Post/Author/DateTime	Post
crucible 07-25-05, 05:19 PM	I apologize if this has already been brought up but since there is no Search function for the forum I will plow ahead... After playing in a variety of sessions of Dungeons&Dragons I have grown to dislike some of the aspects of the Attack of Opportunity (AoO). The one thing that bugs me is that if a hero is actively battling an opponent while his fellow party member is doing something to provoke an AaO, that opponent can pause his hostilities with the hero to take a free swing at the other party member, with no logical consequences of turning his attention away from the fight. My logic center just won't accept it. I am thinking about running a D&D campaign for my gaming gang and I have decided to make an adjustment to the rule. If a combatant is threatened by more than one opponent they are unable to take attacks of opportunity against any of the opponents without provoking an AoO from the other opponents. An Example: Gord the Mighty and Kelrick the Kool are in a swordfight with an Evil Knight. Kelrick has taken some damage and decides to quickly drink a healing potion. Gord continues to parry, thrust, slash, etc... with the Evil Knight, keeping him busy in the fight. The Evil Knight sees that Kelrick has let his guard down though and decides that he will take an Attack of Opportunity despite the barrage of sword slashes from Gord. The Evil Knight laughs as his sword plunges through Kelrick's heart with his successful AoO but then is silenced abruptly when his head is chopped off by Gord's mighty blade using Gord's own AoO. Now the Evil Knight could have just grumbled and let the Attack of Opportunity fade away, knowing that to drop his guard against Gord's continued attacks would be dangerous. I know the pitfall to this ruling is a domino effect of Attacks of Opportunity, but to me this ruling seems more logical when the combatants are locked in battle. I like the idea of a party member being able to defend an ally by keeping the opponents too busy to make leisurely Attacks of Opportunity in the midst of battle. Free attacks shouldn't be so cheap when faced with an immediate threat. Just curious if anyone else has tried something similar. Any problems or complications?
crossbow 07-25-05, 05:50 PM	Unfortunately, in the real world (and yes, I know this is a game and you are free to change what you see fit, Rule 0 and all that) if you and your friends are fighting another group of people and you stop paying attention for a moment, you get poked in the face and die. That's just the way it tends to work. AoO are one of the few things about D&D combat that I find remotely realistic. If, to take your example, Gord and Kelrick are fighting the Evil Knight and Kelrick lets his guard down to drink a potion, all it takes is a flick of the Evil Knights wrist to send Kelrick off to the next world. It doesn’t have to compromise his defense, because the Evil Knight is only defending against the one guy attacking him, he’s not even worried about Kelrick anymore. His shield (or whatever) is still up and his defense is still solid. It’s only when a person’s defenses go down (trying to drink a potion, cast a spell, looking the wrong way etc.) that it’s easy to hit them, which is what AoO’s are supposed to represent.
DragonDeadite 07-25-05, 06:48 PM	I agree with Crossbow. Think of those old kunf-fu movies where it's two good guys against the one bad guy. He's able to defend and attack them without a problem and the two good guys have to sit there and keep their full attention on the bad guy to keep from getting their lil bootays kicked. If one of the good guys stops for a moment to drink a potion, the evil guy just takes an extra swing at him and poof, he's gone. Now it's a one on one... (Of course, in the movie having one of his friends die would cause the second GG to fight harder and end up killing the BBEG which he couldn't hit even with the aid of his friend... go figure.) :dragon:
crucible 07-25-05, 09:51 PM	I don't think I'm totally convinced. Gord could just as easily be defending against such an attack, even placing himself in a position to make such an action from the Evil Knight impossible. With a flick of the wrist he could easily parry an attack by the Evil Knight upon his buddy Kelrick. I see the Attack of Opportunity as a free action where the opponent is allowed to focus on an attack without repercussions. Gord's threat of a sword deter's this freedom to act outside the Evil Knight's normal turn. It seems more realistic to me. I'm sticking with the house rule. I guess I just needed to air it out before making it solid. Thanks for the input.
Alynn 07-25-05, 10:02 PM	I think you are stuck on the idea that you only swing your weapon one time in the round instead of parry thrust shield block, dance around, swing a few times agains their parry and blocks... the attack roll just happens to be an occasion where your foe's defense drops enough that you have a good chance of hitting them... An AoO is the same thing, it just happens to happen outside your normal turn. Defending against two foes, you are doing the same thing, you just happen to be doing it from two directions, you opponant drops his guard so you take a quick whack at him while still moving dodging, parry, shield blocking so on and so forth. EDIT: I now realize that you only gave the forum 4 hours and 20 minutes before you decided that meh... thats enough... I agree with the poster below me...
alecthemad 07-25-05, 10:11 PM	So let me get this straight: you put up a house rule. The only feedback you get regarding that rule is that you should leave the RAW regarding AOO alone. So you take that as a reason to say "Well, I think my rule sounds great so I will do it." Why did you even bother coming here. Next time just write your house rule down on a piece of paper then write a few comments on how cool and great the rule is. The go ahead and implement it anyway. If you ever want actual feedback then come here again. Geez.
Palin the Wizard 07-25-05, 10:17 PM	Remember that the Evil Knight is fighting both of them at the same time; he doesn't need to divert his attention any more than it already is. In any given round, you are blocking, parrying and attacking more than just once or twice (or more) every six seconds--however, only one or two of the attacks are dangerous enough to go through. With an attack of opportunity, you skive off all that. And really, Kelrick should just take a five-foot step back, out of reach of the knight, before he drinks his potion--thus, no attack of opportunity.
crucible 07-26-05, 12:25 AM	I think you are stuck on the idea that you only swing your weapon one time in the round instead of parry thrust shield block, dance around, swing a few times agains their parry and blocks... the attack roll just happens to be an occasion where your foe's defense drops enough that you have a good chance of hitting them... An AoO is the same thing, it just happens to happen outside your normal turn. Defending against two foes, you are doing the same thing, you just happen to be doing it from two directions, you opponant drops his guard so you take a quick whack at him while still moving dodging, parry, shield blocking so on and so forth. EDIT: I now realize that you only gave the forum 4 hours and 20 minutes before you decided that meh... thats enough... I agree with the poster below me... Actually if I believed everything was a one roll, one hit non-abstract situation I would be totally against Attacks of Opportunity, so you are reading me incorrectly. I believe I said "Gord continues to parry, thrust, slash, etc... with the Evil Knight, keeping him busy in the fight" which is the abstract combat style of D&D. This is what is going on in the regular combat round. I think the Attack of Opportunity is more of a one-shot kind of deal where the attack does represent that one good hit opportunity. And I apologize for my quick response. I realized quickly that any more feedback would be more illustrations of people's beliefs of what happens in an Attack of Opportunity that I can counter just as easily with my own examples. I was actually looking for Game Mechanic complications that others might have encountered by changing the rules of AoO. I will be more specific next time.
crucible 07-26-05, 12:47 AM	So let me get this straight: you put up a house rule. The only feedback you get regarding that rule is that you should leave the RAW regarding AOO alone. So you take that as a reason to say "Well, I think my rule sounds great so I will do it." Why did you even bother coming here. Next time just write your house rule down on a piece of paper then write a few comments on how cool and great the rule is. The go ahead and implement it anyway. If you ever want actual feedback then come here again. Geez. So let me get this straight. You are actually mad at me for realizing that I liked my house rule enough to go ahead and implement it. Perhaps I was a bit abrupt in my declaration but I saw that I had just opened up a discussion that was just going to turn into different viewpoints of what combat and an Attack of Opportunity is. I was originally asking if there would be any complications by changing this rule. I guess I should have said Game Mechanic complications. For instance I thought of a "Knights of the Dinner Table" scenario where making an Attack of Opportunity while threatened provokes an Attack of Opportunity for the opponent who then takes the opportunity, therefore creating another Attack of Opportunity and so on and so on, creating an endless loop. I snapped out of that crazy logic and thought the initial Attacks of Opportunity would occur then the normal combat round would go back into effect. Kelrick drinks potion/Evil Knight takes free slash at Kelrick/Gord takes free slash at Evil Knight/Normal round begins again. Now if you want to give me helpful advice on the mechanic complications of the situation feel free to shoot holes in it. Otherwise keep your sarcasm to yourself.
OamuTheMonk 07-26-05, 01:05 AM	...keep your sarcasm to yourself. Can't. Sorry. Feh. Your Rule ain't that broken. But the RAW is still more less broken than your rule. Why make things more difficult for such a negligible change?
crucible 07-26-05, 01:19 AM	Remember that the Evil Knight is fighting both of them at the same time; he doesn't need to divert his attention any more than it already is. In any given round, you are blocking, parrying and attacking more than just once or twice (or more) every six seconds--however, only one or two of the attacks are dangerous enough to go through. With an attack of opportunity, you skive off all that. And really, Kelrick should just take a five-foot step back, out of reach of the knight, before he drinks his potion--thus, no attack of opportunity. I totally agree with the description of what happens in an attack round in D&D. It has always been an abstract system and even moreso with the back and forth initiative in combat. But since the Attack of Opportunity is a free action outside the normal initiative that is provoked by an ideal opportunity to hit a distracted or occupied opponent it breaks away from the normal combat round. It would be an ideal time to act offensively against that particular opponent normally but since the combatant is threatened by another opponent it may not be the ideal time to go out of their way to make that sweet shot. This is where the heart of my reasoning lies. Evil Knight is moving around slashing at Gord and Kelrick while parrying and feinting, and the heroes in turn are doing the same. Kelrick decides to grab a potion while Gord is making a fury of blows against the Evil Knight who is doing all he can to parry the attacks. Evil Knight sees that Kelrick has let down his guard but Gord's constant barrage is keeping him from taking the free Attack of Opportunity. The rule only works because D&D is an abstract system and the actual combat isn't specifically detailed. It can be reasoned out either way.
