Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alkaline 07-30-03, 04:50 PM	Just curious. If so, why? If you think that is a bad idea, why? Thanks.
Sid_Patterson 07-30-03, 06:53 PM	AoO is just one more thing about 3rded that's a brain teaser until you get it figured out. It's time consuming and isn't all that crucial unless your crew is into combat rules. There was a period of time when I was using the Star Wars d20 system of combat movement. It is MUCH simpler and only changes the Feats associated with AoO. Now that we [my crew and I] understand how AoO work, it's just part of the game. We still get boggled every now and then and have to referrence the books but it's fairly hammerd out now.
Tenzhi 07-30-03, 06:59 PM	I got rid of it. Things are so much simpler without it.
meabolex 07-30-03, 07:08 PM	I admit that in 3.0 I played AoOs wrong for a long time. Silly me (and everyone I gamed with--Silly us). The AoO 3.0 rules were bad, and 3.5 is only a little bit better. AoOs are still one of the most difficult things to pick up if you've never played the game before. Unfortunately, can you think of something reasonable and simpler that could replace them? I know the rules are complicated, but AoOs cover a lot of ground. It's one of those things you have to deal with in order to add some realism to combat.
Bushido216 07-30-03, 07:42 PM	It's kind of silly. You only get so many attacks in a round, why should a character get an extra one? However, it's my belief that WotC put it in there so that people couldn't get away with casting a spell and right next to a fighter. If you want to get rid of AoO, make it so that someone doing something that would normally grant an AoO instead gets a -2 to AC for every attack an enemy makes on them until the PC's next turn.
Tenzhi 07-30-03, 07:51 PM	For the most part, I've seen no reason to replace them. The only problem getting rid of them really caused was making spellcasters more powerful - I took care of that by having spells take a full round to cast like they did in 2nd Edition.
Sid_Patterson 07-30-03, 08:19 PM	Originally posted by Tenzhi I took care of that by having spells take a full round to cast Wow, that's pretty stout. How do the spellcasters in your game feel about that? Makes countering spells INCREDIBLY easy. You wouldn't even need to ready an action, just fire an arrow at the Wizard once a round and he's neutered.
Tenzhi 07-30-03, 08:33 PM	Just like in 2nd edition... except now the Mage can make a Concentration check and still cast the spell. Since my players played 2nd Edition previously, the spellcasters are happy with the situation.
Venaf 07-30-03, 08:51 PM	It's kind of silly. You only get so many attacks in a round, why should a character get an extra one? I don't think you should get rid of them, unless it's just really bogging you down. The reason you get an extra one, is that the AoO is just that, an opportunity to make a quick strike at the opponent, because they're doing something that leaves them vulnerable.
Ikasama 07-30-03, 09:03 PM	I hate them, I just don't see why you can trun tail and run as fast as you can and not get AoOed, but you get one if you Back off 30 ft and fire an arrow. But the real kicker for me is that you can just step back and fire your full five with out geting one. Makes no sense. And I've head it explaned that it's because you can think about attacking and withdraw in the same round without leaveing you self open, and maybe thats ture but it still just does not sit right.
meabolex 07-30-03, 09:30 PM	Originally posted by Ikasama I hate them, I just don't see why you can trun tail and run as fast as you can and not get AoOed, but you get one if you Back off 30 ft and fire an arrow. But the real kicker for me is that you can just step back and fire your full five with out geting one. Makes no sense. And I've head it explaned that it's because you can think about attacking and withdraw in the same round without leaveing you self open, and maybe thats ture but it still just does not sit right. Yeah, I can see why you don't like them. But D&D does have ways around these limitations. Actually, if you run as fast as you can (the run action) you provoke an AoO. I think you're referencing the withdraw action, which allows a double movement away. But many methods to avoid AoO can be eliminated by using a reach weapon. I know most of them won't allow you to attack up close, but one combination is to combine improved unarmed strike with a reach weapon. Simply kick them to death if they get up close. If they run away, trip them or knock them senseless with your AoO. About the withdraw action - only the first threatened square left in a round is considered. If *edit* an enemy crosses through another threatened square, you will get an AoO (this doesn't effect 5-ft step, but it does effect withdrawl). Thus, if you have a reach weapon and improved unarmed strike (or a spiked chain) opponents cannot leave your threatened area without an AoO.
Otto the Bugbear 07-30-03, 09:43 PM	Originally posted by Ikasama I hate them, I just don't see why you can trun tail and run as fast as you can and not get AoOed, but you get one if you Back off 30 ft and fire an arrow. But the real kicker for me is that you can just step back and fire your full five with out geting one. Makes no sense. And I've head it explaned that it's because you can think about attacking and withdraw in the same round without leaveing you self open, and maybe thats ture but it still just does not sit right. That's not right if I read you correctly. If you move 30 ft. away and fire your arrows, you recieve no AOO unless an enemy is within reach of you (reach entry of monster block). You do recieve an AOO if you move more than 5 ft. and move through a space that an enemy can reach. You do recieve an AOO any time you fire a bow if you're within reach of an enemy (exception is Order of the Bow Initiate ability called Close Combat Shot). If you've been moving 5 ft. and making a full attack with your bow, but not recieving an AOO, that means there hasn't ever been an enemy within reach distance to said archer. They're really worth it to figure out how they work. Losing AOO would lose a couple things that I see no other way around. 1. Whacking a spellcaster if he's within reach. Pretty major really. I can't really see full round action casting beign a good fix. No matter how hard they try, casters are screwed if they're casting spells anywhere close to combat. And lets face it, sometimes there's no choice but to be close to the combat. Sure, getting hit by one arrow for 8 damage is a pretty easy concentration check to make, but getting nailed for 20 makes that check just a bit harder. 2. Whacking somebody as he moves past you. This is one thing that I remember from 2ed being something that didn't make sense. The bad guys break and run, right past the fighters up front, but no retaliation is possible? Doesn't make sense. They're not really game breaking, but they do add a bit more excitement to combat. And since everything in 3ed/3.5ed is used by both PCs and NPCs, it balances itself out overall. Anyway, I use them all the time, both when playing and when DMing. Cheers Otto :)
Dungeon Cat 07-30-03, 10:27 PM	For a while, the AoO was a great source of debate in our group. One of our gamers is a Rules Lawyer. We all know this and accept it, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the gaming too much. Once we debate and figure out the 'real rule' though, we use it all the time. For us, AoO are "do I get to swing at him because...?!" We want another hack at the bad guy. We think about what we do--in regard to invoking an AoO--and sometimes we take the action even though it *will* invoke one. If they don't work for your game, though...sure, take them out! But now that we understand them, we use them to our advantage, hacking at anyone when we get the chance. Also, I've since taken the feat "Mobility" (+4 AC bonus when moving and invoking an AoO).
Nephet 07-30-03, 11:16 PM	Originally posted by Otto the Bugbear That's not right if I read you correctly. If you move 30 ft. away and fire your arrows, you recieve no AOO unless an enemy is within reach of you (reach entry of monster block). ... If you take more than a 5 foot step leaving a threatened area, then shoot an arrow you do provoke an AoO. That is goofy if you think about it in a linear fashion. However D&D combat is not linear blow-by-blow -- it's abstract. Moving and performing certain actions provoke AoOs because it represents an increased damage potential from your foe based on your reduced ability to defend yourself. They could have saddled you with a one-round AC penalty as well to simulate this idea. That however would require tedious record-keeping. An AoO is resolved immediately.
Iry 07-31-03, 03:40 AM	A lot of confusion comes about because of the seemingly contradictory nature of Threatened Areas and the infamous 5' Step. Otherwise Attacks Of Opportunity are a simple enough concept: In the constant struggle of combat, if you let down your guard near someone then you are going to get smacked! The only reason the 5' Step works the way it does is to similate two combatants warily looking for weaknesses and slowly circling eachother, giving up a bit of ground, or bobbing and weaving about. Now, this isn't the be all and end all of it, especially when you consider the unlikelyhood of being off your guard when approaching someone with a reach weapon, but it's also only fair. They've got a reach weapon so they can hit you FIRST and from a bit of safety. In those cases, it's figuratively the same as having First Strike, or a pre-emptive strike, but is lumped into the AOO mechanic.
fenrisvulfe 07-31-03, 06:13 AM	I personally like attacks of opportunity, they make quite a bit of sense. I used to take fencing, and like some here have already said, when you're going up against an opponent, and they leave themselves open, you take advantage of the opening. I do admit, however, the specific rules can be somewhat confusing, as others say. Only move 30ft and you're away, or only move 30ft and fire and they get to cop an attack off you. At the same time it can make sense... if you think of it in a certain way.
oneday 07-31-03, 10:18 AM	Well, wouldn't removing AoO make some weapons obsolete? What would be the advantage of having a polearm then? Without AoO's, I would suspect everyone to use sword and shield style. Also, reach makes some creatures harder! A person will think twice before entering an ogre's threatened areas because of that AoO, but without it, I'm just going to charge right in, axe swinging. I think AoO's add a little bit of strategy to battle. You have to actually think before you do something. Why should an archer be able to shoot an arrow in the middle of melee free of attacks? Why should a mage be able to cast a spell free of attacks? (hell, if i saw a mage casting a spell, I'd take every opportunity to attack him) And why wouldn't a warrior use his weapons reach to his advantage?
Bushido216 07-31-03, 12:49 PM	Venaf, the point of an AoO is to penalize the person doing the stupid action, not to give an advantage to everyone else.
Alkaline 07-31-03, 01:08 PM	OK. Let me go into some details after hearing what you guys have said. Basically, the thing I hate most about AoO is the movement issues. So, what I am proposing is this: AoO will not be provoked by entering, leaving, or moving through threatened squares. You can move all you want within an area and not provoke an AoO (of course, normal movement rules apply). Exception to this rule: weapons and monsters with reach. When entering (maybe leaving?) a threatened area of an opponent with a reach weapon, you provoke an attack of opportunity. Other actions that would actually let your guard down DO provoke an AoO. Such as, casting a spell, healing a dying friend, drinking a potion, etc... Therefore, there is no silly need for the "uh... well, if I move 10 feet I'll provoke an AoO, so I'll just move 5..." antics. But, casters will still need to worry about casting spell within threatened ranges, and attacking a monster with reach will take better strategy than charging into the fray. What does everyone think?
Willie the Duck 07-31-03, 01:54 PM	AoO are very common in minatures games, but unfamiliar to people who played 2e or 1e. The basic reason they are ther is that without them, the other guys will simply charge right past your front line (the "shield wall" concept in 2e just isn't very good with only 2-3 front line fighters) and beet the crap out of your spellcasters and archers. Likewise, if your spellcasters and archers DO end up in melee, it makes sense that they should be pretty hosed. I say, complain about the implementation, argue specific rules, but the basic concept is good.
Alkaline 07-31-03, 01:58 PM	That's a good point Willie, about running past to attack the spellcasters and archers.
Alkaline 07-31-03, 02:01 PM	But, couldn't they still leave the area and attack the spellcasters and archers with a "withdraw" action?
Venaf 07-31-03, 03:47 PM	Originally posted by Bushido216 Venaf, the point of an AoO is to penalize the person doing the stupid action, not to give an advantage to everyone else. Uhm... Isn't that what I said? When you provoke an AoO, they don't get a free attack on anyone but the person that just, for example, started chanting and waving his arms in the front line of combat. Or did I misread something here?
Alkaline 07-31-03, 03:48 PM	Here is what I am proposing: Why should a Wizard get an extra attack when they effectively let down their guard to attack that goblin running by? For example, Tordek and an Orc are engaged in combat. Lidda runs in a path behind the Orc. According to the rules, when Lidda leaves the threatened area of the Orc (because the Orc threatens every square adjacent to it, even diagonally), the Orc would get a free attack on Lidda. The idea behind AoO is to represent characters "letting their guard down" and thereby giving an opponent an opportunity to get a free attack. Well, the Orc in this situation would have to TURN HIS BACK to Tordek to attack Lidda. I would call this... Letting his guard down. Yet, because he didn't move, he doesn't provoke an AoO. This is where the system is flawed. I never said "do away" with AoO altogether. I proposed (after hearing people's opinions on AoO) that casters need to be put in check. I would say that concentrating on casting a spell would definately let your guard down. As well as firing a bow, drinking a potion, etc... etc... These AoO will still be in place. I have also decided that you should only get an AoO from an opponent leaving your threatened area if you are engaged with them. If someone runs behind your back, and then past, you are not going to let down your guard entirely and go for an all out attack, turning your back to the foe you are engaged with! The only way to avoid an AoO from leaving an enemies threatened area is to use withdraw. Which means a fullround action. Even if you move 5 ft out of a threatened area, you are effectively turning your back on an enemy, thereby provoking an AoO. In the situation where an opponent tries to run past you and get to your casters/archers, you simply block them. And engage in combat. Much like you would block a mounted charge or something. That will stop them, and the only way for them to leave is to withdraw, or provoke an AoO. Entering an area threatened by a reach weapon provokes an AoO. Wanna know why? Watch Indiana Jones... As you can see, AoO are still present, so Combat Reflexes, Tumble, etc are all still viable. I think this system is much more effective than the one now, and makes more sense
bleek 07-31-03, 04:04 PM	Does nobody remember that a succesful Tumble check (DC 15) eliminates AoA's when moving through threatened squares? Or that AOA's do not affect movemetn within a creatures threatend area, just movement through and out of? I'm not converting to 3.5, for various reasons, and withdraw is one of them. If you're going to turn tail and run, your enemies have a free shot at your back. If you're moving double your movement rate, you're not going backwards, because that is the equivalent of jogging backwards, and thats nott gonna happen without a balance check (DC 15-25). So, you now have my 2 cp. Have atter.
Otto the Bugbear 07-31-03, 06:46 PM	Nephet, Let me see if I read you correctly here. My character is facing a human fighter in full plate and both are equal level. I win initiative and score a hit and a miss with my two attacks. NPC attacks and sunders my greatsword. I, having only a bow and arrows left, move 50 ft (barbarian plus boots of striding and springing) directly away, not through a space he threatens, and shoot him once with an arrow. You're saying at this point, he gets an AOO on me with his weapon from 50 ft. away? Doesn't make sense. Now, I understand and agree that combat is not really turn based, and that a single attack isn't a single swing, rather jabs, fients, slashes, kicks, etc. It's more an ebb and flow rather than PC acts, NPC acts, PC acts over and over. Using that ebb and flow concept, he has a chance to follow me and get an AOO when I fire that bow, right? But wait, I move 2.5 times faster, so I should be able to outrun him. Not only that, but even if movements were the same at 30 ft. each, this rule railroads the NPC into how his action is taken. Not such a big deal, but it'll also railroad the PCs into actions like this. Meaning that when their turn in the initiative comes around, their descision is already made to how they're going to act. A bad guy that was facing the cleric moves 30 ft. away and fires a bow. Cleric gets an AOO right? That means he has to move the 30 ft. and attack. Does this mean he gets another movement on his turn? Or does it mean that his movement for his turn is taken up? If he gets extra movement, that causes a game balance problem. If his movement is taken up for his turn, that means he cannot decide to save his barbarian friend that just went to -8 hit points (railroaded into making a decision based not upon what he would have chosen to do had he known the barbarian was going to fall, but instead based upon a misinterpretation of a rule.) Hopefully I'm making myself clear with these examples. If an enemy cannot reach you, he does not get a free movement to run up and hit you when you fire a bow. Free movement like that would be bad for game balance. Enough on the subject for now. Cheers Otto :)
bleek 07-31-03, 06:55 PM	Otto, my furry, goblinoid friend, the AoA occurs as the character is leaving the area threatened bu the other character. Since he is backing away, he isn't putting th eeffort into avoiding the blows that he was before, thus, a quick move by the enemy can gain an extra hit. Once he's out of the threatened area, the enemy can do nothing, its the getting out that provokes the AOA. If he tumbles away, then he avoids it and can make an attack. If not, he takes the attack and can fire back from a safe distance, since the enemy is no longer threatening him.
Tenzhi 07-31-03, 06:58 PM	Originally posted by bleek Otto, my furry, goblinoid friend, the AoA occurs as the character is leaving the area threatened bu the other character. The problem, though, is that if ALL he is doing is leaving the square, and he's not going to attack after moving 30', then there is no AoO. Apparently the attacker can see into the future and determine whether or not the character is going to attack after he moves 30'.
bleek 07-31-03, 07:05 PM	Are you referring to the withdraw tactic in 3.5? I don't know if I agree with the way that works(having yet to read that), but in 3.0 it doesn't matter if you're going to attack or not, if you leave a threatened area where an opponnent can still use an AOA, then you're gonna get attacked. I supposse if someone was going to spend the whole round fighting his way back out of melee, then it wouldn't provoke an AOA, but, it would have to be a full-round action.
Sid_Patterson 07-31-03, 07:15 PM	You guys are confusing yourselves. Otto and Tenzhi, re-read Nephet's post. When a person is just dashing out of combat for safety...and when a person is dashing out of combat while lining up his next shot...those two people move very differently. The AoO system assumes that the difference in movement styles makes one of these moves more vulnerable than others. The D&D combat system is not intended to be looked at in a linear fashion. If you don't know what that means you can't be helped...get rid of AoO because you will never get it. Proceed confusing yourselves.
Sid_Patterson 07-31-03, 07:21 PM	Originally posted by bleek in 3.0 it doesn't matter if you're going to attack or not, if you leave a threatened area where an opponnent can still use an AOA, then you're gonna get attacked. Well, if the square you're moving out of is threatened already then yes, you're right. If however it's the beginning of the round and "all you do is move (not run) during your turn, the space that you start out in is not considered threatened" p122 PHB You guys should really re-read the rules. They are not as complicated as we generally make them.
Tenzhi 07-31-03, 07:27 PM	That's the rule straight from 3.0 as well, bleek. Straight from the 3.0 PHB: "If all you do is move (not run) during your turn, the space that you start out in is not considered threatened, and therefore enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that space." And the 30 foot movement involved is no different regardless of whether you do something at the end of it or not. Walking 30 feet is walking 30 feet whether you take something out of your pocket afterwards or not.
