Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Undercover 02-13-07, 09:43 AM	Has anyone played without AoOs? What happened? And any ideas on simple ways to balance the game once AoOs are removed? Several things provoke AoOs, and some feats just don't have much reason to be without it, casters become slightly more powerful but fighter's options increase as well w/o the need of feats. Only thing I can think of as necessary is that if you flee combat your opponent gets a free attack.
Archangel62 02-13-07, 10:40 AM	Have anyone played without AoOs? What happened? And any ideas on how simple ways to balance the game once AoOs are removed? Several things provoke AoOs, and some feats just don't much reason to be without it, casters become slightly more powerful but fighter's options increase as well w/o the need of feats. Only things I can think of as necessary is that if you flee combat your opponent gets a free attack. Fighters will tend to get weaker, it also means that larger creatures get a major nerf in power and some actions are now far easier and safer to do. I can be a caster and have far less fear in these sorts of situations.
Undercover 02-13-07, 11:48 AM	Fighters will tend to get weaker, it also means that larger creatures get a major nerf in power and some actions are now far easier and safer to do. I can be a caster and have far less fear in these sorts of situations. Fighters will tend to get weaker: why? they'll lose some attacks they'd get through AoOs, but also would not be subject to them. larger creatures get a major nerf in power: yeah, reach suddenly means much less, unless they get something in return like a bonus to initiative or an extra attack, or something else. a caster and have far less fear: I think you've said it correctly, less fear, but very small change in effectiveness. Casting defensively has always been a great option and I've hardly seen a caster lose a spell this way. If anything, removing AoOs gives a little bonus to low-level casters. Thinking it over, seems that combat becomes even more turn based and less real time, but also much simpler.
JustinA 02-13-07, 12:06 PM	Has anyone played without AoOs? What happened? Reach weapons and large creatures both get nerfed. The latter will probably need their CRs adjusted. In general, the flaws of the abstract turn-based combat round become more prominent. Combat becomes tactically less realistic as guards stand around stupidly watching people run past them. I'd also argue that it becomes less tactically interesting. Only thing I can think of as necessary is that if you flee combat your opponent gets a free attack. Since, IME, movement-based AoOs are the more complicated form of AoOs, I'd never want to eliminate AoOs and then reintroduce a movement-based AoO. Although, OTOH, I know some people have complained that memorizing the "long" list of AoO-inducing actions is problematic (for me, the distinction between AoO-inducing and non-AoO-inducing actions just seems natural with only the rare look-up). So, I guess, if that's the problem you're to eliminate, it makes sense to eliminate everything except the movement based AoOs. If you do that, reach weapons and large creatures aren't nerfed and the tactical options remain realistic and robust. However, you've given a power-up to the spellcasters, who can now cast spells without fearing AoO retribution. It's a minor power-up, though, since it's rare to find a situation where a 5' step can't be taken or Concentration checks aren't automatic. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Eldermount 02-13-07, 12:27 PM	Casting defensively has always been a great option and I've hardly seen a caster lose a spell this way. If anything, removing AoOs gives a little bonus to low-level casters. What's the point of casting defensively when there are no AoO's?
Bruunwald 02-13-07, 12:43 PM	Personally, I find the AoO to be the bane of the 3.x rules. It's been integrated to the point where entire rules sets must be written around it, and success hinges on it at almost every turn. Nevermind that it's completely, ridiculously, unreasonably unrealistic. I mean, come on. Some mindless automoton, flanked on two sides, gets to take an extra swing for free because somebody wandered through the wrong square? Even trained boxers don't get the sorts of free hits the AoO in d20 provides. And they're on the lookout for that sort of thing. But the rules lend this sort of quick-thinking and reflexive response to creatures that don't even have Intelligence scores. Personally, I think AoO ought to be a feat. And when you use it, it ought to provoke one. Go from there. But since I am not a nerf, I must allow them in my game. I wouldn't remove them at this point because the system does seem so dependent on them for so many feats (and thus builds) to be effective. I do limit them for the NPCs, depending on what sort of creature it is, and how intelligent. That doesn't seem to nerf the challenge too much, but it has caused some rules lawyers to pout and whine, on occasion.
