AoO houserule [Archive] - Wizards Community

AoO houserule [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Wopple
06-27-07, 06:35 PM To start off, I hate AoO's. Not for balance reasons (although there are plenty of situations, which are perfectly rules legal, which case you to get hundreds of extra attacks due to them) but for making sense reasons. I realize that if you go too far wondering what makes sense in D&D you go insane.. but still.

If someone is getting up from prone, I get an extra attack. You can maybe justify that, but then why would I not get an attack versus a lamp? If I can attack a person who is not as aware as normal, I certainly could attack an inanimate object. It's not as if someone casting a spell or getting up throws themselves onto my weapon for me, I still make the attack.

They call them attacks of opportunity, but what they REALLY are are Opportunities FOR attacks. You should be given a generic plus to all of these, and then be able to chose to perform one of your iterative attacks, or a std action attack, at this time instead of in normal initiative order. I realise this creates balance problems, but kindof has to be done.

Otherwise, you should just remove combat reflexes and any other AoO number increasing feat from the game, and then make it possible to always gain 1 additional attack per round against an inanimate or helpless target.
Dragonsblood
06-27-07, 06:48 PM but then why would I not get an attack versus a lamp?

What did the poor lamp ever do to you? :(

I don't understand your problem...
Wopple
06-27-07, 06:56 PM What did the poor lamp ever do to you? :(

I don't understand your problem...

I don't like gaudily lit rooms... obviously....
Prince_of_Parkness
06-27-07, 07:16 PM I think the rules assume u look for "opertunities". When someone is standing up, or casting a spell, all PC in D&D instictivly know that they are unable to defend thermselves and are safe from retaliation so they can drop their guard slightly and attack. They wouldnt attack normally because they need to pay attention to aviod being attacked themselves.
Combat reflexes would merely make you attack without even having to think, speeding up your attack and allowing you to do more and react when you normally couldnt (i.e. flat footed)

I know this raises as much problems as it solves, we either need to re work the system that will probably take ages and lead to brokeness as you said or accept this as another limitation of D&D
Mock26
06-27-07, 09:04 PM Yeah, man, lay off the lamps! Just what we need, another lampist in the world! :D
Murrdox
06-27-07, 09:20 PM Technically speaking... I think I see where you're going with this.

If an opponent moves through a stack of hay for example... and you want to use an Attack of Opportunity to swing your sword at a nearby lamp, knocking it into the haystack to set it on fire... I could see that situation.

If you want to use an Attack of Opportunity to attack any nearby "Helpless" creature, or inanimate and unattended object, then I don't really see how that would be a problem. You couldn't unbalance or break the game with this house rule.
pmurray@bigpond.com
06-27-07, 11:49 PM Melee and the usual BAB/attacke per round rules assume the situation where people are on their feet, fighting. Dodging and making attacks, business as usual.

Sneak attacks, AAOs, and coup-de-gras rules cover exceptions to that kind of sisutaion.
jaspercrey
06-28-07, 08:06 AM We have a houserule that you can only make an "attack" with the weapon you threaten with . . .

We have always felt it silly that in order to make an attack of opportunity you must threaten with a melee weapon but that the AoO not necessarilly be made with the weapon - ei you could trip or grapple instead.

Yet most people can trip or grapple without a weapon.

So to sumarize, if you can make an attack of opportunity, it must be made as a normal standard attack with whatever it is you are threatening with. Now, it some extraorinary ability like a wolf's improved trip ability (or whatever it is called) can result from the AoO, then we include that as part of the AoO.

Granted, we pretty much play core only, so the mire of new feats that exist in splatbooks aren't comprimised by this.
maharai23
06-28-07, 09:11 AM I think what he's saying is that there's nothing more vulnerable than something that just sits there. If there's no attempt at all to defend yourself, aren't you always "provoking an attack of opportunity"?

Thus, you get less attacks against a completely defenseless lamp, that just sits there, than you would against an opponent who is maintaining a defense, and lets it slip for a moment (say, for casting).

I see the point, something that presents no defense at all isn't penalized as badly as someone who is defending, and does a no-no action... like move.
maharai23
06-28-07, 09:12 AM Melee and the usual BAB/attacke per round rules assume the situation where people are on their feet, fighting. Dodging and making attacks, business as usual.

Sneak attacks, AAOs, and coup-de-gras rules cover exceptions to that kind of sisutaion.

The logic behind an AoO is someone who lets his guard slip for a moment, and lets you swing on him.

Wouldn't the same apply for anything which doesn't have a guard up to begin with? Such as a lamp? It's always in a state of "open for attack".
Echodork
06-28-07, 09:15 AM Because combat is assumed to be a continuous stream of attacks, parries, dodges, and misses. The turn system is used to simulate just one attack out of the many that occur every six seconds. An Attack of Opportunity is exactly that... it's your chance to capitalize on a break in the enemy's defenses due to moving or distraction.

So your question is, "if combat is a continuous stream of attacks, why don't I get 10 attacks a round on an inanimate object?" The answer is balance, and there isn't a realistic-sounding fluffy reason. If you want to make one up, do it.

The problem isn't necessarily with the way AOOs are designed, it's more a problem with WotC's justification for why a single sword attack takes six seconds of real time.
Jagyr Ebonwood
06-28-07, 11:18 AM ...an attack versus a lamp?

But...I love lamp. :weep:
SoulLord
06-28-07, 01:22 PM We have a houserule that you can only make an "attack" with the weapon you threaten with . . .

We have always felt it silly that in order to make an attack of opportunity you must threaten with a melee weapon but that the AoO not necessarilly be made with the weapon - ei you could trip or grapple instead.

Yet most people can trip or grapple without a weapon.

So to sumarize, if you can make an attack of opportunity, it must be made as a normal standard attack with whatever it is you are threatening with. Now, it some extraorinary ability like a wolf's improved trip ability (or whatever it is called) can result from the AoO, then we include that as part of the AoO.

Granted, we pretty much play core only, so the mire of new feats that exist in splatbooks aren't comprimised by this.

I respectfully disagree with this interpretation.

An AoO represents that your opponent let his guard down for a second. wheter you choose to strike hi,sunder him trip him grapple him etc with whatever you are capable should have no aditional restrictions.

It lets your fighters do something other than full atack for the nth round
Kursk
06-28-07, 01:34 PM You can maybe justify that, but then why would I not get an attack versus a lamp?

Against a lamp, I would let a character attack it many times in 6 seconds if he wasn't having to do ANYTHING else like be aware of attackers, etc.
calvinNhobbes
06-28-07, 04:15 PM When I DM, I allow a players to make a full attack plus any AOOs they have against inanimate objects. However, alot of times it is better to do this:

Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.

Against an object with DR, one solid full power attack hit is often better than trying to pound on it with several weaker strikes.

This rule also applies to helpless creatures, but just taking a full-round action to coup de grace is usually better.
KurenaiYami
06-28-07, 04:40 PM But...I love lamp. :weep:

Do you really love the lamp or are you just looking for things around the office and saying you love them?
Mirage_1
06-28-07, 04:50 PM I think what he's saying is that there's nothing more vulnerable than something that just sits there. If there's no attempt at all to defend yourself, aren't you always "provoking an attack of opportunity"?

Thus, you get less attacks against a completely defenseless lamp, that just sits there, than you would against an opponent who is maintaining a defense, and lets it slip for a moment (say, for casting).

I see the point, something that presents no defense at all isn't penalized as badly as someone who is defending, and does a no-no action... like move.

Maybe I missed something, but I always wondered why a paralyzed person doesn't automatically provoke AoO each round, but if that paralyzed person casts a still/silent spell they all of a sudden provoke
BW0222
06-28-07, 05:33 PM Wopple,

I get your point and reasoning. I don't know why others do not.