Tenzhi 07-31-03, 07:31 PM	Also note, that "complicated" does not necessarily imply a lack of understanding. If a simple attack requires 20 rolls rather than 1 to resolve then it is more complicated.
Sid_Patterson 07-31-03, 07:41 PM	Originally posted by Tenzhi And the 30 foot movement involved is no different regardless of whether you do something at the end of it or not I hate to keep pressing the point but, no. It says "if all you do is move" for a reason I would imagine. It means that it's just a 30' move if that's all you do...if all you do is move. If you move 30' then throw a hand grenade, moving is not "all you do" then is it? Wierdo. I was confused by the AoO rules for the longest time. I don't fault anyone for not getting it...I just think that quoting a rule and then misunderstanding it is odd.
Sid_Patterson 07-31-03, 07:43 PM	#1 Enemy of the Half-Elven - Half Anything Else Foundation Just noticed your sig Tenzhi...that's really funny. I think my coworkers are concerned about my burst of cackling.:eek:
Tenzhi 07-31-03, 07:49 PM	Originally posted by Sid_Patterson It says "if all you do is move" for a reason I would imagine. It means that it's just a 30' move if that's all you do...if all you do is move. If you move 30' then throw a hand grenade, moving is not "all you do" then is it? Wierdo. Keep up with the conversation and you won't get lost in the context like you just did. "The problem, though, is that if ALL he is doing is leaving the square, and he's not going to attack after moving 30', then there is no AoO. Apparently the attacker can see into the future and determine whether or not the character is going to attack after he moves 30'." "And the 30 foot movement involved is no different regardless of whether you do something at the end of it or not. Walking 30 feet is walking 30 feet whether you take something out of your pocket afterwards or not." Now put those two statements together. I'm not saying the rule says both of those movements are the same, I'm saying that both of them ARE intrinsically the same but the rule nonsensically makes a distinction.
pyk 07-31-03, 08:54 PM	Honestly, IMHO, the difference between only moving 30', and moving 30' and then attacking, is they both take place in the same 6 seconds. Obviously, moving only in that time will have the person taking more care, than the person moving and then attacking, which means the movement is quicker and less deliberate (sp?) in order to get that attack in before the six seconds is up. I understand, though, the fact that the six seconds is arbitrary time limit and doesn't mean anything in the real world. Anyway, that's my take on it. Sorrry for the intrusion, I'll let you get back to your debate now.:D
Nick Soapdish 07-31-03, 08:59 PM	The problem is that you're still thinking of this in a linear sense. If you move up and attack somebody, it's not strictly you move, stop moving, and then swing the axe. You're running up with the axe already swinging. (And if you're really kamikaze about it, you're in a full run, otherwise known as the charge action.) An example of this is the rule that allows a character with a BAB of at least +1 to draw a weapon and ready their shield while moving. The same holds true for moving away. You can move away if that's all that you're doing. But in a single round, you can't move, stop, and then reach into your pocket for your lighter. It's assuming that you're reaching into your pocket the whole time, having to go through your loose change and bubble gum wrappers which is what results in you getting bushwhacked by that same guy with the axe. D&D has somewhat arbitrarily decided that you can't move more than 5 feet in that round and actually break up your actions. Admittedly, the counter-example is that a spellcaster moving and then casting doesn't suffer a chance of spell failure if they get hit by the AoO from moving, but I think that's to make it easier for spellcasters to actually cast their spells. So I guess that my interpretation isn't actually spelled out in the rules in black and white, but it works for me.
Tenzhi 07-31-03, 09:24 PM	But in this case, it is linear. Let's say you don't have to draw the weapon. Let's say it's already in hand. And when you make your attack the range will be 30'. Therefore the attack isn't being made until you stop moving. You're not making the attack for the entire 30' of movement. Ironically, if you were to merely take a step back and attack, you WOULD likely be doing it in the same motion - which, like the regular 30' of movement, wouldn't draw an AoO. But, like Hit Points, AoOs don't have to entirely make sense... this is just a game, after all.