crucible 07-26-05, 01:42 AM	Can't. Sorry. Feh. Your Rule ain't that broken. But the RAW is still more less broken than your rule. Why make things more difficult for such a negligible change? Well if you can't than I consider it open season on this board. :) I usually have to edit out my initial nastier thoughts before sending. alecthemad's comments just weren't very friendly. As for why the change, I had an game experience that had me shaking my head. I was playing in a game where my character was up against the wall beside a paladin who was actively hacking at the bad guys. My character was crouching low and trying to "quietly" take a healing potion. The GM immediately declared two Attacks of Opportunity on the hero. Well within the rules of the game but defying any in-game logic I could see. A paladin was actively hacking away at the bad guys and felling many a foe and his opponents were allowed to suddenly turn their attention from his bloody sword to slash at my thief (who they had ignored until the game mechanic forced their hand). It took me out of the moment and soured me on the AoO rules. It felt too artificial. Future experiences with the rule just reinforced the sourness. I guess my adjustment fits my idea of combat and defensive strategy better and fixes what I see is a broken rule. Others will differ in opinion of course.
Draktaven 07-26-05, 02:24 AM	I remember a time in my martial arts class(its oddly similar) that we had a 5 vs 2. A bunch a upper belts versus a bunch of middle belts. Truth be told I should not have been with the 5, as I am at a young age with a very good talent in sparring, But they put me in anyway. One of the black belts was very good at sparring and had most of the group on his butt. The other guy would hang out behind him and would attack anyone who botched a kick or over extended. He eventually got tired of playing the waiting game and tried moving to a different position. He obviously wanted to take a more offensive role as the other guy was getting tired fast. The second he stepped out from behind his partner I spun and kicked him the stomach. He fell down and I imminently went back on the offensive. The thing was, is that I was on top of the fight and reacted fast and without thought. He just lost some cover, drinking a potion or casting a spell would mean that you would have to take your arms out of a guard position. There is also a thing a defensively casting as well. Another example of real life application might be more valid for your particular problem. This time it was a 3 vs 1. My friend was put against three people of lower rank and good enough skill. Anyhow about as soon as the battle started my friend accidentally nailed one guy right in the nuts ( :blush: woops). He fell over to catch a breath, thank god for cups, the two other guys charged him in a flurry of blows that sent him in a high powered adrenaline rushed defensive. Then the guy on his front left did a lunge kicked and missed...badly. He overextended the kick really expecting to nail my friend. He found himself badly off balance and that very second my friends elbow went crashing into his temple. It took about 1 second and was to fast to be taken advantage of from his opponent.
jokotoko 07-26-05, 02:31 AM	I have to agree with one of the previous posters. There is nothing as annoying as someone posting a house rule and asking for feedback, who doesn't accept the feedback and sticks to his rule anyway. We have seen it dozens of times on these boards. OP: "Hey, I wanna implement house rule X, what do you guys think?" BOARD: "That sounds like a bad idea because of reason A, B, and C." OP: "You guys suck, you obviously cannot cope with me being a genious and I'm gonna stick to my house rule anyway." BOARD: "????" I'm not saying your case is quite as bad as this one, but it comes close. If you like your rule, fine. If you want to implement it regardless of negative feedback, fine, but don't ask the feedback in the first place. Finally, would I play under such a rule? Probably not, since it would easily lead to a cascading effect of AoO in somewhat larger battles. And all in all I don't think your rule captures reality more than the original rule. Nevertheless, happy gaming!
cutsleeve 07-26-05, 03:15 AM	This is a sticky part of the AOO rules I dont like either but i dont think a rules change is in order because combat is more abstract in D&D 3.x. However i think it could be handled by a feat instead of a house rule. Allow a new feat which is like the opportunist special ability for rogues. That way only those people who have taken the feat can do it. You could also tailor the prerequisites so its not easy to gain the feat. say: Eyes Front ******* Description: You have trained to take advantage of an opponent who takes their attention off of you to attack another person in combat Prerequisites: BAB +5, Spot +8, Allertness, Improved Initiative, Combat Expertise Benefit: Once per round the character may take an attack of opportunity against an opponent who has just taken an attack of opportunity against another target besides your character. This attack of opportunity counts as that characters attack of opportunity for that round. Special: Even if the character has the Combat reflexes cannot use this feat more that once per round. This feat will not work if the target of the opponents attack of opportunity was the user of this feat. No clue if this would solve the esthetic problem or not but at least its a solution that wouldnt end up in a chain AOO (unless you have a bunch of people with this feat all packed close together) and it would be restricted to only those who got the feat.
