon-shit into everything you want to offend you.  Every argument you've made against anything I've posted has been based on your assumptions, to the degree where they border on the paranoid.  Your feelings got hurt when I didn't see eye-to-eye with your (rather rude) analysis of a patently ridiculous power-build, and you've been bent out of shape since.

It's been amusing jacking you around, sending you sifting through old posts on cue and such.  AoOs are still fundamentally okay, whether you believe me or not.

!i!

Pseudoephedrine, Ian, neither of you is helping your main argument by continuing this bickering.

Quote from: jrientsPseudoephedrine, Ian, neither of you is helping your main argument by continuing this bickering.

That's true. I'm done arguing with this childish cunt.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's true. I'm done arguing with this childish cunt.

:hissyfit:

You were done before you even started, seeing how you manufactured an argument out of your own insecurities.

Don't forget to take your meds.

!i!

That's why I love this place. It makes me seem level-headed in contrast.

The arguement is kind of heated, in a bizarre kind of way, but I think it demonstrates the seperation between two different types of players. Some people use them and like them. Others don't like them and can't be arsed to be bothered to learn. It's a fundimental design breaking point. The line between too fiddly or not in-depth enough.

Quote from: Thanatos02The arguement is kind of heated, in a bizarre kind of way, but I think it demonstrates the seperation between two different types of players. Some people use them and like them. Others don't like them and can't be arsed to be bothered to learn.

Or, in this case, those who like them to the point where they obsess over the mechanistic minutia, and those who like them to a degree but reject needless over-development. But yes, is it too fiddly or not in-fiddly enough?

!i!

Quote from: Thanatos02The arguement is kind of heated, in a bizarre kind of way, but I think it demonstrates the seperation between two different types of players. Some people use them and like them. Others don't like them and can't be arsed to be bothered to learn. It's a fundimental design breaking point. The line between too fiddly or not in-depth enough.

I think it's mainly the table in core D&D that gives people the impression that they're fiddly and complex. We associate having to look things up on tables with things that are too complex to be memorised easily.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou fucking hypocrite. You bitch and moan about "feat bloat" and how PrCs "break the rules" and how you hate all the "optional rules" when I mention using one or two non-core books, only to turn around and buy a non-core book filled with those very things (Dragon Magic) and use it? That's hypocrisy, and it shows how hollow all the dumb shit you say is.

As for not liking attacks of opportunity, you shouldn't admiringly quote someone who's bashing AoOs and then claim that you like AoOs. I suspect it's a similar situation to your dishonest attitude towards non-core material.

My problem with you isn't that you enjoy different things than me in D&D - plenty of people do. My problem is that you're an ingrate, a hypocrite, a whiner, incoherent and inconsistent. I do not like people who are like that, and you are.

You are batshit insane. Go and have a sit down.

Ian: 10

Pseudoephedrine: -48

Ian, I'm glad you stuck with it long enough to find something you enjoy and didn't let this nerd-rage jackass chase you off.

-O

Quote from: CaudexYou are batshit insane. Go and have a sit down.

:rolleyes: