Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FlameLover 11-12-05, 09:25 PM	I would like to know what everyone thinks about simplifying combat, namley how to go about doing it while not "dumbing down" the game too much. The two things that spring to mind are: - Dropping Attacks of Opportunity - Dropping the 5-foot step Anything else you think slows combat dwon too much - or do you infact think these should be kept? I realize that both add a strategic element to the game but they can cause some headaches, especially since i'm playing with a group of people new to D&D.
zaduma 11-12-05, 10:36 PM	I would like to know what everyone thinks about simplifying combat, namley how to go about doing it while not "dumbing down" the game too much. The two things that spring to mind are: If you remove those things, then you have not acheived your own rules. Its not difficult, AaO is not hard, doesn't make it slow unless both players and DM are idiots; and as for the 5 foot step, come on.
FlameLover 11-12-05, 11:02 PM	I'm sorry but I have to take offence at calling someone who finds AoOs an idiot. They add ATLEAST an extra roll every time one is provoked not including damage rolls, critical hits, sneak attack dice, etc. and they just make fighter types even more useless compared to casters. My group is a Paladin, Fighter and Bard (none of which is particularly optimized) and the keenest gamer (the Fighter) is now lying near death on the ground due to an AoO. Now you can say it's his fault, or he should just make a new character when this one dies, but he's the only one in the group who is really into the game and he is playing a character based on a novel he has written so he feels a certain attatchment to him. I have a feeling the Pally will save him but that's besides the point (ok well not really but that's not what this thread is about). Attacks of Opportuniy and 5-foot steps add complexity to the game and don't give a whole lot back, atleast for begginers. The 5-foot step is a bri-product of the AoO rules anyway so removing one logically leads to removing the other I feel. Sorry for being defensive but you coulda just said "I don't feel either needs removing" which as I said in my first post is a perfectley reasnoble answer. Just saying that only idiots would find the rules cumbersome and not very fun got my heckles up (points for whoever knows the refference).
Tenzhi 11-12-05, 11:37 PM	Its not difficult, AaO is not hard, doesn't make it slow unless both players and DM are idiots; and as for the 5 foot step, come on. They're not difficult; however they contextually don't make sense, and they add extra actions to combat - which any one can see slows down the game no matter how you slice it. I'd suggest ditching extra atacks from BAB as well. This will speed up the combat round, though it will lengthen combat in general. I'd compensate fighters by giving them Flurry-like class abilities at two points in the class. This would also allow bringing Natural weapon fighting and normal weapon fighting into a more unified system of Primary and Secondary attacks.
FROGGERBOB000 11-12-05, 11:56 PM	In my campaign, to speed things up, I merely change the initiative rules and leave the other stuff alone. If I have, for example, 5 goblins, I will give them group initiative, and for the players, I commonly just go clockwise around the table and insert the monsters' turns between players. This may be more work for me, but it keeps the game running more smoothly and quickly. The 5-foot steep actually is very important as many players are often 5 feet out of range for an attack. Taking this away actually, in my opinion, slows down the game. The AoO and extra attacks are very useful when it comes to powerful creatures such as dragons and the tarrasque. Having recently sent a group of 6 lvl 20 characters up against the tarrasque, I found that those extra actions had saved the group from dying.
FlameLover 11-13-05, 12:02 AM	I'm glad someone else sees it the way I do - I thought i might have been doing something wrong. I like the idea of dropping extra attacks, so here's what i'm thinking. When you full-attack you always get 2 attacks (even from level 1!) and the first is at full BAB and the second takes a -5 penalty just like a Secondary Natural Weapon would. Thanks for that suggestion - that should really make things simpler :) EDIT: FROGGERBOB000 posted same time as I did. Yeah i will keep the 5ft step I guess but I think i'll rule it needs to be before or after an action and not in the middle (wouldn't come up much but it might). As for AoO my players are only lv3 and I doubt they'll get past lv10 so I'm not too worried about Tarrasques and stuff but i'll keep that in mind. If I do nothing else i'll drop the attacks to 1/round since the Fighter and Pally were about to get there 2nd attack next session.
Millennium 11-13-05, 08:33 AM	I'm glad someone else sees it the way I do - I thought i might have been doing something wrong. I like the idea of dropping extra attacks, so here's what i'm thinking. When you full-attack you always get 2 attacks (even from level 1!) and the first is at full BAB and the second takes a -5 penalty just like a Secondary Natural Weapon would. That's going to nerf non-spellcasters pretty severely, especially at higher levels. Yeah i will keep the 5ft step I guess but I think i'll rule it needs to be before or after an action and not in the middle (wouldn't come up much but it might). Keep in mind that you can only take a 5-foot step if you don't make any other movement during that action. Given that, the only action where it even makes sense to take a 5-foot step in the middle is the full attack. I fail to see what's so complicated about that. You move one square, and that's it.
Millennium 11-13-05, 08:48 AM	I'm sorry but I have to take offence at calling someone who finds AoOs an idiot. Idiotic, perhaps not. But you seem to lack much if any understanding of the rules, so 'ignorant' would certainly qualify. They add ATLEAST an extra roll every time one is provoked not including damage rolls, critical hits, sneak attack dice, etc... Only if the provoked creature takes it. You don't have to do it if you don't want to. Furthermore, since it is only one attack, you're not adding more than four die rolls, and that only occurs in one case: when a rogue successfully gets a critical hit on a sneak attack. Also, remember that each character can only make one AoO per round, assuming they don't have Combat Reflexes. Are you allowing for too many AoOs, perhaps? ...and they just make fighter types even more useless compared to casters. Um... um... what are you smoking, and where can I get some? Given that spellcasters provoke AoOs every time they use their main class ability -that is to say, casting spells- a well-played fighter-type should be taking ruthless advantage. If the fighter-types are getting hurt by so many AoOs, then that's a matter of extremely poor player tactics. Fighter-types should be making many more AoOs than they ever provoke. My group is a Paladin, Fighter and Bard (none of which is particularly optimized) and the keenest gamer (the Fighter) is now lying near death on the ground due to an AoO. Now you can say it's his fault, or he should just make a new character when this one dies, but he's the only one in the group who is really into the game and he is playing a character based on a novel he has written so he feels a certain attatchment to him. I have a feeling the Pally will save him but that's besides the point (ok well not really but that's not what this thread is about). I hope the paladin saves the fighter, but frankly this was the fighter's fault. His player needs to learn some basic tactics for fighters. The fact that the character is based on a creative work of his only makes this even more important, because it cannot help but improve his writing. Attacks of Opportuniy and 5-foot steps add complexity to the game and don't give a whole lot back, atleast for begginers. AoOs give a lot back for people who know how to use them. As for five-foot steps, I'm really, really confused as to where the heck this adds any complexity at all. You move one square (or one hex if you're using a hex grid). What's so complicated about that? The 5-foot step is a bri-product of the AoO rules anyway so removing one logically leads to removing the other I feel. I reiterate: what are you smoking, and where can I get some? Although their ability to avoid AoOs leads to them being mentioned in that section, the 5-foot step is a byproduct of the movement rules, not the AoO rules. Sorry for being defensive but you coulda just said "I don't feel either needs removing" which as I said in my first post is a perfectley reasnoble answer. Just saying that only idiots would find the rules cumbersome and not very fun got my heckles up (points for whoever knows the refference). You're not an idiot. However, you and the players need to do a lot more thinking about these rules and how they're used, because I sense a major lack of understanding behind your words. If, after understanding what these rules mean and how to apply them, you still want to remove them, that's fine; go right ahead. It's your game, after all. But lashing out at rules you don't understand is unwise in the extreme.
FlameLover 11-14-05, 12:00 AM	I think I understand the rules pretty well, it's my players who don't. And I play with players who will fight to the death about stuff like this. I tell them I want to run a nice, relaxed, fun game and unfortunatley some (particularly the paladin) are abit rules-lawyering despite not knowing the rules. I know them all very well in real life so I have a good idea why they are this way and there is nothing I can do to fix it but I thought i'd save myself an extra hour every gaming session arguing over stuff like initiative order, movement speeds, carrying capacity, etc. if I just eased up on the rules abit for now. I have no issue understanding how AoO work myself - atleast in normal situations - but my players don't. Only one owns any book and all he has is the PHB which he's read but not really understood yet. I'm trying to ease them in slowly because they've been getting clobbered of late (probably my fault since I was setting them up against a level 1 challenge with a group of three lv3s which are all un-supped up). Next session i'm changing the Bard to a Warlock which will power them up abit, etc. But i've been having a hard time with AoO especially because they get into combat and start moving bits around while i'm not paying full attention to the board and since they don't understand how they work themselves they just sorta move them about willy-nilly. Enforcing the AoOs would help, I realize this, but they're having fun without them and I'd hate to enforce them since i'd only be making it more complex. I'll be starting a new campaign in a world i'm making soon anyway and I want to have them comfortable with the game before then but I'm worried if I add too much too soon they'll get bored with all the rules. Plus if I make a ruling and go back on it later the Paladin has a fit, even if it's in the parties favour (I respect that he wants to follow the rules and all