If you normally only get one attack per six seconds, and a person drinking a potion, lets down their guard, and you get another attack... logic says that you are now capable of attack twice in a round. So why can't you attack a helpless person (or a lamp) twice normally?

First, the D&D rules are kind of written assuming that you are fighting normal opponents who are defending themselves. Rules for exceptions to this, tend to be exceptions. i.e. if you didn't have to worry about folks not defending themselves, the rules for AoO work fairly well.

Second, a lot of concepts are for one's aid in imagining the situtation or describing it in an exciting way. They do not represent hard rules. For example, youu can assume that someone is parrying your attacks with their weapon. But if you use this as any more than to help you imagining what is happening, then someone can start claiming extra attacks against a snake or a gelantous cube since they can't be parrying?

Third, D&D does have specific rules for attacking objects and helpless opponents. I think it is fair to say that when attacking a helpless person or an object these rules are more logical to use -- auto hit, auto critical. If I'm trying to hit a lamp, why switch to attacking twice or three times? Why not, line up the auto hit? It is a strange quirk of the rules that hitting an object multiple times may be 'better' than auto-hitting it once. In the real world, you line up the axe and hit the tree. You don't flail at it.

Forth, I will point out that time during a combat is also somewhat abstracted. Because of the turn-based nature of combat, it is hard to say that a person gets one chance to hit someone in melee during six seconds, and two chances if they move away. If you could run all the turns together, how long they were actually standing next to each other might only represent a fraction of a second. It is hard to say if you would actually be standing next to a lamp for a full six seconds, or if you moved by it and smashed it as part of a movement. Thus, it is really abstracted how much time out of a six second turn is actually spent on an attack.

I realize that if you go too far wondering what makes sense in D&D you go insane.. but still.

And I think you are there.

They call them attacks of opportunity, but what they REALLY are are Opportunities FOR attacks. You should be given a generic plus to all of these, and then be able to chose to perform one of your iterative attacks, or a std action attack, at this time instead of in normal initiative order. I realise this creates balance problems, but kindof has to be done.

The issue is one of perception. D&D is a simulation of a fantasy environment. Not everything relates to reality. Most of the rules relate to things which are clear impossible. However, even sticking with what is possible in real life... D&D is still merely a simulation of it. Like all simulations, it takes short-cuts to simulate complex things using simplified mechanics which can't possible cover every case. In some cases, it makes simplifications for ease of use, fun, time savings, dramatic license, etc.

If you look at hit points and reality you realize it is such an over simplification. Real injures reduce movement, stagger opponents, have them slowly bleed to death, fencing matches are over in seconds, etc. Now, there are systems which do a better job simulating these types of injures. However, D&D avoids them because they are too complex, time consuming, and no one wants to play are adventure with a broken ankle from a 10' fall.

If you can buy hit point abstraction... despite its obvious flaws... why can't you buy AoO abstraction?

I play chess. I don't play it because I think it is an accurate simulation of middle-ages warfare. I play it because the simulation is fun -- not because it simulates middle-ages warfare terribly well.
Jagyr Ebonwood
06-28-07, 07:58 PM Do you really love the lamp or are you just looking for things around the office and saying you love them?

I...I love lamp.

P.S. I just wasted my 2000th post on an Anchorman quote. Huzzah!
Paladin_Hiroshi
06-29-07, 11:15 AM Me and my players have house ruled AoO's because we do historical reenactments, and we like a little more realism, cos we know its a game, but we like it to make sense.

We just introduced some rules like being able to trip or grapple on certain AoO's and the major rule: Counter-threatening xD

We though that, if two characters are next to 1 enemy, and a character moves away, provoking an attack, should they still get that attack, even though there's a guy waiting to take advantage of a slip in your guard...would the other character get an AoO? (rhetorical xD)

We revised some of the rules, so that AoO's come up less, and work out easier.... In regard to your problem, if it's your game, and the players agree.....*bwahahahhahahaha*
kyeudo
06-29-07, 07:03 PM Here's a good interpretation: The lamp is constantly provoking AoOs, but no one bothers to take advantage of them, since they save their AoO chances for things that are actualy DANGEROUS.