Nick Soapdish 07-31-03, 09:54 PM	Originally posted by Tenzhi But in this case, it is linear. Let's say you don't have to draw the weapon. Let's say it's already in hand. And when you make your attack the range will be 30'. Therefore the attack isn't being made until you stop moving. You're not making the attack for the entire 30' of movement. Ironically, if you were to merely take a step back and attack, you WOULD likely be doing it in the same motion - which, like the regular 30' of movement, wouldn't draw an AoO. It still isn't. If we're talking about the example of shooting the bow, you may have the bow in hand, but you've probably still got to draw the arrow. So while you're hustling away, you're drawing the arrow out of its quiver and notching it, then lining up the shot. Yeah, you're probably stopped at the end since it's tougher to make a shot on the run, but you've still prepared for the shot while moving. Unless you're assuming that the character had the arrow out and notched the whole time. In which case, I'd still say that he suffers an attack of opportunity. It's not going to be easy to move back and keep everything in position the whole time. Same holds true for a dagger wielder (although he doesn't have to quite as much to do). He's got to think ahead for the throw. A basketball player doesn't run up to the hoop, start the layup, and then think about which hand should be shooting the ball, etc. He's thinking about it the whole way up. Besides, we've been comparing apples to apples and oranges here. The character that's moving back 30 feet and shooting the bow is doing more than the character that's just running 30 feet. And since D&D doesn't regard movement and standard actions to be equal (since you can switch one out for the other, but not the other way around), even if the character does a double move, they're still infinitessimally ahead of the other character. Or if you prefer (since I know I'm skating on thin ice here), that character hasn't had to switch gears in the middle of the round. All they've been doing is concentrating on getting away. But, like Hit Points, AoOs don't have to entirely make sense... this is just a game, after all. Well, I'm not saying they're perfect. Both have problems, even when thinking about them as abstractions. But they basically make sense (AoO more so than HP, IMO).
Tenzhi 07-31-03, 10:23 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Well, I'm not saying they're perfect. Both have problems, even when thinking about them as abstractions. But they basically make sense (AoO more so than HP, IMO). I easily accept HP over AoO because HP takes a potentially complicated system of damage and greatly simplifies it. AoO takes a system of combat that was already simplified and complicates it. Some people like the added strategy it brings to combat, but I prefer combat to be fast and loose. ::shrug::
Ikasama 07-31-03, 10:49 PM	If you can do the withdraw action to move twice your movement, why can't you only use have your withdraw and shoot/cast? The Anwser most people give is because your geting ready to take the next action (shooting/casting) but given the way the game works you can shoot/cast in the surprize round, or when you are slowed, so logicly you should not need the 3 secounds you are useing to carefuly back up to "get ready for your next action".
Otto the Bugbear 07-31-03, 11:01 PM	Okay, then I guess I have the same problem as an earlier poster. The scenario starts with longbow wielding elf standing face to face with a battle axe wielding orc (threatens within 5ft.) Orc hits elf with axe and it becomes elf's "turn". (I know, it's not actually turn based, but we'll use the rule vernacular for simplicities sake.) Option A: Elf moves 30 ft., suffers and AOO, gets hit, then fires bow. Apparently the orc either moves with him to swing and hit, or the orc hits as the elf starts to move away. Must be the first option since there is no provision for the orc changing position "out of turn". Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you're trying to tell me right? If so, bad idea for the elf. Option B: Elf takes a 5 ft. step back, does not suffer an AoO from moving, and fires at the orc and does not suffer an AoO due to being out of reach. A better decision mechanics wise, even though the elf would likely want to be as far away from the orc as possible to fire that bow. :turkey: :twitch: Wow. I'm stunned. Cheers Otto :)
Nick Soapdish 07-31-03, 11:05 PM	Originally posted by Ikasama If you can do the withdraw action to move twice your movement, why can't you only use have your withdraw and shoot/cast? The Answer most people give is because your geting ready to take the next action (shooting/casting) but given the way the game works you can shoot/cast in the surprise round, or when you are slowed, so logically you should not need the 3 seconds you are using to carefully back up to "get ready for your next action". Like I said, the move and standard action are unequal. Otherwise, you could trade your move action for two standard actions and cast two spells each round. You can't break up a round by seconds to determine what you're doing. You're just doing everything during a period of 6 seconds. Otherwise, it also leads to what characters are doing during other character's initiative. "Well, if Baraxes has spent his whole 6 seconds by running up and hacking at the bad guy with his axe and Delvin hasn't acted yet, are his 6 seconds up also? After all, 6 seconds have already passed." Or stuff like "how many initiative points are in a second?" You don't necessarily "need" that portion of a round. But you're still going to spend a portion of your mental effort planning out what you're doing in advance. Moving is a lot easier than moving and doing anything else. Anybody can walk 30 feet. It's tougher to walk 30 feet and swing a sword, throw a dagger, shoot a bow, or even drink sip of beer (if you're sticking a 1 round time limit).