that but after seeing some of the CO boards stuff when you play by the RAW I think i'll go for rule 0 instead). ANYWAY all i'm trying to say is i'm not sure how best to integrate them into D&D without having too many rules, especially ones that'll get them killed. I enforced the AoO last session and now one of them is dying so I need to decide if i'll be tough from now on or ease up alittle. I'm also looking into posting something on the CO boards asking for help optimizing them since I made the characters for them based on what they said and I made some stupid choices (like choosing a race with a Cha penalty along with the Paladin in a party with no healer). So it really is my fault and I feel i'm stuffing up my players introduction to D&D etc. I mean i've never played D&D myself, i got the books and was the only one up for DMing in my old group so I guess I can't help viwing this from my perspective. I've never been too happy with my DMing at the table since i've never seen anyone else do it and everyone i've played with has been new to the game so I've been sorta fuddling my way through until this point where i'm asking whether simplifying it to start might help. Phew... anyway the next session will be soon and i'll keep everything as-is then but i'll ask if they have any suggestions on what to drop. I don't enforce much anyway, I mean i can't be bothered to worry about carrying capacity for example. As long as I can visualize them carrying everything they got or they can explain it - no biggie. So yeah any more opinions or ideas are welcome, I just wanted to explain my position. I know it's my fault DMing and that's why I thought simplifying it would help to ease them into it.
Millennium 11-14-05, 08:20 AM	If you're worried about AoOs slowing down the game, here are some tips. I apologize, in that I should have posted them sooner. These tips stem from the idea that attacks of opportunity represent moments when a character leaves himself open, whether by accident or by force. From what I'm reading, it sounds as though you're automatically having everyone who gets an AoO take it. This can slow down the game, but there's a simple fix: don't do it automatically. Remember, you don't have to take an AoO if you don't want to. In particular, don't automatically have the players execute AoOs: make the players claim their AoOs. If they notice that someone has done something that gives them an AoO and they choose to take it, let them have the attack. If they don't, that's too bad. Just like in real life, before you can take advantage of an opening you have to notice that it's there. This will have the side effect of forcing your players to watch the combat more closely, which should help them pick up the mechanics faster. It also makes bookkeeping a little easier on you, because you don't need to keep track of every time the enemy provokes an attack as it happens: all you need to do is verify whether an opponent actually provoked an AoO, and then only when someone claims it. Similarly, don't automatically make every AoO for the PCs' opponents. Intelligent foes, and those who are trained in melee or ranged combat, should notice openings more often than those who don't. Your average goblin probably isn't going to notice very many times, but their hobgoblin leader with five levels of fighter might. Spellcasting enemies with no levels in any fighting classes will know the theory behind looking for openings, but they shouldn't be very good at it: they spent their time practicing other things. If you want to use dice to determine this, you could use an Intelligence check modified by the character's levels in nonspellcasting classes, but it doesn't sound like you'd want to use dice anyway, so they'd just notice when you say they notice. Note that this is not a matter of nerfing, since you do it to all sides, PC and NPC alike. Rather, it gives you a chance to extend roleplaying into combat in a minor but significant way. It's a different way of looking at combat, somewhat more realistic but also much faster, because some (if not many) AoOs will slip through unnoticed. Eventually your players will get better at spotting their AoOs, but by that time they'll be more familiar with the rules of the game in general, and so there should be very little net slowdown. If you decide to do this, make sure to let the players know about it beforehand. You are not penalizing them unduly for inattention, because all of the characters, PC and NPC alike, will no longer automatically take all AoOs. Instead, you turn AoOs into a reward for paying attention to the game and coming up with tactics. They also give you a mechanism to influence combats without having to fudge the dice: you can have enemies notice AoOs more or less often. Your paladin will have no cause to complain about this either, because you're not changing any of the rules. If he wants all of his AoOs then he can still have them, but only if he pays closer attention. You make them his responsibility.
starfire311 11-14-05, 09:40 AM	Mutants and masterminds removed extra attacks, AoOs, and 5ft steps, none of this seems to have taken away from it. I have considored removing extra attacks before and replaicing it with flurry... if you want 2 attacks you jsut get 2 at -2, the an improved flurry that gives 3 at -4, and a greater flurry that gives 4 attacks at -6. This would give a high level fighter 4 different attack modes each with varying penalties and bonuses.