If you have a fighter who wants to take all his AoOs on a lamp every round in combat, let him. Out of combat, it doesn't matter at all.
olshanski_home
06-29-07, 11:09 PM Kyeudo, the problem is that you are saying you can take as many AoO as you have available against a helpless foe. (a lamp=a helpless foe).

So the moment a character is held (via hold person spell), you would allow a fighter with combat reflexes and a 16 dex to unload 4 free attacks on the fellow?

It actually makes sense to me. I'd agree that it should be allowed. In most cases, this would appear to make combat reflexes more appealing than coup-de-grace, since AoO doesn't use up any of your actions.

The OP pointed out a valid flaw with the d20 rules.
ItaraKoturo
06-30-07, 07:52 AM The OP pointed out a valid flaw with the d20 rules.
Except it's not a mechanical flaw. Mechanically, the system works just fine - AoOs work as intended and balance risk against opportunity when it comes to certain combat options. Now, balance aside, it doesn't make a lot of logical sense, but really, who cares? This has never once come up in my years of playing D&D. I can't imagine why you'd let such a thing get in the way of just playing the game.
Sylian
06-30-07, 08:56 AM I always thought it was strange that you get an Attack of Opportunity against someone who is casting a spell or shooting a bow, but not against someone who is paralyzed, by say Hold Person.
Nom
07-01-07, 02:09 AM It's a quirk more than a flaw.

The AoO is not there to reward the attacker, but punish the defender.

For example, you provoke an AoO for starting concentration, but not for maintaining it. Why? Because if you are maintaining concentration then everyone already has a chance to hit you while your guard is down. However, when you start concentration - especially if it's for a standard action - they don't. Thus the AoO.
Thubby
07-01-07, 02:27 AM when your engaged in combat, you make dozens of "attacks" most of which are in an effort to make your enemy screw up. the number of attacks you get in a dnd sense is how many of those dozens you can use to actually hurt someone. when an AoO ocures, you get an opportunity that you wouldnt normaly have to turn one of those swings that would otherwise be pointless into a destructive attack

if you made a good case in my game i'd probably let you use your AoO against the lamp
Mirage_1
07-01-07, 10:47 AM Maybe I missed something, but I always wondered why a paralyzed person doesn't automatically provoke AoO each round, but if that paralyzed person casts a still/silent spell they all of a sudden provoke

any thoughts?
Prince_of_Parkness
07-01-07, 11:07 AM Id just make a house rule that a paralyzed person counts as an object for the perpose of attacking