Nick Soapdish 07-31-03, 11:11 PM	Originally posted by Tenzhi I easily accept HP over AoO because HP takes a potentially complicated system of damage and greatly simplifies it. AoO takes a system of combat that was already simplified and complicates it. Some people like the added strategy it brings to combat, but I prefer combat to be fast and loose. ::shrug:: Well, the problems that I have with each is that HP oversimplifies damage. Combat is still simple with AoOs. Using them really isn't that complicated once you've gone through a session or two.
Tenzhi 07-31-03, 11:26 PM	No matter how many sessions, it will still be more complicated than I want combat to be. The very fact that it requires strict tracking of locations in combat (often with abhorrent miniatures) alone ensures that.
Nick Soapdish 07-31-03, 11:33 PM	I guess that's the big difference. I love miniatures. I gotta admit that sometimes they're more trouble than they're worth, but I love having some sort of visual. And I can't sketch so they fill the role of my character sketch.
frmrtd 08-06-03, 02:05 AM	To me, what I want from the rulesof AoO is to make the game like a chess game. To have strategy that if done well makes combat intellectually stimulating. For instance the rogue flanking and getting extra damage or the feint and bluff checks fighters have. That's what would make the game more fun. Now it does a DECENT job of that, but i'm not intelligent enough to figure how to make the rules better than they are. It would be neat if good strategy and a sound military attack helped you win the fight- like in chess. However the rules are improved, that should be the end goal of it all.
Farland 08-06-03, 07:06 AM	No way. I think that AoOs are one of the best things about 3e and 3.5. They add a whole new dimension to combat and make tactics count for so much more. I say if you do away with them, you are loosing a huge part of the fun of the game.
Tenzhi 08-06-03, 07:19 AM	"Fun" being subjective and "tactical combat" not necessarily being a key component of it, of course.
Willie the Duck 08-06-03, 01:31 PM	Originally posted by Otto the Bugbear Okay, then I guess I have the same problem as an earlier poster. The scenario starts with longbow wielding elf standing face to face with a battle axe wielding orc (threatens within 5ft.) Orc hits elf with axe and it becomes elf's "turn". (I know, it's not actually turn based, but we'll use the rule vernacular for simplicities sake.) Option A: Elf moves 30 ft., suffers and AOO, gets hit, then fires bow. Apparently the orc either moves with him to swing and hit, or the orc hits as the elf starts to move away. Must be the first option since there is no provision for the orc changing position "out of turn". Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you're trying to tell me right? If so, bad idea for the elf. Option B: Elf takes a 5 ft. step back, does not suffer an AoO from moving, and fires at the orc and does not suffer an AoO due to being out of reach. A better decision mechanics wise, even though the elf would likely want to be as far away from the orc as possible to fire that bow. :turkey: :twitch: Wow. I'm stunned. Cheers Otto :) not at all, if the elf only takes a 5 ft. step and shoots he's toast, because the orc can then take a 5' step and full-attack him into a bloody smear (I know, this is only true for certain high-level orcs, but still).
Willie the Duck 08-06-03, 01:35 PM	Originally posted by Tenzhi No matter how many sessions, it will still be more complicated than I want combat to be. The very fact that it requires strict tracking of locations in combat (often with abhorrent miniatures) alone ensures that. and allows very nice effects like a wizard that can hide behind the warrior shield wall, rogues actually getting flanking attacks, and weapons like longspears having a use.
Alkaline 08-06-03, 01:35 PM	OK. I read over the 3.5 rules for AoO and decided they made sense and all... With one exception. The 5' step. I'm going to get rid of the 5' step rule. Therefore, if you leave a threatened space, even if it's 5' steps, you suffer an AoO. So, in order to prevent an AoO you have to "Withdraw" and/or Tumble. The 5' step just slows **** down and makes things confusing.
Farland 08-06-03, 01:38 PM	Tenzhi said: "Fun" being subjective and "tactical combat" not necessarily being a key component of it, of course. True enough, I suppose, except combat without tactics, i.e. narrative combat quickly becomes simply: "I swing. 22. I hit. 12 points of damage. Ok the orc swings. 12. He misses. Ok, I swing. 19. I hit for 10 more. Is he dead? Good. I move to the next orc." It becomes very repetitive. Of course the DM can embellish it with descriptives, but the combat soon becomes completely reliant on the DM. Only the DM can really say when a character can use certain feats, where spells are best placed, and so forth. This is essentially cutting both the options available to the characters and the interactions open to the players in half. Plus combat becomes basically arbitrary or random, i.e. based on DM decision. "You managed to catch only two ogres in the fireball." or "I dropped my orc. Is there an orc near enough to me for me to use cleave?" "Umm. I guess so. Yeah." Now you can argue that some people might find this style of play more fun, but it seems much less fun to me. And Alkaline, what exactly is confusing about the 5 foot step? It is quite simple, and in my experience doesn't make combat take any more time at all. You have to be careful about removing it, or you unfairly penalize fighters who are using the full attack action. THink twice before making a change of this magnitude. That goes for removing AoO's too.