Maerdash 07-26-05, 03:38 AM	Palin the Wizard. I made a few remarks in a post the other day which insinuated that you were an ignorant git for saying that the ability supreme cleave was broken, I was out of line and would like to apologize, but that thread has been closed so I'll apologize here. Wether the post ofended you or not ot if you even saw it I'm unsure but I'm going to say I'm sorry anyway. To the Op, the AoO isn't broken, trust me Im in the SCA and have actually been in this situation (on the receiving end) and there is absolutly no break in a good swordsman's defense for smacking someone who drops his defense. This was 3v1 so it applies I think. Also its a little.........odd to come on the boards asking for advice and then rejecting it for no apparent reason other than YOU think your idea is cool, shouldn't you worry that maybe if everybody on here thinks its a bad idea that your players will also be dissatisfied?
Corvus Corax 07-26-05, 04:42 AM	Isn't there more to drinking a potion then just drinking it? You have to get it, uncork it and raise your head to drink it down (unless you have a magical straw of drinking) and do this all in 6 seconds right next to someone that wants to kill you. What are you doing with your in hand items (weapon(s), shield)? You are more distracted if you are trying to do this with one hand. A player doing this is leaving himself so distracted and open in combat that it is a perfect example of an AoO.
Carn Vandoril 07-26-05, 05:03 AM	Isn't there more to drinking a potion then just drinking it? You have to get it, uncork it and raise your head to drink it down (unless you have a magical straw of drinking) and do this all in 6 seconds right next to someone that wants to kill you. What are you doing with your in hand items (weapon(s), shield)? You are more distracted if you are trying to do this with one hand. A player doing this is leaving himself so distracted and open in combat that it is a perfect example of an AoO. :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :clap: :clap: :clap: It's fullproof now. AoO is the most "common sense fantasy action"- rule. Your houserule stinks. As for the example you gave with your paladin friend: They got you up against the wall... so no 5 foot step out of danger.... the AoO's were not only legit (RAW) they were realistic as well. So go ahead and implement your genius rule and see if your players don't start AoO-ing on your head with their Playershandbooks. :D
Escef 07-26-05, 05:32 AM	So let me get this straight. You are actually mad at me for realizing that I liked my house rule enough to go ahead and implement it. No, he's mad at you for wasting WotC's bandwith and our time by making a thread asking for advice on a houserule, which you then said you'd implement anyway after getting nothing but negative feedback. In so doing you effectively said that you didn't care about other people's opinions, which leaves the quest for the mighty ego trip as the only other likely motive for making the thread to begin with. Not mad myself, I can understand that after writing it all out you grew fonder of the idea. Play test it. I think it will slow down combat a bit, but I could be wrong.
crucible 07-26-05, 07:45 AM	Actually I was asking if anyone had tried this and if their was any problems or complications with such a rule. So far only cutsleeve has addressed this in a fashion that doesn't result in endless back and forth examples of what is going on during abstract D&D sessions. I'm not trying to get someone to convince me about what is happening during an Attack of Opportunity. Opinions differ on this. I'm looking for hard mechanic reasons not to implement such a rule. My mistake was not being clear on this at the beginning. I was hoping someone with some experience on this could point out possible in-game complications. It's not an ego trip I just wasn't clear on my original question. But to play along, no one has addressed Gord's ability to defend or distract the Evil Knight. To further complicate the example, make the Evil Knight a poor old fisherman armed with a knife. For clarification: Suggested House Rule: A combatant can not make an Attack of Opportunity while Threatened by another opponent without provoking an Attack of Opportunity by that opponent. New Example with suggested rule: Kelrick and Gord are fighting fisherman. Kelrick decides to drink potion, provokes AoO from fisherman. Fisherman goes after Kelrick with knife provokes AoO from Gord. Gord attacks fisherman. Now if Gord wasn't there the AoO would go off without a hitch. I just think the Threat by Gord should have an impact on the situation.