Tyler Do'Urden 11-14-05, 06:18 PM	There was some third party book that made really simple rules for fighting lots and lots of generic bad guys known as the Faceless Horde. When fighting a faceless horde, you don't make attack rolls. On your turn, you just make a DC 10 Kill A Bad Guy check (1d20 + BAB + highest ability modifier). For every three points by which your check exceeds 10, you kill one additional bad guy. On the faceless horde's turn, everybody makes either an Armor Check (1d20 + AC bonuses) to avoid taking damage that round. I forget what the DC is though. Flavor is everything.
weasel fierce 11-15-05, 07:36 PM	For multiple attacks, which take up a fair chunk of time, due to different modifiers, you could simply figure out the average attack bonus, and use that. Im sure it'll break the CR system, but then, having your players handbook sideways can do that too Removing AOO's is a good idea, IMO. While they arent too hard to figure out, the conditions for what does, and does not are not very consistent or coherent, it involves extra dice rolling (and modifier stacking), and serves to discourage tactics and cinematic play.
FlameLover 11-15-05, 10:09 PM	Thanks for Millenium for listing all that - It is a good point that the enemies won't always notice the oppening or even act on it. Love your idea starfire and it's got me thinking about how to do this and I got this idea. You take a -5 penalty on all attacks to get an extra one during a Full-Attack and you cannot exceed your BAB in this way. It means you could have as many attacks as usual except they would have very large penalties on attacks. I could also keep AoO this way but make each one incur a -5 penalty to attack discourage them and stuff. Thanks for mentioning that Tyler, it sounds like the beginning of a mass combat system that integrates with D&D. *Yoink*ed. And thanks weasel fierce for suggesting that. It wouldn't work very well though because it'd make the Full-Attack worse than Standard. I'm glad you agree on the AoOs though - they don't make much sense realistically and they slow down play too much for my liking.
Tenzhi 11-15-05, 11:49 PM	That's going to nerf non-spellcasters pretty severely, especially at higher levels. Indeed. My solution is to make spellcasting a full-round action by default, with Quicken Spell making it a standard action.
Lord Schpungus 11-16-05, 11:28 PM	So you're 'simplifying' the combat system by tacking on unnecessary and arbitrary rules? Ha! I mean, wow. Wow.
Tenzhi 11-16-05, 11:31 PM	So you're 'simplifying' the combat system by tacking on unnecessary and arbitrary rules? Ha! I mean, wow. Wow. When the subtraction of combat rules is greater than the additions to it, that is indeed simplification.
Xeviat-DM 11-16-05, 11:56 PM	I see how AoOs add complexity, but I don't see how they are arbitrary or reduce the players abilities to use tatics or make combat less synematic. I had a dualist make a charging tumble through the threatened areas of three enemies, hop up onto a table and attack the enemy leader (got a critical as well). The AoO rules force players to fight realistically: you aren't going to put your guard down infront of an enemy. If you do choose to remove them, you need to consider all of the special attacks this affects: Grapple, bullrush, disarm, sunder, trip, overrun, spellcasting, and switching items. I can see removing it if that's what you're going for, I just wouldn't do it because I like the realism it provides. Also, the rules make playing fighters more fun because you can exploit them. As an aside for tatical combat; a PC fighter was standing at the bottom of a hill with an enemy knight on horseback ontop of the hill. The fighter won initiative and readied to sunder the knight's lance and then make a five foot step away. The knight charged, performing a rideby attack, and the fighter successfully sundered the lance (you can attack a weapon that enters your reach even if the creature isn't in your reach, just like you can attack a creature while you're within it's reach if you wait for it to attack you with a natural weapon and readied the action). That was amazing.
dangerboy 11-30-05, 02:53 PM	I agree with Xeviat's latest post, and I think Millenium's suggestions for handling AoO's are the most intelligent in this thread yet. In my opinion, any mechanic adds at least one layer of complexity (and reality) to the game. The only question is, what kind of trade-offs are you willing to make. I have no issue understanding how AoO work myself - at least in normal situations - but my players don't. Only one owns any book and all he has is the PHB which he's read but not really understood yet. I'm trying to ease them in slowly because they've been getting clobbered of late.... I can count on the fingers of one hand the times an attack of opportunity was made in the two years we have been playing our current campaign. This is because all our players make the effort to understand the rules, and use them to their advantage. Just to give you a better picture of our group, only a couple are veteran gamers (1 of them's the DM), and everyone is relatively new to 3rd Ed (haven't even made the transition to 3.5) and none of us own any of the books. And yet the group works together so well as a team, and are individually such tacticians that AoO's don't give us any trouble at all. But i've been having a hard time with AoO especially because they get into combat and start moving bits around while i'm not paying full attention to the board and since they don't understand how they work themselves they just sorta move them about willy-nilly If you ask me the players should never, under any circumstances be moving pieces around without the DM's full attention on the board..if they do & it gets them dead, that's their fault. If your players are as into the game as you say, they should be able to appreciate that in a life-and-death battle, doing anything willy nilly gets you killed. ------------------------------------ Anyhow, the real reason I'm posting is to make a suggestion to speed up your combat a bit. Dunno if you'll like this, but we've done away with confirming criticals. Once a roll is within the weapons's critical threat range, we go ahead and award the crit. This doesn't nerf anybody because the bad guys get to do it, too. We just feel it speeds things up a bit. ;)
FlameLover 11-30-05, 10:39 PM	Yeah I decided to keep AoOs and stuff because I thought if they can't learn "proper" D&D they'll have a harder time learning my houserules. Your idea about not confirming crits is great and i'll be using it next lesson. Not only does it speed things up it means that if you roll well you get a cirt - instead of currently you can roll really good and then not get the crit which is kinda un-heroic. Anything like auto-crit-confirmation? That's just the sort of thing I was thinking of when I posted this. Thanks!
