Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pukunui 07-18-06, 07:26 PM	I'm thinking of ditching the whole Attacks of Opportunity thing from my otherwise straight v3.5 campaign, and I'd like to hear from anyone else who's tried it. It's been ages since I played 2nd edition, so I don't recall the specifics, but I seem to remember that combat was smoother then. Yes, Attacks of Opportunity make combat more realistic, but they also slow the game waay down, and I personally just find the whole concept annoying. Has anyone else tried playing 3.5 without AoO? If so, do you recommend it? Did you replace them with something else or just do without them? Just an imaginary penny for your thoughts, folks ... Thanks.
Tony Vargas 07-18-06, 07:37 PM	Removing AoOs would significantly impact all of the following: The Sunder, Unarmed Strike, Disarm, Trip, Overrun, Bull Rush and Grapple attack options, and thier 'improved' versions. Without AoOs, there's often little reason to take the improved version, and little reason not to use the unimproved version. Changing weapons in combat (it becomes more practical to sheath rather than drop weapons). Moving past a defender to get at a weaker enemy (for instance, bypassing the party tank to attack the wizard). Spellcasting in melee no longer requires investment in Concentration, the Combat Casting feat is obviated. Drinking a potion can now be done conveniently in the midst of melee. ...and, I'm sure, many more. Also, the cyclical initiative system doesn't work as well without AoOs. AoOs model the abilty of a character to react to enemies actions out of iniative order, making it easier to resolve a substantial amount of activity each round 'fairly.' Without them, it would make sense for rounds to be 'shorter' - for instance, a standard action per round, instead of a move & standard. 2E didn't use cyclical initiative, instead, initiative was rolled every round.
pukunui 07-18-06, 07:41 PM	Hmm ... yes, that is quite a significant impact. I'll have to see what my players think. Keep the comments coming in ...
Dalthbar 07-18-06, 07:43 PM	AoOs are a fundamental part of so many aspects of combat - I couldn't imagine playing without them and all the things that would effect. Many feats would be completely useless, 5' steps would be infinitely less useful, movement in general would change... geeze... the more I think about it the more stuff keeps popping up. I was initially against AoOs when I first started reading 3.0, but after some playing you realize that it's a fundamental aspect of the system and can't really be removed.
pukunui 07-18-06, 07:51 PM	Interesting. So if I, say, wanted to use the 2e combat model, I'd pretty much have to play 2e because of all the other effects (skills, feats, etc)? I've read so many complaints about Attacks of Opportunity (and people go on about how they hope AoO get cut out whenever the mythical 4th edition is released) ... but I didn't realize they were so integral. Keep in mind I've only been back in the d&d fold for the past few months after a hiatus of 5 years, during which time I had absolutely nothing to do with d&d at all, so all the developments with WotC and the 3rd edition are new to me.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-19-06, 02:03 AM	Removing AoOs would significantly impact all of the following: The Sunder, Unarmed Strike, Disarm, Trip, Overrun, Bull Rush and Grapple attack options, and thier 'improved' versions. Without AoOs, there's often little reason to take the improved version, and little reason not to use the unimproved version. And if the goal is a 2ed combat feel, there's little reason not to dispense with all of those entirely. Special cases (i.e., monsters with Trip, Grapple, or Overrun) in most cases already have their own rules that largely ignore AoO anyway. That removing AoO simplifies things by removing a number of the feats and combat options was (I thought) one of the goals. Moving past a defender to get at a weaker enemy (for instance, bypassing the party tank to attack the wizard). Spellcasting in melee no longer requires investment in Concentration These are, IMHO, the only significant considerations noted so far. Even then, removing the AoO for spellcasting really only helps low-level spellcasters (which is when they could do with it anyway), since higher-level spellcasters generally make the checks without trouble. Changing the extent to which one party member can "block" for another changes combat to some extent, but not necessarily in a bad way - it'll be different, but not necessarily any less tactical or interesting. The change largely nerfs Reach weapons, but, again, that'll help restore the 2ed feel, and in practice isn't such a big deal anyway - most PCs don't use Reach weapons. It mostly means the party can valiantly charge the dragon without the guy in front getting eaten on his own turn (he has to wait until the dragon's turn). Also, the cyclical initiative system doesn't work as well without AoOs. FWIW, I disagree. Quite a few systems used cyclical initiative long before 3ed D&D, and none that I can think of had AoOs. They were different, but still worked well. So, OP, honestly, I don't think it would be a problem at all, and I bet the result would be faster, simpler combat that was closer in feel to the 2ed vibe you're used to. You'd be missing a number of the complexities of the 3ed combat system, but it sounds like that's what you want, yes?