Merestil Haye 07-26-05, 07:54 AM	I think that the OP does not quite understand the way AoOs work.From the first postAn Example: Gord the Mighty and Kelrick the Kool are in a swordfight with an Evil Knight. Kelrick has taken some damage and decides to quickly drink a healing potion. Gord continues to parry, thrust, slash, etc... with the Evil Knight, keeping him busy in the fight. The Evil Knight sees that Kelrick has let his guard down though and decides that he will take an Attack of Opportunity despite the barrage of sword slashes from Gord. The Evil Knight laughs as his sword plunges through Kelrick's heart with his successful AoO but then is silenced abruptly when his head is chopped off by Gord's mighty blade using Gord's own AoO.According to the OP, this sequence ends up with two dead characters - Kelrick and the Evil Knight. Umm.. no. AoOs are resolved before the action that gives rise to them. (There are a small number of exceptions that are not relevant to this discussion.) Kelrick never gets touched. The sequence would develop like this. Kelrick drinks potion. Evil Knight goes to take AoO on Kelrick. Gord reacts to EK by taking an AoO on him. Resolve Gord's AoO first.He lops off EK's head. EK's sword falls from his lifeless hand, clattering on the floor. Kelrick looks up and grins. "Good shot buddy". With your system it will become a nightmare in a mass melee keeping track of who is AoOíng whom, and whether they have already used all their AoO attempts in the round if the chain extends round multiple enemies a creature threatens. It adds lots of complexity for little or no gain.
crucible 07-26-05, 07:55 AM	No clue if this would solve the esthetic problem or not but at least its a solution that wouldnt end up in a chain AOO (unless you have a bunch of people with this feat all packed close together) and it would be restricted to only those who got the feat. I like the feat idea but maybe I should just simplify my original idea to avoid the domino AoO: A combatant who is Threatened by another opponent cannot make an Attack of Opportunity. Simple solution to fix my problem with the rule. And I don't have to deal with the a large chain of Attacks of Opportunity in a large-scale combat.
Merestil Haye 07-26-05, 08:01 AM	I like the feat idea but maybe I should just simplify my original idea to avoid the domino AoO: A combatant who is Threatened by another opponent cannot make an Attack of Opportunity. Simple solution to fix my problem with the rule. And I don't have to deal with the a large chain of Attacks of Opportunity in a large-scale combat.This appears to be even worse. Your suggestion would mean that two creatures standing adjacent to each other are immune to AoO's no matter what they do, provided they hold a melee weapon.
Escef 07-26-05, 08:07 AM	This appears to be even worse. Your suggestion would mean that two creatures standing adjacent to each other are immune to AoO's no matter what they do, provided they hold a melee weapon. I had thought it an improvement at first for its simplicity. But you're right, this means an archer with improved unarmed strike or armor spikes can fire freely even at point blank range.
crucible 07-26-05, 08:09 AM	I think that the OP does not quite understand the way AoOs work.From the first postAccording to the OP, this sequence ends up with two dead characters - Kelrick and the Evil Knight. Umm.. no. AoOs are resolved before the action that gives rise to them. (There are a small number of exceptions that are not relevant to this discussion.) Kelrick never gets touched. The sequence would develop like this. Kelrick drinks potion. Evil Knight goes to take AoO on Kelrick. Gord reacts to EK by taking an AoO on him. Resolve Gord's AoO first.He lops off EK's head. EK's sword falls from his lifeless hand, clattering on the floor. Kelrick looks up and grins. "Good shot buddy". With your system it will become a nightmare in a mass melee keeping track of who is AoOíng whom, and whether they have already used all their AoO attempts in the round if the chain extends round multiple enemies a creature threatens. It adds lots of complexity for little or no gain. Now this was the kind of game mechanic breakdown I was looking for! I had overlooked the sequence of resolution. This is a good reason for simplifying the rule. No provoking of further Attacks of Opportunity. They just don't happen when a combatant is still Threatened by another. Ego slightly wounded but now I have rule I can be happy with and not cause extra headaches.
crucible 07-26-05, 08:16 AM	This appears to be even worse. Your suggestion would mean that two creatures standing adjacent to each other are immune to AoO's no matter what they do, provided they hold a melee weapon. Perhaps I should reword the rule. If one of the creatures is performing an action that would provoke an Attack of Opportunity he is not actively Threatening the other. The other combatant can make an AoO as normal. Now if it was 2 against 1, the other opponent would still be Threatening the combatant while his buddy performs the other action. No Attacks of Opportunity allowed. I may have opened up a can of worms but this is definately helping me see the different issues involved with changing this rule.