Tenzhi 12-01-05, 12:07 AM	The AoO rules force players to fight realistically: you aren't going to put your guard down infront of an enemy. Ah yes, realism. You can realistically defend yourself from 8+ foes surrounding you without them getting any extra attacks on you; however, walking by one person with a +1 toothpick gets you an extra poke in the eye. Forcing players to fight realistically certainly doesn't do much for cinematics, either. The first time someone gets cut down by AoOs trying to Tumble past people to attack from a tabletop is usually the last time anyone tries such a foolhardy stunt. Yes, that's certainly more realistic, but it also discourages cinematics. As an aside for tatical combat; a PC fighter was standing at the bottom of a hill with an enemy knight on horseback ontop of the hill. The fighter won initiative and readied to sunder the knight's lance and then make a five foot step away. The knight charged, performing a rideby attack, and the fighter successfully sundered the lance (you can attack a weapon that enters your reach even if the creature isn't in your reach, just like you can attack a creature while you're within it's reach if you wait for it to attack you with a natural weapon and readied the action). That was amazing. Yes, that's a pretty cool moment. Very cinematic. Doesn't require AoOs, however. In fact, it's much more attemptable when you don't have to have two feats in order to do it without getting skewered twice instead of just once.
Xeviat-DM 12-01-05, 12:48 PM	Without being too insulting, I'd like to state that I think some posters have the notion of cinematics confused with making the game easy for players. A finesse fighter in my current campaign constantly tries out new things to use her jump, balance, and tumble skills to full use; she jumped out a window of a carriage and tried to stab someone (failed by 1 point; it was cinematic and she did get a charging bonus to her attack, but the game does what the dice say), she approached a target and jumped onto a small bar table to attack (gained higher ground bonus, attacked, threated, critted, and took the opponent out in one blow due to our use of wp/vp), and she's constantly jumping over obsticals to move around more easily. But if she fails a tumble check to get around someone, she'll take an AoO. This won't make her not do them anymore, but it will make her be more careful next time she's fighting someone (we have tumble set your AC vs. attacks of opportunity caused by movement instead of negating them, so it's more fair all around the board). And being surrounded by 8 opponents will get you hit more often; they get flanking bonuses. Walking past someone with a +1 toothpick may get you poked if they are currently fighting you (read: not flatfooted). You can always take the total defense action, withdraw, tumble, use five foot steps, or do many things to negate attacks of opportunity. The easiest solution is to not do actions that provoke them. I don't know, what ever right? ------ I think the best way to simplify combat is to have the players pool together and buy a set of house dice. Get 4-8 d20s (depending on the number of attacks the character with the highest number of attacks) and a number of damage dice of certain colors. Then have players roll their attack and damage dice at the same time; possibly even all at once, in a large ceramic bowl (this keeps them from going all over the place). Even just rolling attack and damage dice at the same time is good, though players will sometimes feel bad if they roll high damage but fail to hit.