pukunui 07-19-06, 02:28 AM	To be honest, I don't really remember how 2e combat worked. It's been at least 10 years since I actually played that version of the game, and about 5 years since I last played at all (it was a sort of 2e/3e hybrid). But the mechanics of combat didn't really stick in my mind. I just feel that the Attacks of Opportunity concept is kinda clunky and obnoxious, and I was curious to know how easy it is to get rid of ... but it seems too integrated into the system. Plus, two of the PCs have Combat Casting as their 1st feat (one's a cleric, the other's a sorceror), so I'd have to have them replace it with something else. I'll give it some more thought, and ask my players what they think. Keep the comments coming. Thanks.
Leilond 07-19-06, 06:52 AM	When I started to play 3rd edition I had that problem! All those AoO stuffs really disturbed me. After years of playing i'm really so confident with the AoO system that I don't even think about it, simply use it as it is NATURAL for the game I suggest you only to be patient and use it more and more. After a while you and your players will be so well prepared on the argument that nothing will go bad If you keep them away Concentration: no more AoO, only "readied action" can interrupt: less usefull Tumble: totally unusefull Disarm/trip/... and so on: I will trip every "low strenght" enemy without fear Spell: wizard will relax casting spells near a giants AoO are there to balance a lot of powers, if you take rid of them you'll hardly unbalance so much things If you don't like AoO and you don't want to be patient and try it 5-10 sessions... play 2nd edition and simply add to 2nd edition some of the rules you liked of the 3rd instead of playing the 3rd and make a huge work for the AoO matter ;)
Tolby 07-19-06, 01:30 PM	If I remember correctly 2nd edition did have AoO. Mainly in the leaving a threatened square. Since you couldn't be standing in front of the enemy move behind him and take a whack at him and he would loose his shield/dex/ plus bonuses to hit. Otherwise there was no AoO for drinking potions/sheathing swords/standing up...etc. I keep the AoO in my game and ignore some of the things that generate them. IMC Swigging Potions of CLW in combat does not generate AoO. Spellcasting does. Movement does. Grappling/Sunder/disarm/trip does. Standing up does.
Leilond 07-19-06, 01:47 PM	IMC Swigging Potions of CLW in combat does not generate AoO Well... good for warriors ;) I think you can do it but you need to be a bit more severe with the encounter than, because this is a big help for character because potion aren't designed to work that way. They usually are used this way: - opponent without reach: 5' free step to be out of melee, drink - opponent with reach (1): wait (retard action) until initiative is just before your cleric, 5' free step and call for him to help you (being 5' away of the monster the cleric can cast at 10' away without AoO) - opponent with reach (2): call for cleric help and let him cast defensively to avoid AoO Usually use your best defense (total defense, combat expertiese or whatever you can use) to boost your AC until healed You can change that rule, but all fighting style encounter will be a bit easyer than what the monster CR suggest and it can be adjusted just increasing the number of low CR mobble opponents in the encounter
pukunui 07-19-06, 04:30 PM	I think I'll keep them in the game for now, but I'll see how it all works as we go along, and I might alter what provokes them and such. The thing is, when I ran my first 3.5 session last week, I had two hobgoblins up against the 3 1st level PCs and their 2nd level NPC ally. The tactics called for them to simply charge into combat, and both of them were slain by AoO before they even really got to do anything. It was too easy and rather disappointing on my part as the DM. I'm hoping that the medium monstrous spider, the fusilade of darts trap, and the bugbear zombie that they'll be facing in tonight's session will provide more of a challenge. The hobgoblins and the lesser vargouille were push-overs. Sigh ...