Vaelan 07-26-05, 08:19 AM	This appears to be even worse. Your suggestion would mean that two creatures standing adjacent to each other are immune to AoO's no matter what they do, provided they hold a melee weapon. To be fair, they could still be attacked from the sides. However, that is mostly irrelevant. I wouldn't use this rule for two reasons. 1. KISS. 2. Making an Attack of Opportunity does not distract you any more than making a normal attack would, and thus making any attack should provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
Carn Vandoril 07-26-05, 08:26 AM	For clarification: Suggested House Rule: A combatant can not make an Attack of Opportunity while Threatened by another opponent without provoking an Attack of Opportunity by that opponent. New Example with suggested rule: Kelrick and Gord are fighting fisherman. Kelrick decides to drink potion, provokes AoO from fisherman. Fisherman goes after Kelrick with knife provokes AoO from Gord. Gord attacks fisherman. Allright I will put my negatives aside for a while. Game mechanic wise: What would this rule do in a 4 against 4, or just multiple against multiple fight? If this kind of fight takes place in a tight place or small area the results could be dissastrous. every AoO would trigger another AoO, that would trigger another AoO from jet another... If chars/npc's have the combat reflexes feat... you could have multiple rounds of AoO's!!!!!! Thus you as DM should decide which one comes first, then you could roll initiative for the AoO's.... (sound familiar?) The effect gives fighters/melee chars the upperhand ofcourse, so other pc's would have to wait for ever to come in play.
alecthemad 07-26-05, 08:36 AM	The first problem I see with your rule is that it will diminish the capability of large or bigger creatures. Their reach gives them the ability to control large swaths of the battle field. One of the primary methods that allows this control is AOOs. The monster with combat reflexes is even more hindered (in fact this rule makes combat reflexes almost worthless for all NPCs and monsters). Let us take the example of a huge dragon. Your players are all fighting him because he is the toughest threat. This huge dragon has a 15ft reach with his bite and 10ft with all his other attacks. Threatenting a very large bit of real estate. Everytime he is denied an AOO by your rule (in this case every time) his damage output suffers. This means the dragon could be missing out on the chance to do 2d8+11 (I used the red as a model) once or more a round. In my games my monsters and NPCs take full advantage of the AOOs and would be greatly diminshed by your rule. The flip side is that your players will have the same problems in cases where there are many opponents, none of which is particularly stronger than the other. Let us say your 5th level or so group is attacked by a bunch of goblins. These goblins keep trying to get to the back of the group to take out the weaker members. Being smartish creatures they flank each player in order to let others of their group pass by without being killed in one swipe. Pow the wizard is mobbed, grappled and killed. Your players will be upset. If your main problem is that one character cannot protect another character during a fight then a better rule would be to allow the protector to take the full defense action but to apply the defense bonus to his friend. This makes it a choice for the players. Another option would have been for the players to use one of the special attacks so that the bad guy could not attack for at least one round: bull rush (5ft is all it takes), disarm, trip, grapple. I hope these rule base examples will show you how your rule attacks a fundamental piece of combat in D&D. It will diminsh powerful opponents and prevent the players from effectively responding to large groups of enemies. So there. Neener neener.
crucible 07-26-05, 08:54 AM	The first problem I see with your rule is that it will diminish the capability of large or bigger creatures. Their reach gives them the ability to control large swaths of the battle field. One of the primary methods that allows this control is AOOs. The monster with combat reflexes is even more hindered (in fact this rule makes combat reflexes almost worthless for all NPCs and monsters). Let us take the example of a huge dragon. Your players are all fighting him because he is the toughest threat. This huge dragon has a 15ft reach with his bite and 10ft with all his other attacks. Threatenting a very large bit of real estate. Everytime he is denied an AOO by your rule (in this case every time) his damage output suffers. This means the dragon could be missing out on the chance to do 2d8+11 (I used the red as a model) once or more a round. In my games my monsters and NPCs take full advantage of the AOOs and would be greatly diminshed by your rule. The flip side is that your players will have the same problems in cases where there are many opponents, none of which is particularly stronger than the other. Let us say your 5th level or so group is attacked by a bunch of goblins. These goblins keep trying to get to the back of the group to take out the weaker members. Being smartish creatures they flank each player in order to let others of their group pass by without being killed in one swipe. Pow the wizard is mobbed, grappled and killed. Your players will be upset. If your main problem is that one character cannot protect another character during a fight then a better rule would be to allow the protector to take the full defense action but to apply the defense bonus to his friend. This makes it a choice for the players. Another option would have been for the players to use one of the special attacks so that the bad guy could not attack for at least one round: bull rush (5ft is all it takes), disarm, trip, grapple. I hope these rule base examples will show you how your rule attacks a fundamental piece of combat in D&D. It will diminsh powerful opponents and prevent the players from effectively responding to large groups of enemies. So there. Neener neener. Cold hard game mechanics win the day. Just when I thought I was happy with the rule. :) This is the kind of cold water in the face that I need to come to my senses. Anecdotal examples don't win me over but a breakdown of the rules is something I can sink my teeth into. You just saved me a lot of discussion with my gaming gang.