Dechrot 08-06-03, 03:09 PM	I agree with Sid_Patterson. I would like to add that until you fully understand the way AoO works, you will never like it. Another thing is if you do not use a miniature board it is next to impossible to even implement AoO. Eventually, if you do learn how to use them and the players learn them as well, you will begin to realize how important they are. They are one of the largest shapers of combat. Would you run in at the dragon with 20 foot reach knowing full well he gets to attack you at least once before you even get to him? Nope. Nore will the thief that wants to flank him but now has to wait and go last in the round so that the fighter can get in there and take the punishment first. Or think about this.... your companion is laying at the feet of the orc bleeding to death. Do you bandage him and let the orc whack at you for free? or do you hope he isnt at -9 and try to kill the orc first. Basically every action in combat begins with the thought... will I provoke an attack of opportunity? Eventually, you will learn what all provokes one and that decision will only take a split second.
Tenzhi 08-06-03, 07:56 PM	Originally posted by Farland True enough, I suppose, except combat without tactics, i.e. narrative combat quickly becomes simply: "I swing. 22. I hit. 12 points of damage. Ok the orc swings. 12. He misses. Ok, I swing. 19. I hit for 10 more. Is he dead? Good. I move to the next orc." It becomes very repetitive. You do, of course, realize that combat with AoOs becomes just as repetitive, it just adds a few steps? "I move. I get hit by an AoO. I disarm the orc. I get hit by an AoO. I attack the orc. I hit. 12 points of damage." The difference, in my experience, is that the added tactics seem to leave a lot less room for description. Originally posted by Willie the Duck: and allows very nice effects like a wizard that can hide behind the warrior shield wall, rogues actually getting flanking attacks, and weapons like longspears having a use. A wizard can still hide behind the warriors in my games. Rogues not only don't get to do flanking attacks, they can only sneak attack once per round. Weapons in my group get chosen largely for stylistic purposes.
Farland 08-06-03, 08:12 PM	Tenzhi said: You do, of course, realize that combat with AoOs becomes just as repetitive, it just adds a few steps? "I move. I get hit by an AoO. I disarm the orc. I get hit by an AoO. I attack the orc. I hit. 12 points of damage." The difference, in my experience, is that the added tactics seem to leave a lot less room for description. Actually I disagree. The game then becomes infinitely more intricate and non-repetitive, as characters manuever to avoid AoOs, to take advantage of reach, choose to tumble, take 5 foot steps, cleave, etc. If I were to admit that it adds a few more steps, I would have to admit, with all the possible variation, that those steps number in the 1000's. That is alot of variation before battle starts repeating. Plus, this is the best of both worlds: there is lots of strategy and tactics, but nothing is stopping the DM from giving rich descriptions of the results that the players' independent maneuvers resulted in.
Tenzhi 08-06-03, 08:35 PM	Originally posted by Farland If I were to admit that it adds a few more steps, I would have to admit, with all the possible variation, that those steps number in the 1000's. That is alot of variation before battle starts repeating. And likewise, I've run thousands of battles my way with very little repetition. I've participated in games focussed more on miniatures and tactical combat - in such games whenever combat started roleplaying would stop and the players would be participating in this intricate game of chess. To be fair, though, I've also participated in games without miniatures that went exactly as you described - "I attack. I hit. I do damage. Next."
rdjanssen 08-11-03, 04:54 PM	Attacks of Opportunity are really very simple. They occur basically on two occasions: 1. Moving out of a threatened square. 2. Performing a distracting action in a threatened square. There are basically two exceptions to this rule: A. Taking a 5-foot step does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity. B. If all you do is move (no run, no other actions) you are performing a withdraw, and the square you start your turn in is not considered threatened. That's really all there is to it. Ways to counter Attacks of Opportunity: 1. Take a 5-foot step away from a creature before performing a distracting action. (see A. above) 2. Withdraw (see B. above) 3. Tumble There are more, but these are the three most basic. Ways to prevent your opponent from moving away from you without provoking an Attack of Opportunity: A. Use a reach weapon. (Your opponent's starting square would still not be threatened, but the next square they step into would be threatened. When they move out of it, you get an Attack of Opportunity). B. Use a readied action. (Ready your action so that if your opponent moves away you will attack him.) Again, there are more ways, but these are the two most basic. Rick