Dalthbar 07-19-06, 04:34 PM	AoOs are probably the most important thing about combat for most melee builds. Unless you're a really straight "step in a pound someone" basher, you're going to need to consider how to properly take AoOs and how to avoid them. They're simply far too ingrained in the system to do without. However, as a few people have said, they're not fluid at first, but once it _clicks_, they add a HUGE dimension to the game that 2nd ed didn't have. It's really worth reading over the rules on provoking AoOs and the 5' step a few times since they're essential to the current system. There's a lot of feats that let you do a lot with AoOs in some way, shape or form directly or indirectly, so they're really something to get acquainted with. Good luck!
allenchan 07-19-06, 04:47 PM	Most often, AoOs serve as a way to balance special maneuvers and specificly character archetypes (archers, casters). However, what about removing movement-based AoOs? I like the concept of combat to be flowing and people moving about doing things, but in my experience people tend to stand in one spot (or only take a 5' step) and just wail on each other. Kind of boring, especially for a more swashbuckling styled campaign. The tactics called for them to simply charge into combat, and both of them were slain by AoO before they even really got to do anything. Charging does not provoke AoOs, unless they are LEAVING (not entering) a threatened square. So unless the PCs had reach, the hobgoblins should have easily enough charged the closest one or two people and been unharmed.
WayneTheGame 07-19-06, 04:49 PM	Personally, I hate AoOs: I think the force the game to become "miniatures combat" whenver you fight a monster because they force you to spend time strategically planning your moves like Chess instead of roleplaying during the combat. I spend more time thinking of how to tactically maneuver to get into position without provoking an AoO than I do playing up my character in combat. Personally, I hate the whole "minis" aspect to combat, and wish it would go away. My group as a whole tends to not do roleplaying during combat because we are too focused on the mat and minis to stay in character; the fact that with certain things you have to denote what type of action you're using doesn't help. I find it kills the mood if you have to say that you're using a Free action to speak "Lidda, flank him!" or that I'm using a standard action so Regdar can drink a potion.
Dalthbar 07-19-06, 04:55 PM	Personally, I hate the whole "minis" aspect to combat, and wish it would go away. My group as a whole tends to not do roleplaying during combat because we are too focused on the mat and minis to stay in character; the fact that with certain things you have to denote what type of action you're using doesn't help. I find it kills the mood if you have to say that you're using a Free action to speak "Lidda, flank him!" or that I'm using a standard action so Regdar can drink a potion. When used properly, miniatures can add a whole new depth to playing, including the RP side of things. If you're just using a square piece of paper with an "L" on it for LIdda, then that's obviously going to detract from the experience. However, if you have a decent set of minis, you can better envision combat and where everything is since there's a nice to-scale model right there for you. On top of all that, if you're saying "i'm taking a standard action to drink a potion" then it's more your fault for the OOC language than the rules. YOu can just say "I'm going to drink this potion" and be done with it and stay in character. While you do need to "declare your actions", you can do so in character without voicing verbose game mechanics. (at least we do in our game - there's obviously a requirement that the players understand teh rules)
pukunui 07-19-06, 05:03 PM	Charging does not provoke AoOs, unless they are LEAVING (not entering) a threatened square. So unless the PCs had reach, the hobgoblins should have easily enough charged the closest one or two people and been unharmed. Sorry, one of them got killed by an AoO when it charged past a PC. The other got killed because the sorc had set her spear for a charge as a ready action and she basically impaled the charging hobgoblin before it got a chance to even spit in her face.
MerlintheTuna 07-19-06, 05:48 PM	Sorry, one of them got killed by an AoO when it charged past a PC. The other got killed because the sorc had set her spear for a charge as a ready action and she basically impaled the charging hobgoblin before it got a chance to even spit in her face. They tried to completely ignore what's apparently a front-line fighter AND charge into a set spear? Those two got exactly what they deserved and are an excellent example of the AoO system doing exactly what it's supposed to.
allenchan 07-19-06, 06:37 PM	An Int 10 would call for better tactics then that. This I do not blame on the AoO system but poorly run monsters. Live and learn, though.