JustinA 02-13-07, 03:05 PM	Even trained boxers don't get the sorts of free hits the AoO in d20 provides. And they're on the lookout for that sort of thing. I've got no idea what you're talking about. When did you ever see a boxer in the ring suddenly stop to tie his shoelaces (an AoO-provoking action)? And if you did see such a thing, are you seriously suggesting that it would be completely impossible for the other boxer to take advantage of it and land a couple of "free" hits that he wouldn't have been able to land otherwise? Personally, I think AoO ought to be a feat. Nothing should ever be a feat which everyone should be able to do. And everyone should be able to take advantage of their opponent digging through their backpack to take a free whack at them. I do limit them for the NPCs, depending on what sort of creature it is, and how intelligent. That doesn't seem to nerf the challenge too much, but it has caused some rules lawyers to pout and whine, on occasion. How could that possibly make a rules lawyer "pout and whine"? Is the rules lawyer unaware that AoOs never need to be taken? That's a fairly sad excuse for a rules lawyer. I'd take him back to whatever discount chain you picked him up at and demand a refund. :) Nevermind that it's completely, ridiculously, unreasonably unrealistic. I mean, come on. Some mindless automoton, flanked on two sides, gets to take an extra swing for free because somebody wandered through the wrong square? Yes. Even if you're facing off against two different opponents, if someone comes hustling by you without paying attention you'll find it much, much easier to land a damaging hit on them compared to the two guys you're facing off against. And that's what the AoO mechanics model. When that guy comes hustling past you, not paying attention, you don't magically become faster. The extra attack you get is not because you're swinging your sword extra fast. It's because you don't have to work as hard to make your attack. This is a common point of confusion for people, but it really shouldn't be. Let's take an extreme comparison: On the one hand, you're throwing punches at a dummy. The dummy doesn't move. The only thing that controls how many times you can connect with really solid blows is how fast your can swing your sword. On the other hand, you're facing off against a master duelist. In order to connect with a really solid blow, you've got to perform several feints, get parried a couple of times, parry a couple blows yourself, and so forth. Can you see why you would land many more really solid blows against the stationary dummy as compared to the master duelist? Now, in real life, there's a large continuum between these extremes. For example, somebody digging through their pack but still trying to dodge your blows is more difficult to hit than a stationary dummy. And a master duelist is more difficult to hit than Fred, who just took his first fencing class yesterday. D&D, to keep things simple, doesn't try to model this continuum. But in order to bear at least some resemblance to reality, D&D does clump people into a couple different categories: People who are focused on defending themselves and people who aren't focused on defending themselves. If someone is focused on defending themselves, they're harder to hit and you don't get an extra attack on them. If someone isn't focusing on defending themselves, they're easier to hit and you can take the opportunity to hit them more (by taking an AoO). Simple mechanic. Makes perfect sense. And it prevents the abstract nature of the turn-based combat system from dealing up completely ludicrous results. Now, all that being said, I agree that -- if you're standing next to someone -- you should have a chance to stop them from taking attacks of opportunity. But I think you need to expend some effort for that, it 's not automatic. So I've added a couple of maneuvers: Engage [Attack] As a melee attack you can choose to engage one opponent within reach. If an engaged opponent attempts to move away from you or if they attack anyone else before your next turn, you may take an attack against them at the same Base Attack Bonus as the attack you used to engage them (this attack is in addition to any attacks of opportunity you would normally be able to take and does not count against the limit on the number of attacks of opportunity you can take each round). If your opponent attempts to make an attack of opportunity against a different character while you’re engaging them, you take your attack normally. If the attack is successful, however, your opponent must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + damage dealt). If the Concentration check fails, your opponent loses the ability to make that attack of opportunity (although they may still take an attack of opportunity later if one is provoked). Note: Even if you have more than one attack per round, you cannot engage a single opponent more than once (although you can engage multiple opponents at once). Protect [Attack of Opportunity] If someone within your threatened area is about to make an attack of opportunity against a target other than yourself, you can use your own attack of opportunity for the round to prevent them from doing so. You and the combatant attempting the attack of opportunity each make an opposed melee attack roll. If you succeed, you use your attack of opportunity preoccupy them and prevent them from taking the attack of opportunity. (This does not count against the total number of attacks of opportunity they may take in a round, however, and they may still take an attack of opportunity later if one is provoked). If you fail the opposed melee attack roll, they can resolve their attack of opportunity normally. This counts as an attack of opportunity for you. You cannot attempt to prevent an attack of opportunity more than once, even if you’re allowed to make more than one attack of opportunity in a round (although you may attempt to prevent additional attacks of opportunity taken later in the round). The engage maneuver has been thoroughly playtested. The protect maneuver has not. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
The_Levitator 02-13-07, 09:45 PM	It seems like AoO'a have gotten easier to deal with since we adapted the Facing Variant in UA. By giving creatures a general facing, it makes it easier to determine who would actually provoke AoO's from each creature. One thing we did change, though, was to create an action called "Engage" (I swear JustinA, I didn't steal it from you! ;) ). As a free action, you can choose 1 creature to engage with. If that player moves to try and gain a flanking or rear attack on you, you automatically change your facing each square to keep that creature to your front. When we originally adopted and tried out the Facing Variant, my players just started playing leap frog to get flank attacks. By the UA rules, we didn't see any way of stopping that. While it does increase combat movement, it's kind of silly to watch on screen. By adding the "Engage" action, not only did it make it easier for players to determine their strategies, but it also made AoO's easier to deal with too. I know that as much as a pain as we sometimes find them, my group is pretty tactical and wouldn't play without them. :D
Archangel62 02-14-07, 02:45 AM	Fighters will tend to get weaker: why? they'll lose some attacks they'd get through AoOs, but also would not be subject to them. Tripping is now useless, any hope the fighter had of battlefield control is now gone. And while they can do all they want in terms of movement so can the enemy, and the enemy having that much mobility will harm the party far more than the pcs.