Tenzhi 12-02-05, 04:41 AM	Without being too insulting, I'd like to state that I think some posters have the notion of cinematics confused with making the game easy for players. Why do you think that is? Let's look at real life (you know, the model for that realism you're touting) - why don't people tend to do things like tumble through a melee onto a table? Because it's generally more trouble than it's worth to do it. We learn from painful experience that doing things like that will get you hurt more often than not, and that doing things in the most simple and direct manner possible is usually the best. But it happens in the movies all the time - yanno, the Cinema. Because heroes in movies can do such things with impunity. They don't have to worry about the chaotic melee, they move through it heroically and jump onto the chair, then the table, then run across the heads of the people fighting and jump out the window or swing up to the rafters. Getting knocked down before you jump onto the table isn't very cinematic. In the end, the fact that making cinematic acions easier to perform encourages them, while making them more difficult to perform discourages them is a no-brainer. But if she fails a tumble check to get around someone, she'll take an AoO. This won't make her not do them anymore, but it will make her be more careful next time she's fighting someone (we have tumble set your AC vs. attacks of opportunity caused by movement instead of negating them, so it's more fair all around the board). Darwin will eventually get to that one. And being surrounded by 8 opponents will get you hit more often; they get flanking bonuses. Walking past someone with a +1 toothpick may get you poked if they are currently fighting you (read: not flatfooted). But none of those 8 people get extra attacks against you. Your defenses are so good that being surrounded doesn't leave any extra openings, yet also so abysmal that walking past a person leaves you open to an extra attack.
weasel fierce 12-02-05, 04:52 AM	Imagine bob and joe fighter. bob fighter grabs a toothpick from his backpack joe fighter is paralyzed from a ghoul. Guess who of them is wide open to attack ;)
Gilean 12-02-05, 01:56 PM	Why do you think that is? Let's look at real life (you know, the model for that realism you're touting) - why don't people tend to do things like tumble through a melee onto a table? Because it's generally more trouble than it's worth to do it. We learn from painful experience that doing things like that will get you hurt more often than not, and that doing things in the most simple and direct manner possible is usually the best. But it happens in the movies all the time - yanno, the Cinema. Because heroes in movies can do such things with impunity. They don't have to worry about the chaotic melee, they move through it heroically and jump onto the chair, then the table, then run across the heads of the people fighting and jump out the window or swing up to the rafters. Getting knocked down before you jump onto the table isn't very cinematic. In the end, the fact that making cinematic acions easier to perform encourages them, while making them more difficult to perform discourages them is a no-brainer.That be correct. Rules encourage or discourage certain kinds of behaviours. Not that it is relevant to the thread, but anyway. Also, not everyone wants to have a cinematic game.
weasel fierce 12-02-05, 02:00 PM	That be correct. Rules encourage or discourage certain kinds of behaviours. Not that it is relevant to the thread, but anyway. Also, not everyone wants to have a cinematic game. Some would argue that an RPG that is prided on being the biggest should be flexible enough to cover more than one style of gaming.
Tenzhi 12-03-05, 12:54 AM	Also, not everyone wants to have a cinematic game. That wasn't the issue at hand. The issue in dispute was whether or not AoOs encouraged or discouraged cinematic combat.
Gilean 12-03-05, 03:30 AM	Some would argue that an RPG that is prided on being the biggest should be flexible enough to cover more than one style of gaming.It should. That doesn't mean it is.Not that it is relevant to the thread, but anyway. :D (also for Tenzhi)
Sorath 12-05-05, 09:42 PM	I personally like AoO's. I feel that it makes combat more tactical and requires the players (and the DM) to think about their position and actions in combat. It took my group some time to fully understand the way they work and the concept behind "threatened" squares, but once it was understood, the game flowed quite well. Also, I feel that without AoO's, spell casters and archers are basically unchecked and are far too powerful. About the only chance a melee character has against a spell caster or archer is to hold their action to where their turns are simultaneous and close within melee range. Much harder for archers to fill you full of arrows if they have to consider every time they shoot, they will be attacked through the use of the AoO. I really don't feel that AoO's slow the game down. In fact, the mechanics of the game don't slow the game down at all. What I do think slows the game down is when people do not understand the rules or how they are used. The way to speed up combat is not to eliminate needed mechanics, it is to educate your players. Force them to be prepared when it is their turn. In my experience, these are the things that slow down combat: 1. Players who are not paying attention to when it is their turn. 2. Players who do not know what their modifiers are to their "to hit" rolls. i.e. They have to figure up their bonuses and penalties to hit every time they roll the dice instead of making a note card with all their bonuses listed. 3. Players who do not know their spells and are constantly looking up their spells when it is their turn (instead of before its their turn). 4. Players who do not know their skills and are constantly looking up their skills when they are in combat. Now, I understand it takes some time to learn spells and skills, etc. But as a DM, I spend countless hours preparing the campaign for the upcoming session. I expect my players to do some preparation as well and make sure that they know their character. At the least, I expect them to prepare shortcuts to help them in combat. And players should be planning their actions before it is their turn, not when it becomes their turn. Those are some things that I have seen that contribute to slow combat. The rules are not to blame. How they are used is usually the contributing factor. As far as what I read above about players moving their miniatures around as they please? That just tells me that the DM needs to drop the figurative "10 Ton Boulder" on those players and lay down the law. If the players are so green that they cannot understand that they can only act on their initiative, then maybe this game is not for them. If you think combat is too difficult, then perhaps your campaign should not contain any combat and be 100% roleplaying. Or maybe you shouldn't use miniatures.