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wopple 06-27-07, 06:35 PM	To start off, I hate AoO's. Not for balance reasons (although there are plenty of situations, which are perfectly rules legal, which case you to get hundreds of extra attacks due to them) but for making sense reasons. I realize that if you go too far wondering what makes sense in D&D you go insane.. but still. If someone is getting up from prone, I get an extra attack. You can maybe justify that, but then why would I not get an attack versus a lamp? If I can attack a person who is not as aware as normal, I certainly could attack an inanimate object. It's not as if someone casting a spell or getting up throws themselves onto my weapon for me, I still make the attack. They call them attacks of opportunity, but what they REALLY are are Opportunities FOR attacks. You should be given a generic plus to all of these, and then be able to chose to perform one of your iterative attacks, or a std action attack, at this time instead of in normal initiative order. I realise this creates balance problems, but kindof has to be done. Otherwise, you should just remove combat reflexes and any other AoO number increasing feat from the game, and then make it possible to always gain 1 additional attack per round against an inanimate or helpless target.
Dragonsblood 06-27-07, 06:48 PM	but then why would I not get an attack versus a lamp? What did the poor lamp ever do to you? :( I don't understand your problem...
Wopple 06-27-07, 06:56 PM	What did the poor lamp ever do to you? :( I don't understand your problem... I don't like gaudily lit rooms... obviously....
Prince_of_Parkness 06-27-07, 07:16 PM	I think the rules assume u look for "opertunities". When someone is standing up, or casting a spell, all PC in D&D instictivly know that they are unable to defend thermselves and are safe from retaliation so they can drop their guard slightly and attack. They wouldnt attack normally because they need to pay attention to aviod being attacked themselves. Combat reflexes would merely make you attack without even having to think, speeding up your attack and allowing you to do more and react when you normally couldnt (i.e. flat footed) I know this raises as much problems as it solves, we either need to re work the system that will probably take ages and lead to brokeness as you said or accept this as another limitation of D&D
Mock26 06-27-07, 09:04 PM	Yeah, man, lay off the lamps! Just what we need, another lampist in the world! :D
Murrdox 06-27-07, 09:20 PM	Technically speaking... I think I see where you're going with this. If an opponent moves through a stack of hay for example... and you want to use an Attack of Opportunity to swing your sword at a nearby lamp, knocking it into the haystack to set it on fire... I could see that situation. If you want to use an Attack of Opportunity to attack any nearby "Helpless" creature, or inanimate and unattended object, then I don't really see how that would be a problem. You couldn't unbalance or break the game with this house rule.
pmurray@bigpond.com 06-27-07, 11:49 PM	Melee and the usual BAB/attacke per round rules assume the situation where people are on their feet, fighting. Dodging and making attacks, business as usual. Sneak attacks, AAOs, and coup-de-gras rules cover exceptions to that kind of sisutaion.
jaspercrey 06-28-07, 08:06 AM	We have a houserule that you can only make an "attack" with the weapon you threaten with . . . We have always felt it silly that in order to make an attack of opportunity you must threaten with a melee weapon but that the AoO not necessarilly be made with the weapon - ei you could trip or grapple instead. Yet most people can trip or grapple without a weapon. So to sumarize, if you can make an attack of opportunity, it must be made as a normal standard attack with whatever it is you are threatening with. Now, it some extraorinary ability like a wolf's improved trip ability (or whatever it is called) can result from the AoO, then we include that as part of the AoO. Granted, we pretty much play core only, so the mire of new feats that exist in splatbooks aren't comprimised by this.
maharai23 06-28-07, 09:11 AM	I think what he's saying is that there's nothing more vulnerable than something that just sits there. If there's no attempt at all to defend yourself, aren't you always "provoking an attack of opportunity"? Thus, you get less attacks against a completely defenseless lamp, that just sits there, than you would against an opponent who is maintaining a defense, and lets it slip for a moment (say, for casting). I see the point, something that presents no defense at all isn't penalized as badly as someone who is defending, and does a no-no action... like move.
maharai23 06-28-07, 09:12 AM	Melee and the usual BAB/attacke per round rules assume the situation where people are on their feet, fighting. Dodging and making attacks, business as usual. Sneak attacks, AAOs, and coup-de-gras rules cover exceptions to that kind of sisutaion. The logic behind an AoO is someone who lets his guard slip for a moment, and lets you swing on him. Wouldn't the same apply for anything which doesn't have a guard up to begin with? Such as a lamp? It's always in a state of "open for attack".