fatal error 02-14-07, 03:52 AM	What is your goal for getting rid of AoOs? What do you hope to gain for your game? It may be that just eliminating movement-based (that is, moving out of threatened squares, standing from prone and such would still provoke) would accomplish what you want. But, I don't know what you really want out of this change. Although I will say that at times I feel like all AoOs do is make a turn take 5 seconds longer while the Player tries to figure out how to avoid it with his movement.
lastknightleft 02-16-07, 01:47 PM	Engage [Attack] As a melee attack you can choose to engage one opponent within reach. If an engaged opponent attempts to move away from you or if they attack anyone else before your next turn, you may take an attack against them at the same Base Attack Bonus as the attack you used to engage them (this attack is in addition to any attacks of opportunity you would normally be able to take and does not count against the limit on the number of attacks of opportunity you can take each round). If your opponent attempts to make an attack of opportunity against a different character while you’re engaging them, you take your attack normally. If the attack is successful, however, your opponent must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + damage dealt). If the Concentration check fails, your opponent loses the ability to make that attack of opportunity (although they may still take an attack of opportunity later if one is provoked). Note: Even if you have more than one attack per round, you cannot engage a single opponent more than once (although you can engage multiple opponents at once). The engage maneuver has been thoroughly playtested. The protect maneuver has not. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net I like the idea but some clarification... is engage just that you declare with your attack "I am engaging this person."? or is there more required?
JustinA 02-17-07, 01:21 PM	I like the idea but some clarification... is engage just that you declare with your attack "I am engaging this person."? or is there more required? That's all that's required. It should be noted, however, that engaging someone is done instead of making your attack, not in addition to it.
lastknightleft 02-17-07, 08:51 PM	so in other words it's a standard action, not an attack action
GEEKAZOID 02-19-07, 12:40 PM	What I never could figure out is how AoO suddenly make you better in combat than your class allows. Example: Wizard level 1. Wizard at first level can only ever hope to land a single blow in a given round, and with no bonus. Wizard is the epitome of weak combatant. So this wizard is fighting a goblin with a dagger. He steps 5ft towards the goblin and swings wildly many times managing to hit the one time his BAB allows chance for. That is his turn, the most successful he can be in combat at 1st level. But wait! Another goblin ran past! Now suddenly wizard finds enough martial talent to land a SECOND attack in a round? Against a totally different opponent? So wizard is suddenly able to switch focus to a different target, attack, and switch back to the original opponent without provoking an AoO from the original? HOW!!?:confused: Spontaneous fighter training?
JustinA 02-21-07, 12:37 AM	so in other words it's a standard action, not an attack action Uh, no. You engage instead of making ONE of your attacks. You don't sacrifice all of your attacks. It's not balanced as a standard action. It would rarely be used in low level play and never be used in mid- or high-level play.