pukunui 07-19-06, 06:55 PM	Perhaps I was taking the adventure too literally. The tactics section for the hobgoblins in "A Dark and Stormy Knight" says that they simply charge into combat. I took that to mean literally charge, in which case one of them ran right into the sorceress with her spear, and the other got killed by the duskblade. The rats were a bit more of a challenge, but the stupid things can only do 1 dmg per bite. And the lesser vargouille was pretty pointless. I shoulda upped it to a real one. Still, it was my first time DMing a 3.5 session, so all in all, it wasn't too bad. The players enjoyed it anyway. Tonight is the next session, and they've got a trap, a medium monstrous spider, and a bugbear zombie. The zombie's at least got HP in the double digits (42), so hopefully it'll last a bit longer than all the other monsters in this adventure (which have such low HP that they can each be killed with one good roll of the attack and damage dice). I'm planning on getting them into the MM Web Enhancement "Hobgoblin Outpost" next with some modifications so it ain't so hard for three 1st level PCs. BTW, in case you're interested, the PCs (all lvl 1) are: Mournlarnim - good but dimwitted (Int 7) half-drow cleric of Eilistraee Amawyn - orphaned half-elf sorceress (and apparently a decent melee combatant as well ...) Kirian - secretive human duskblade I'm also playing an NPC ally (lvl 2) to get the party up to 4, but he won't stick around for much longer: Moktar - friendly human scout in the employ of the local city's guard Hopefully tonight's session will be a bit more challenging, combat-wise. The spider ought to be able to sneak up on these guys (except maybe the scout), and the zombie should be able to take a few hits. Also, there's a trap, but the scout might find and disable it without it doing anything. We'll see ... We'll also see how the AoO go tonight as well ... I'll keep you posted.
Nom 07-19-06, 11:09 PM	Note that 2nd ed had a bunch of wierd rules about how long actions took, including but not limited to spells and attacks with various weapons. 3rd Ed gets rid of all that in favour of a truly round-robin system: you act on your turn. AoOs are the mechanic that allows the turn based system to still provide disincentive for "stopping fighting while in melee".
MerlintheTuna 07-20-06, 02:57 AM	Disarm/trip/... and so on: I will trip every "low strenght" enemy without fear... Actually, of the special combat manuevers, Trip is the only one that becomes pretty much entirely useless if you drop AoOs. Figure this; in the current system, if you trip someone, you draw an AoO. But if you take him to the ground, he's got a penalty to attacks and AC and draws an AoO from you (and anyone else around) when HE stands up. Since there's a penalty for standing, he may not stand, in which case you get to attack him again while he's on the ground. If you're playing without AoO's on the other hand, you trip him without drawing an attack of opportunity. His AC and attack are again penalized for being prone... until his turn, when he stands up without problem, getting rid of the penalties without taking any attacks during the process. All of the effects of your trip have been negated before your turn comes around again.
pukunui 07-20-06, 03:11 AM	Good point, Merlin.
PhaedrusXY 07-20-06, 03:29 AM	All of the effects of your trip have been negated before your turn comes around again.Only against such low level enemies that they only get one attack per round. It takes a move equivalent action to stand up from prone. So the tripped creature can either 1) stay prone and make his full attack, or 2) stand up and only make a single attack. I started playing a combo of 1st and 2nd edition, and played up through 3rd and 3.5. When we first started playing 3.0, we hated AoOs too, and thought about tossing them out of our games. But we eventually got the hang of them, and they do add a very interesting dynamic to the combat. I always thought 2nd edition melee combat was pretty boring, anyway. 3rd is alot more exiting precisely because it is more complex and rewards you more for thinking tactically. Also, none of the groups I have ever gamed with use minis. If we need to represent a combat area, we lay down a piece of paper and draw on it. Most of the time, you don't really need that level of precision, though. A decent DM can describe it well enough without it, and I do think that having a map and a bunch of little figures on it would detract greatly from the descriptive aspect of DMing. A large part of setting up and running an encounter is describing the scene. You have to make sure you're very thorough if you're not using minis.
pukunui 07-20-06, 05:48 AM	Tonight's session went pretty well. The only goof I made was to forget about the DR 5/slashing that zombies have -- although it's not really my fault, seeing as it's not actually in the damn MM book. It's in the errata. I had seen it before, but I forgot to apply it in the actual combat scenario. So it might have been a bit tougher than it was, but it was already pretty tough -- the bugbear zombie took down two of the PCs before the other PC and my NPC got it. The sequence involved a few AoO, and it really wasn't so bad. The spider got some good hits in too, including a few AoO. I have to admit that, yes, once you get the hang of it, it's not so bad. Now I just need to work on my descriptions -- instead of "the zombie gets an attack of opportunity, eh?", I can say "as [Player X] scrambles to get out of the way, the zombie takes a swing at him with its morningstar ..." Right so anyway ... the AoO stay for now. Thanks for all your thoughts on the matter.