FriendoftheDork 12-06-05, 05:42 AM	I love AoO too, and think they make sense. In fact, when playing games like warhammer it bothers me that I can run around an armed man without any consequence. If you learn the rules and don't accept players arguing rules during play it won't take that much time either. If you take out AoO you: -Make it easy to flee from armed opponents, even running right through them -Nerfs the advantage of reach -make it possible to use ranged weapons in melee with impunity -make it possible to use spells in melee with impunity -make it possible to use potions etc. in melee with impunity - allow big monsters to grapple PCs to death as the PCs can't prevent it (requires an AoO). I can probably add more if I look up my PHB. Now, as for the suggestion of not helping your players get their AoO that's a bad idea as you reward ruleslawyering and punish a PC for player ignorance. The 5' step is easy. Without it you can't full attack someone 10' away.
Tenzhi 12-07-05, 01:37 AM	I really don't feel that AoO's slow the game down. Regardless of how you feel, the fact remains that adding more rolls and actions to combat slows it down. The way to speed up combat is not to eliminate needed mechanics Luckily, AoOs aren't "needed." If you take out AoO you: -Make it easy to flee from armed opponents, even running right through them -Nerfs the advantage of reach -make it possible to use ranged weapons in melee with impunity -make it possible to use spells in melee with impunity -make it possible to use potions etc. in melee with impunity And out of all that, the only real concern is spellcasting. - allow big monsters to grapple PCs to death as the PCs can't prevent it (requires an AoO). Of course, 9 times out of 10 any monster that's going to be grappling PCs will have Improved Grapple, so that's a moot point.
FriendoftheDork 12-07-05, 03:44 AM	Regardless of how you feel, the fact remains that adding more rolls and actions to combat slows it down. Luckily, AoOs aren't "needed." How long does it take to roll one d20 and then possible a damage die? Really, AoOs doesen't slow the game down significantly. And IMO they are needed, or should be replaced by something. And out of all that, the only real concern is spellcasting. You're not concerned that using a bow in melee to fire missiles can be as effective as using a melee weapon? That's just silly, it's a reason melee fighters are good against bowmen in close quarters. And the whole point of reach goes away if you take away AoO.. what's the point of long spears then? Of course, 9 times out of 10 any monster that's going to be grappling PCs will have Improved Grapple, so that's a moot point. Yes, if you use the current AoO rules only monsters with improved grapple (or grab) will be grappling PCs because the AoO would stop other monsters from doing so. Take a look at your MM I can assure you there are alot of large+ monsters there that can benefit alot from using grapple instead of normal melee attacks except if the PC can disrupt them with AoOs. But go ahead and drop AoOs in your game if you think you have to, everyone can play as they want. Navy blue=my comments.
Tenzhi 12-07-05, 04:05 AM	How long does it take to roll one d20 and then possible a damage die? Really, AoOs doesen't slow the game down significantly. And IMO they are needed, or should be replaced by something. How long does it take? Depends on how many AoOs are made and how many damage dice are rolled. Any amount of them slow down the game, and over time it becomes a significant amount especially relative to the "benefits." You're not concerned that using a bow in melee to fire missiles can be as effective as using a melee weapon? That's just silly, it's a reason melee fighters are good against bowmen in close quarters. And the whole point of reach goes away if you take away AoO.. what's the point of long spears then? No, I'm neither concerned with bows in melee or the reach advantage of long spears. Nor were previous editions of this game, nor are a number of other RPGs. In my opinion, that sort of nonsense is for tactical miniature games, not RPGs. Some people like having tactics in their RPGs, and more power to 'em; however, putting tactics into RPG combat is definitively the opposite of simplifying it.