crucible 07-26-05, 09:59 AM	So there. Neener neener. Ha! Now sarcasm and scorn with good solid answers I can handle. :D
crucible 07-26-05, 10:18 AM	To the Op, the AoO isn't broken, trust me Im in the SCA and have actually been in this situation (on the receiving end) and there is absolutly no break in a good swordsman's defense for smacking someone who drops his defense. This was 3v1 so it applies I think. Also its a little.........odd to come on the boards asking for advice and then rejecting it for no apparent reason other than YOU think your idea is cool, shouldn't you worry that maybe if everybody on here thinks its a bad idea that your players will also be dissatisfied? I wasn't won over until someone posted actual game mechanic complications. I'm still not totally satisfied but it would complicate too many other mechanics in the game to change the rule. House of cards situation.
crucible 07-26-05, 11:06 AM	To salvage this thread...A companion feat for cutsleeves' "Eyes Front" Just a rough idea off the top of my head...Game mechanic help welcome. Stalwart Defender Description: You are skilled with distracting or parrying an opponent to prevent them from taking advantage of a companion who has let down his guard for a moment. Prerequisites: Suggestions??? Benefit: Once per round the character may prevent an opponent's attack of opportunity against a companion. The opponent must be threatened by the character for the feat to work. Special: Anything come to mind?
alecthemad 07-26-05, 11:40 AM	I would suggest one or more of the following for prereqs alertness, combat reflexes, or combat expertise. I kinda lean toward combat reflexes since expertise already has a lot of things underneath it. Instead of preventing an attack of opportunity perhaps it could allow the defender to take some points away from his base attack and apply them to his friend's armor class (similar to combat expertise). This would last the whole round and use up one of the defender's attacks of opportunity. Special if the defender has the dodge feat he can apply the +1 to the AC of his friend instead of him self.
Carn Vandoril 07-26-05, 11:56 AM	Parry sense Description: Through your experience in close combat, you almost feel when your companions are in danger. Prerequisites: combat reflexes, dogde. Benefit: Once per round the character may prevent an opponent's attack of opportunity against a companion. The opponent must be threatened by the character for the feat to work. Special: because of your sense, you gain +1 dodge bonus against all AoO aimed at yourself. How about this?
Maerdash 07-26-05, 03:36 PM	Cold hard game mechanics win the day. Just when I thought I was happy with the rule. :) This is the kind of cold water in the face that I need to come to my senses. Anecdotal examples don't win me over but a breakdown of the rules is something I can sink my teeth into. You just saved me a lot of discussion with my gaming gang. Once again alecthemad wins the day with logic. here's your :cookie: On your feat, as prereqs, I would say combat reflexes for obvious reasons, and combat expetise as its focus on defense fits the "feel" of this feat to me On the actual mechanic I would probably allow your feat as is but i would personally be happier if it allowed you to grant the bonus from combat expertise to your allies defense
crucible 07-26-05, 04:52 PM	I actually like both feats. Parry Sense (prevents one attack of opportunity) and Stalwart Defender with alecthemad's suggested revision (providing defense points to ally). Very handy feats to have for a fighter who provides protection to his mage buddy. Makes me think of Raistlin and Caramon. PS. I still might make the Parry Sense an automatic rule (without the special bonus) and then playtest it to see what kind of effect it has on the game.
Moonflyer 07-26-05, 05:23 PM	How about the PC just takes a 5' step back or go the dodge-mobility route or load up tumble and just tumble thru threatened spaces to get to an unthreatened space. With the eight billion other feats, PrC, etc. that allow daring maneuvers during AoO situations why make a new one. If you want an ally to assist the PC that would provoke an AoO by the enemy then inform them of the Aid Another (PHB p154) maneuver where a player can distract the enemy to provide a +2 bonus to attack or defense. There is also a feat called Distracting Attack that allows a PC to grant his allies at +1 to attack or defense.
Bruunwald 07-26-05, 07:05 PM	To me, the real failure of attacks of opportunity isn't so much the notion of the rule itself as in its application. I can see a swashbuckling adventurer with a high Dexterity and a wily wit taking a stab at a foe who leaves himself open, but a golem? Sorry, golems are mindless and use no strategy, according to their entries, yet, somehow, we are supposed to take it for granted that one engaged with seven foes around it, is going to take an extra shot at a someone standing behind it because they moved ten feet instead of just five. Some creatures don't deserve, merit, or seem to have the wits to take such attacks, and so I play them as such. The problem is that there are those players in the game who assume that you're just a bad DM who isn't challenging them enough by not using every single knook and cranny advantage (and rule) you can find. Again, it comes down to a system that encourages a style not rooted in a sense of fair play or (dare I say it) realism - let's say verisimilitude, but instead puts the accent on using every rule to its maximum to wreak as much damage as possible. That's metagaming, in my mind. Why should a stupid golem know every trick in the book just because I do?
crucible 07-26-05, 11:51 PM	That pretty much is my feeling. I'm just trying to come up with a compromise to make my gaming gang happy and keep me from giving up my perception of combat reality. Attack of opportunity is a rule that make sense in some situations and utter nonsense in other situations (as you illustrated). It's very much a wargamer rule that some people enjoy because it has strictly defined parameters and others dislike because it ignores situational factors of the flavorful variety. Personally I would like to ditch it for most situations but the d20 enthusiasts of the group would be hopping mad.