Leilond 07-20-06, 05:55 AM	Tonight's session went pretty well. The only goof I made was to forget about the DR 5/slashing that zombies have -- although it's not really my fault, seeing as it's not actually in the damn MM book. It's in the errata. I had seen it before, but I forgot to apply it in the actual combat scenario. So it might have been a bit tougher than it was, but it was already pretty tough -- the bugbear zombie took down two of the PCs before the other PC and my NPC got it. The sequence involved a few AoO, and it really wasn't so bad. The spider got some good hits in too, including a few AoO. I have to admit that, yes, once you get the hang of it, it's not so bad. Now I just need to work on my descriptions -- instead of "the zombie gets an attack of opportunity, eh?", I can say "as [Player X] scrambles to get out of the way, the zombie takes a swing at him with its morningstar ..." Right so anyway ... the AoO stay for now. Thanks for all your thoughts on the matter. Well... I'm glad for you :D On a side note, if you remove "move related AoO" the rogure will become really more powerfull because he can move to flank and use sneak attack without risk. The drawback of the rogue sneak attack is that: "you need to move go gain flanking and so you have to plan it well to avoid AoO because of your low HP", you simply remove one of the rogue drawback if you remove AoO I'll grant you that, going along you'll find it easier and easier You'll find another "strange and apparently low rule": grapple. It can be hard to use all the grapple rules the first times, but as AoO, you'll find it easier when you use it for some times
pukunui 07-20-06, 05:59 AM	Yes, there do seem to be a lot of rules for grappling, but so far I haven't had to use them. I'm hoping to get my PCs into an encounter where they need to capture rather than kill some opponents soon, so we'll see how that goes.
Leilond 07-20-06, 06:03 AM	Yes, there do seem to be a lot of rules for grappling, but so far I haven't had to use them. I'm hoping to get my PCs into an encounter where they need to capture rather than kill some opponents soon, so we'll see how that goes. They'll simply deal "nonlethal damage" taking -4 to hit instead of grapple. If you want to use the grapple rules, you can add a low level pc with improved grapple (a 1st level fighter or a monk) to try for it. The first time you can grapple your party fighter that can resist enought in a grapple because if you grapple a wizard he/she's going to die very easly In this way you can help everyone (you and other players) to understand the grapple rules better ;)
pukunui 07-20-06, 04:48 PM	Although I can see the utility of the AoO system and how it works in most situations, I'm still not happy with the fact that the rules seem to allow an automatic AoO if you've readied an action. I think this is the one area in which I'm going to tweak the AoO system. See my other post on the matter for more info on the specific situation I had here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=9645280#post9645280). I think that with readied actions and AoO, I'm going to treat them on a case-by-case basis. While most will probably still work with AoO, I think some just aren't believable and the PC should get either the readied action or the AoO but not both.
Nom 07-20-06, 08:26 PM	Although I can see the utility of the AoO system and how it works in most situations, I'm still not happy with the fact that the rules seem to allow an automatic AoO if you've readied an action.What do you mean by this? Readying doesn't inherently negate your ability to threaten, and I can't see why it should. Especially in melee. Remember that a melee attack roll does not represent a single swing, but a good opportunity to actually hit. Readying a melee attack means that you reserve your good opportunity to use against a particular opponent. If another is silly enough to leave you an opening that they should not have, then you might get a lucky hit. Similarly, "readying against a charge" doesn't mean that you sit there with your spear out. It simply means that if your are charged you will turn full attention to the charger and brace your spear as he is about to reach you; this is a skirmish level game, not massed combat where you can effectively form a phalanx. Until you are charged, you continue to fight, but don't try to push home your advantage (make an attack roll) unless someone leaves themselves wide open (thus AoO).
pukunui 07-20-06, 08:36 PM	Similarly, "readying against a charge" doesn't mean that you sit there with your spear out. I took it to mean that that is what you're doing when you ready an action ... It simply means that if your are charged you will turn full attention to the charger and brace your spear as he is about to reach you but when you put it like that, it does make some sense. I admit defeat. I'll leave the AoO and ready action rules unchanged in my game. I can see how it all is supposed to work now. Thanks.