FriendoftheDork 12-07-05, 04:16 AM	How long does it take? Depends on how many AoOs are made and how many damage dice are rolled. Any amount of them slow down the game, and over time it becomes a significant amount especially relative to the "benefits." No, I'm neither concerned with bows in melee or the reach advantage of long spears. Nor were previous editions of this game, nor are a number of other RPGs. In my opinion, that sort of nonsense is for tactical miniature games, not RPGs. Some people like having tactics in their RPGs, and more power to 'em; however, putting tactics into RPG combat is definitively the opposite of simplifying it. In a typical combat in my game perhaps 1 or 2 AoO are provoked, which means 2 rolls of d20, the damage rolls are typically one die, but rolling several at once is just as fast. The amount of time it takes is about... 20-30 seconds. Ooooh... In 2nd edition there were some sort of penalty for firing a missile weapon in melee at least, possible also lowering your AC, can't remember. Can't remember how longspears worked there either, but in every other game I've played it has had some advantage, such as bonus to initative, bonus to hit, bonus to damage etc. Now if you add something to make up for the lack of AoO this could actually work but not filling the hole leaves something to be desired. And D&D is a tactical miniature game in many aspects, although I don't generally use minis myself. If you really want to simplify the game why don't you use the old "red and blue" D&D books, or any other fantasy system out there? Warhammer works quite simple for example.
Tenzhi 12-07-05, 04:36 AM	In a typical combat in my game perhaps 1 or 2 AoO are provoked, which means 2 rolls of d20, the damage rolls are typically one die, but rolling several at once is just as fast. The amount of time it takes is about... 20-30 seconds. Ooooh... In my games it's more likely to be 1 or 2 per combat (at least!) that have to be dealt with via some sort of roll (be it an AoO or a roll to avoid them). But my players like to actually move around in combat. And of course, we're just talking about the actual rolls here, too. There's also the extra time that will inevitably go into considering one's actions in order to avoid them - which will vary from player to player. In 2nd edition there were some sort of penalty for firing a missile weapon in melee at least Don't think so. Perhaps in one of the Player's/DM's Options books, but not in the core game as far as I can recall. Indeed, as I recall the opposite was true: there were bonuses for firing within point blank range. Can't remember how longspears worked there either, but in every other game I've played it has had some advantage, such as bonus to initative, bonus to hit, bonus to damage etc. There was no reach in 2nd Ed either. A long spear would more likely have been penalized via speed factor than have had any sort of bonus. If you really want to simplify the game why don't you use the old "red and blue" D&D books, or any other fantasy system out there? Warhammer works quite simple for example. Why should I? I like the d20 system, and it's versatile enough to be adapted to my style of play (which is one of the reasons I like it). As much as I like the old Rules Cyclopedia, I like the basic d20 system better. The tactical aspects can be easily set aside, despite the misgivings of those who might miss them. I know it works, because I've done it. I know I don't like combat to be too tactical, because I've played that way as well.
FriendoftheDork 12-07-05, 05:01 AM	Well if you and your players don't like tactical decisions and action then drop it. But if you are you might as well drop the special attacks such as grapple and trip, they are alot more prone to bog things down. I would not enjoy that kind of game but go ahead.
starfire311 12-07-05, 11:01 AM	Regardless of how you feel, the fact remains that adding more rolls and actions to combat slows it down. Are you insane... did you just say making attack rolls is slowing down your game??? Heck AoOs help speed up the game by allowing things to get killed faster. Sounds to me like you or your group is just too lazy to learn the AoO rules... my group gets through AoOs fast... heck even while they move there character they mention they are porvoking. I guess I am blessed that my players feel that understanding and knowing AoOs is important to the game. It is just second nature to us and we considor them without even thinking about it. Many times the tank runs in 1st to provoke AoOs so the light fighters can get in without getting smashed.
Gilean 12-07-05, 11:20 AM	Are you insane... did you just say making attack rolls is slowing down your game???They are. The combat system of D&D is very complicated (as in, many options) and it takes a long time to use. Combining attack and damage would be one option to ease it. Getting rid of the combat rules would be another, but it would leave nothing remarkable behind. So not a good thing to do.
dangerboy 12-09-05, 07:55 PM	I think we're tending to equate takes-more-time with slows-things-down. That AoO's and other combat mechanics will add extra dice rolls & will therefore eat up more time doesn't necessarily mean that a mechanic slows down the pace of the game or makes it less exciting, or just makes it cumbersome. I think that to a certain extent that is a function of good storytelling on the part of the DM, and smart tactics on the part of the players. More often than not it all boils down to how much imagination you have. Our group has had encounters where we really got very technical, and yet because of the way our DM built up to the encounter, and his success at keeping the tension up & keeping things interesting, the encounter seemed to go at breakneck speed. And yet the actual gameplay took hours. Contrast that with other "simpler" encounters as far as game mechanics were concerned, but the encounter was crawling along at such a slow pace we wanted to tear our hair out. Be that as it may, some of the game mechanics could use some streamlining. I don't have any smart suggestions of course except the auto crit confirmation which I mentioned before, but really that's all I wanted to point out: that just because something takes more time doesn't mean it slows things down.