Echodork 06-28-07, 09:15 AM	Because combat is assumed to be a continuous stream of attacks, parries, dodges, and misses. The turn system is used to simulate just one attack out of the many that occur every six seconds. An Attack of Opportunity is exactly that... it's your chance to capitalize on a break in the enemy's defenses due to moving or distraction. So your question is, "if combat is a continuous stream of attacks, why don't I get 10 attacks a round on an inanimate object?" The answer is balance, and there isn't a realistic-sounding fluffy reason. If you want to make one up, do it. The problem isn't necessarily with the way AOOs are designed, it's more a problem with WotC's justification for why a single sword attack takes six seconds of real time.
Jagyr Ebonwood 06-28-07, 11:18 AM	...an attack versus a lamp? But...I love lamp. :weep:
SoulLord 06-28-07, 01:22 PM	We have a houserule that you can only make an "attack" with the weapon you threaten with . . . We have always felt it silly that in order to make an attack of opportunity you must threaten with a melee weapon but that the AoO not necessarilly be made with the weapon - ei you could trip or grapple instead. Yet most people can trip or grapple without a weapon. So to sumarize, if you can make an attack of opportunity, it must be made as a normal standard attack with whatever it is you are threatening with. Now, it some extraorinary ability like a wolf's improved trip ability (or whatever it is called) can result from the AoO, then we include that as part of the AoO. Granted, we pretty much play core only, so the mire of new feats that exist in splatbooks aren't comprimised by this. I respectfully disagree with this interpretation. An AoO represents that your opponent let his guard down for a second. wheter you choose to strike hi,sunder him trip him grapple him etc with whatever you are capable should have no aditional restrictions. It lets your fighters do something other than full atack for the nth round
Kursk 06-28-07, 01:34 PM	You can maybe justify that, but then why would I not get an attack versus a lamp? Against a lamp, I would let a character attack it many times in 6 seconds if he wasn't having to do ANYTHING else like be aware of attackers, etc.
calvinNhobbes 06-28-07, 04:15 PM	When I DM, I allow a players to make a full attack plus any AOOs they have against inanimate objects. However, alot of times it is better to do this: Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon. Against an object with DR, one solid full power attack hit is often better than trying to pound on it with several weaker strikes. This rule also applies to helpless creatures, but just taking a full-round action to coup de grace is usually better.
KurenaiYami 06-28-07, 04:40 PM	But...I love lamp. :weep: Do you really love the lamp or are you just looking for things around the office and saying you love them?
Mirage_1 06-28-07, 04:50 PM	I think what he's saying is that there's nothing more vulnerable than something that just sits there. If there's no attempt at all to defend yourself, aren't you always "provoking an attack of opportunity"? Thus, you get less attacks against a completely defenseless lamp, that just sits there, than you would against an opponent who is maintaining a defense, and lets it slip for a moment (say, for casting). I see the point, something that presents no defense at all isn't penalized as badly as someone who is defending, and does a no-no action... like move. Maybe I missed something, but I always wondered why a paralyzed person doesn't automatically provoke AoO each round, but if that paralyzed person casts a still/silent spell they all of a sudden provoke
BW0222 06-28-07, 05:33 PM	Wopple, I get your point and reasoning. I don't know why others do not. If you normally only get one attack per six seconds, and a person drinking a potion, lets down their guard, and you get another attack... logic says that you are now capable of attack twice in a round. So why can't you attack a helpless person (or a lamp) twice normally? First, the D&D rules are kind of written assuming that you are fighting normal opponents who are defending themselves. Rules for exceptions to this, tend to be exceptions. i.e. if you didn't have to worry about folks not defending themselves, the rules for AoO work fairly well. Second, a lot of concepts are for one's aid in imagining the situtation or describing it in an exciting way. They do not represent hard rules. For example, youu can assume that someone is parrying your attacks with their weapon. But if you use this as any more than to help you imagining what is happening, then someone can start claiming extra attacks against a snake or a gelantous cube since they can't be parrying? Third, D&D does have specific rules for attacking objects and helpless