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