JustinA 02-21-07, 12:44 AM	But wait! Another goblin ran past! Now suddenly wizard finds enough martial talent to land a SECOND attack in a round? Against a totally different opponent? The wizard has not gotten any better. But that second goblin, since he's not paying attention, makes it EASIER to make an extra attack It's not the wizard is capable of doing MORE, it's that it takes LESS to hit that second goblin. This should be really, really, really obvious. It would be even more obvious if you had bothered to read the thread before posting to it. But let's try putting it another way: Imagine that a wizard who is capable of taking 1 attack per round is actually capable of taking 1.5 attacks per round. If he's just facing off against an opponent who's paying attention and defending himself, he can only make one attack roll. That extra .5 attack is meaningless and useless. But when an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity they've made it easier to hit them -- he doesn't have to put forward the full effort necessary to make a single attack roll, he only needs to put forward half the effort. So now he gets to take that extra attack. This analogy breaks down once you throw Combat Reflexes into the mix. But it demonstrates the principle. (And, if you'd like, you can think of Combat Reflexes as making it even EASIER to take advantage of those opportunities which present themselves.) Make sense? Or are you still confused?
hawaiianbrian 03-15-07, 03:47 AM	I don't like AoO either, and I'm going to try eliminating them from my next campaign and see what happens. A few feats will need to be rewritten for the house rule, and I'm sure a few more will come up that will need some impromptu adjustment, but it's well worth it, in my opinion. All AoO do for my game is drag down the rounds and turn the game into a strategic miniatures combat game. If I wanted that, I'd play Warhammer. The thing that gets me is, after playing D&D everyone seems to forget that AoO don't exist in most other games, and yet those games work just fine without them. Better, probably, in some ways. At the very least, combat is more fluid and cinematic in other games. Take it for what you will.
JustinA 03-15-07, 09:59 AM	All AoO do for my game is drag down the rounds and turn the game into a strategic miniatures combat game. If I wanted that, I'd play Warhammer. If you don't want a miniatures combat game, I'd go after the real culprit: The miniatures. The 3.5 revision obfuscated things a bit, but there aren't any rules in 3rd Edition which actually require the use of miniatures. That includes AoOs. To resolve an AoO you only need to know three things: 1. Can that guy hit me? 2. Am I doing something that provokes an AoO? 3. Am I moving more than 5 feet while that guy can hit me? These are all questions that can be resolved without miniatures. What AoOs allow you to do is use a simple, turn-based resolution mechanic for combat without losing meaningful battlefield dynamics (like the ability to stop someone from running past you). Here's my suggestion: If you want to get to a more cinematic, give-and-take feel to combat, then you need to do more than ditch the easy-to-use AoO mechanics. You need to adopt a "everyone announces their action and then the GM ad hocs the action sequence" style of gameplay. That's the system most other RPGs use, because most RPGs lack the robust features of D&D combat which allow it to function without that kind of direct intervention. And there's nothing wrong with that: As you say, when the GM knows what he's doing, it gives combat a much more cinematic feel because he can arrange actions in a logical and dramatic sequence. Random suggestion: Roll initiative for each round. Go through the initiative order once (from best-to-worst) and have everyone declare an action. Then go through the initiative order a second time (from worst-to-best) and see if anyone wants to change their action based on what the other declared actions are (this can be done very quickly). This gives a meaningful advantage to higher initiative results in a system where you've stripped most of the advantages away from it. You may find that it will work better if you roll a d8 or d10 for initiative instead of the standard d20.
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-15-07, 10:29 AM	If you don't want a miniatures combat game, I'd go after the real culprit: The miniatures. The 3.5 revision obfuscated things a bit, but there aren't any rules in 3rd Edition which actually require the use of miniatures. That includes AoOs. To resolve an AoO you only need to know three things: 1. Can that guy hit me? 2. Am I doing something that provokes an AoO? 3. Am I moving more than 5 feet while that guy can hit me? These are all questions that can be resolved without miniatures. All of what you've suggested may not require a miniature but it still requires that same tactical consideration that a miniature requires: "Can that guy hit me?", which in D&D is rendered down into "Am I within [reach distance] while doing something distracting?" That still requires a "miniature", by which I mean the character is made into a stationary figure in a certain square that is a certain distance away determined by squares of 5 ft. This aspect of combat has already been absctracted: in reality you can be just far enough away from a target that they can't hit you, but not necessarily 5 ft more than their current reach. While the points you make are valid, D&D's movement and attack range is already set up to be like miniature combat before one uses miniatures. Here's my suggestion: If you want to get to a more cinematic, give-and-take feel to combat, then you need to do more than ditch the easy-to-use AoO mechanics. You need to adopt a "everyone announces their action and then the GM ad hocs the action sequence" style of gameplay. That's the system most other RPGs use, because most RPGs lack the robust features of D&D combat which allow it to function without that kind of direct intervention. And there's nothing wrong with that: As you say, when the GM knows what he's doing, it gives combat a much more cinematic feel because he can arrange actions in a logical and dramatic sequence. Random suggestion: Roll initiative for each round. Go through the initiative order once (from best-to-worst) and have everyone declare an action. Then go through the initiative order a second time (from worst-to-best) and see if anyone wants to change their action based on what the other declared actions are (this can be done very quickly). This gives a meaningful advantage to higher initiative results in a system where you've stripped most of the advantages away from it. You may find that it will work better if you roll a d8 or d10 for initiative instead of the standard d20. Some of us would like to eliminate AoOs because we hope it will make things simpler, while what you're proposing would actually make combat more complex and take longer. That works for people who can think quickly, but some people just want to run around and bash things without worrying about the enemy hitting them while doing it.