Carn Vandoril 07-27-05, 07:40 AM	To me, the real failure of attacks of opportunity isn't so much the notion of the rule itself as in its application. I can see a swashbuckling adventurer with a high Dexterity and a wily wit taking a stab at a foe who leaves himself open, but a golem? Sorry, golems are mindless and use no strategy, according to their entries, yet, somehow, we are supposed to take it for granted that one engaged with seven foes around it, is going to take an extra shot at a someone standing behind it because they moved ten feet instead of just five. Some creatures don't deserve, merit, or seem to have the wits to take such attacks, and so I play them as such. ............. Why should a stupid golem know every trick in the book just because I do? Simple: he doesn't, his dex mod is a negative/ speed is slow. make it a house rule.
alecthemad 07-27-05, 09:32 AM	I'm just trying to come up with a compromise to make my gaming gang happy and keep me from giving up my perception of combat reality. D&D is not the game to play if you want combat reality. Combat reality means broken bones, internal injuries, and long slow healing. Combat reality means that just one hit with a mace and you can be dead or out of commission for weeks or months. If you want combat reality play ICE, Rolemaster, MERPS, Call of Cuthulu, or a number of other games where combat is a thing to be avoided and feared. (and in Rolemaster's case leveling up is something to be feared just for the sheer amount of work required). I keep seeing the quote in someones siq which states the above much more succinctly but I cannot recall it.
Citizen Fry 07-27-05, 11:44 AM	I remember a time in my martial arts class(its oddly similar) that we had a 5 vs 2. A bunch a upper belts versus a bunch of middle belts. Truth be told I should not have been with the 5, as I am at a young age with a very good talent in sparring, But they put me in anyway. One of the black belts was very good at sparring and had most of the group on his butt. The other guy would hang out behind him and would attack anyone who botched a kick or over extended. He eventually got tired of playing the waiting game and tried moving to a different position. He obviously wanted to take a more offensive role as the other guy was getting tired fast. The second he stepped out from behind his partner I spun and kicked him the stomach. He fell down and I imminently went back on the offensive. The thing was, is that I was on top of the fight and reacted fast and without thought. He just lost some cover, drinking a potion or casting a spell would mean that you would have to take your arms out of a guard position. There is also a thing a defensively casting as well. Another example of real life application might be more valid for your particular problem. This time it was a 3 vs 1. My friend was put against three people of lower rank and good enough skill. Anyhow about as soon as the battle started my friend accidentally nailed one guy right in the nuts ( :blush: woops). He fell over to catch a breath, thank god for cups, the two other guys charged him in a flurry of blows that sent him in a high powered adrenaline rushed defensive. Then the guy on his front left did a lunge kicked and missed...badly. He overextended the kick really expecting to nail my friend. He found himself badly off balance and that very second my friends elbow went crashing into his temple. It took about 1 second and was to fast to be taken advantage of from his opponent. Nice real world example. Maybe allow for defensive potion drinking, just like defensive spellcasting? Would give the fighters and rogues a reason to sink ranks into Concentrate. Perhaps on a failed concentrate check, the character can choose to either provoke the AoO or spill the potion all over himself as he hurriedly parries a blow coming for his head.
crucible 07-27-05, 12:36 PM	D&D is not the game to play if you want combat reality. Combat reality means broken bones, internal injuries, and long slow healing. Combat reality means that just one hit with a mace and you can be dead or out of commission for weeks or months. If you want combat reality play ICE, Rolemaster, MERPS, Call of Cuthulu, or a number of other games where combat is a thing to be avoided and feared. (and in Rolemaster's case leveling up is something to be feared just for the sheer amount of work required). I keep seeing the quote in someones siq which states the above much more succinctly but I cannot recall it. Maybe instead of "combat reality" I should say "cinematic combat reality". Reality stretched but not broken. I like a compromise between reality and playability. So I don't want extensive hit location charts but I do want action penalties for heavily injured characters. I want the possibility of mortally wounding a character with one shot, but allow a character to take precautions to make this difficult to accomplish. A bit of a balancing act. Achieving true combat reality in a RPG is a fool's errand at best. To be truthful the D&D system is not my first choice but the people I play with are big into the d20 system and they would probably balk at playing fantasy any other way. That's why I'm trying to feel out the system and tweak it to my liking. Changing things in D&D is a challenge though because of the web of feats and rules that are affected with any one change. That's why I am very appreciative of this forum's experience with the game mechanics.