JustinA 03-15-07, 10:45 AM	All of what you've suggested may not require a miniature but it still requires that same tactical consideration that a miniature requires: "Can that guy hit me?", which in D&D is rendered down into "Am I within [reach distance] while doing something distracting?" That still requires a "miniature", No. All it requires is that (1) you know what you're doing and (2) you can answer the question, "Can that guy hit me?" If you can't do that without miniatures (however you choose to define "miniatures"), then miniatures are required for every roleplaying game you will ever play. At that point, trying to eliminate them is impossible, so you're going to have to go back and revise your premise. Some of us would like to eliminate AoOs because we hope it will make things simpler, while what you're proposing would actually make combat more complex and take longer. That works for people who can think quickly, but some people just want to run around and bash things without worrying about the enemy hitting them while doing it. For me, that goes well beyond "simple" and into the range of "unacceptably unrealistic". When the high-level bodyguards of the princess stand around stupidly and watch as an untrained peasant runs past them and guts the princess because it's not their turn, the abstraction of the system has not only shattered my suspension of disbelief, it's also created a profoundly unsatisfactory situation. It's inflexibility is also making it difficult or impossible to model certain situations, reducing its meaningful utility to me. And this type of situation happens all the time once you eliminate any ability to handle simultaneous action. Declaring actions really isn't that difficult. Allowing people with a high initiative to change their action based on what slower people are doing (in order to realistically model their quick perception and reflexes) doesn't take that much time. (It can usually be resolved as a single question: "Does anyone with a high init want to revise their action?" The answer will usually be no unless something completely unexpected has happened.) Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-15-07, 11:53 AM	If you can't do that without miniatures (however you choose to define "miniatures"), then miniatures are required for every roleplaying game you will ever play. At that point, trying to eliminate them is impossible, so you're going to have to go back and revise your premise. I've played RPGs without miniatures. But you're right, I can't answer those questions without rules to do the determining for me. Not all of us have that specific ability in our thought processes. For me, that goes well beyond "simple" and into the range of "unacceptably unrealistic". When the high-level bodyguards of the princess stand around stupidly and watch as an untrained peasant runs past them and guts the princess because it's not their turn, the abstraction of the system has not only shattered my suspension of disbelief, it's also created a profoundly unsatisfactory situation. If we're talking about what we consider profoundly unrealistic, then in my opinion the ability to make an AoO while being flanked and attacked by other warriors is unrealistic to me. High-level guards standing back and waiting to attack when someone comes past is what is realistic. What I don't get is why AoO don't take distraction and reaction time into account. I don't understand how a warrior can recognize and react to a caster taking a mere 3 seconds to cast a spell. I could accept 6 seconds, but then not if the warrior is seriously engaged. Declaring actions really isn't that difficult. I was speaking from the point of view of someone who might have to think, and any extra opportunities to think increase the time I take to make a decision. Not everyone thinks fast. I could see your "backwards initiative" system working if it replaced AoO. In your example, if the guard acts first in initiative, and then the commoner declairs he's going to run past, the guard decides to stop the commoner rather than his other action for that round. That makes sense for me, not the "I can hit him because he's moving quickly past me even though I've already attack multiple times (assuming full-attack action) this round, and am currently trying to defend against this big guy with a sword".
JustinA 03-16-07, 12:56 PM	I could see your "backwards initiative" system working if it replaced AoO. Right. That was the proposal. Sorry for the confusion: If you get rid of AoOs, you should figure out some way of letting the people with high initiative scores react to what characters with lower initiative scores are doing. Although the right way to do it, now that I think about it, is simply to do declaration backwards. That's the way we used to play WEG Star Wars, don't know why my mind decided to serve forth a double-declaration cycle. That makes sense for me, not the "I can hit him because he's moving quickly past me even though I've already attack multiple times (assuming full-attack action) this round, and am currently trying to defend against this big guy with a sword". It comes back to the fact that combat in D&D is abstracted: A single die roll does not represent a single swing of the sword or fist. A single attack roll against an opponent actively defending against you represents a lot more effort than an attack roll against a character who isn't paying attention to you (by running past or pulling something out of his backpack or whatever). It really isn't that difficult to whip your sword out and whack someone who isn't paying attention, even if you're actively engaged with someone else (I speak from experience here). What is difficult is defending yourself when you've got people on multiple sides of you, but that's handled by flanking penalties. Although, as I noted earlier, it wouldn't be unreasonable to add some options in there that would allow you to prevent someone else from taking advantage of an opportunity (by increasing the flurry of your own blows or whatever). I'd suggest a separate mechanic for that (so that highly skilled combatants can still take advantage of AoOs if all they're "worried" about is a peasant with a scythe), but you could do it more crudely by simply saying that taking an AoO provokes an attack of opportunity from everyone except the target of your AoO. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-16-07, 03:16 PM	Right. That was the proposal. Sorry for the confusion: If you get rid of AoOs, you should figure out some way of letting the people with high initiative scores react to what characters with lower initiative scores are doing. Although the right way to do it, now that I think about it, is simply to do declaration backwards. That's the way we used to play WEG Star Wars, don't know why my mind decided to serve forth a double-declaration cycle. I actually saw the whole "just do it backwards thing". I still wonder, though, whether D&D is too wrapped up in AoOs to implement this. Anyway, thanks for the idea.
JustinA 03-17-07, 12:49 AM	I actually saw the whole "just do it backwards thing". I still wonder, though, whether D&D is too wrapped up in AoOs to implement this. I think you can get away with it. Obviously there are several feats which tie directly to the AoO mechanic (Mobility and Spring Attack being the obvious ones), but you don't even have to explicitly house rule those out: Without AoOs, nobody is going to take them. I think the only significant mechanical change to be concerned about would be all those combat mechanics that provoke attacks of opportunity: Bull rushes, disarms, sunders, grappling, and the like. My guess would be that you'd see a slight up-tick in those combat maneuvers (as they become a little more attractive without provoking that extra attack against yourself), but nothing too serious.
Voran 03-20-07, 05:13 PM	I'd imagine there'd be a lot more use of combat maneuvers. No reason not to bull rush or trip or whatever if you won't draw AoO.
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-20-07, 06:53 PM	It should be noted that beyond just Mobility becoming obsolete, feats such as Improved Bull Rush gain a marked reduction in utility because their main effect of not provoking AoOs is now gone. I'd suggest taking away some of the pre-requisites so that someone feels these are still an option. Recently I saw a maneuver in the Tome of Battle that allowed something like charging without provoking AoOs. I don't know how something like this would function in this variant system.
JustinA 03-22-07, 01:37 AM	It should be noted that beyond just Mobility becoming obsolete, feats such as Improved Bull Rush gain a marked reduction in utility because their main effect of not provoking AoOs is now gone. I'd suggest taking away some of the pre-requisites so that someone feels these are still an option. I'd look at reinventing some of these feats. For example, Mobility is supposed to make you more flexible in your movement on the battlefield. Consider allowing characters with mobility to take 10' steps instead of 5' steps.
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-22-07, 08:36 AM	Mobility is supposed to make you more flexible in your movement on the battlefield. Consider allowing characters with mobility to take 10' steps instead of 5' steps. Does this have enough utility, now that 5fts aren't needed to not provoke AoOs?
JustinA 03-23-07, 01:39 AM	Does this have enough utility, now that 5fts aren't needed to not provoke AoOs? The biggest advantage, for me, is adjusting in the middle of a full attack sequence. Also, it becomes very easy to adjust into a flanking position (since you can switch to the other side of a Medium-size opponent). It's not a "you absolutely have to take this feat" selection, but it's definitely useful. (In fact, it's arguably more useful than the RAW version of Mobility, which is almost entirely useless if you've got 10+ ranks in Tumble.) It's a version of the feat that would never want to allow into a game which still had AoOs, though. You'd be able to do a full attack sequence and then force your opponent to lose their full attack sequence to follow you. Way too powerful, and even more abusive when combined with some reach weapons.