opponents. I think it is fair to say that when attacking a helpless person or an object these rules are more logical to use -- auto hit, auto critical. If I'm trying to hit a lamp, why switch to attacking twice or three times? Why not, line up the auto hit? It is a strange quirk of the rules that hitting an object multiple times may be 'better' than auto-hitting it once. In the real world, you line up the axe and hit the tree. You don't flail at it. Forth, I will point out that time during a combat is also somewhat abstracted. Because of the turn-based nature of combat, it is hard to say that a person gets one chance to hit someone in melee during six seconds, and two chances if they move away. If you could run all the turns together, how long they were actually standing next to each other might only represent a fraction of a second. It is hard to say if you would actually be standing next to a lamp for a full six seconds, or if you moved by it and smashed it as part of a movement. Thus, it is really abstracted how much time out of a six second turn is actually spent on an attack. I realize that if you go too far wondering what makes sense in D&D you go insane.. but still. And I think you are there. They call them attacks of opportunity, but what they REALLY are are Opportunities FOR attacks. You should be given a generic plus to all of these, and then be able to chose to perform one of your iterative attacks, or a std action attack, at this time instead of in normal initiative order. I realise this creates balance problems, but kindof has to be done. The issue is one of perception. D&D is a simulation of a fantasy environment. Not everything relates to reality. Most of the rules relate to things which are clear impossible. However, even sticking with what is possible in real life... D&D is still merely a simulation of it. Like all simulations, it takes short-cuts to simulate complex things using simplified mechanics which can't possible cover every case. In some cases, it makes simplifications for ease of use, fun, time savings, dramatic license, etc. If you look at hit points and reality you realize it is such an over simplification. Real injures reduce movement, stagger opponents, have them slowly bleed to death, fencing matches are over in seconds, etc. Now, there are systems which do a better job simulating these types of injures. However, D&D avoids them because they are too complex, time consuming, and no one wants to play are adventure with a broken ankle from a 10' fall. If you can buy hit point abstraction... despite its obvious flaws... why can't you buy AoO abstraction? I play chess. I don't play it because I think it is an accurate simulation of middle-ages warfare. I play it because the simulation is fun -- not because it simulates middle-ages warfare terribly well.
Jagyr Ebonwood 06-28-07, 07:58 PM	Do you really love the lamp or are you just looking for things around the office and saying you love them? I...I love lamp. P.S. I just wasted my 2000th post on an Anchorman quote. Huzzah!
Paladin_Hiroshi 06-29-07, 11:15 AM	Me and my players have house ruled AoO's because we do historical reenactments, and we like a little more realism, cos we know its a game, but we like it to make sense. We just introduced some rules like being able to trip or grapple on certain AoO's and the major rule: Counter-threatening xD We though that, if two characters are next to 1 enemy, and a character moves away, provoking an attack, should they still get that attack, even though there's a guy waiting to take advantage of a slip in your guard...would the other character get an AoO? (rhetorical xD) We revised some of the rules, so that AoO's come up less, and work out easier.... In regard to your problem, if it's your game, and the players agree.....bwahahahhahahaha
kyeudo 06-29-07, 07:03 PM	Here's a good interpretation: The lamp is constantly provoking AoOs, but no one bothers to take advantage of them, since they save their AoO chances for things that are actualy DANGEROUS. If you have a fighter who wants to take all his AoOs on a lamp every round in combat, let him. Out of combat, it doesn't matter at all.
olshanski_home 06-29-07, 11:09 PM	Kyeudo, the problem is that you are saying you can take as many AoO as you have available against a helpless foe. (a lamp=a helpless foe). So the moment a character is held (via hold person spell), you would allow a fighter with combat reflexes and a 16 dex to unload 4 free attacks on the fellow? It actually makes sense to me. I'd agree that it should be allowed. In most cases, this would appear to make combat reflexes more appealing than coup-de-grace, since AoO doesn't use up any of your actions. The OP pointed out a valid flaw with the d20 rules.
ItaraKoturo 06-30-07, 07:52 AM	The OP pointed out a valid flaw with the d20 rules. Except it's not a mechanical flaw. Mechanically, the system works just fine - AoOs work as intended and balance risk against opportunity when it comes to certain combat options. Now, balance aside, it doesn't make a lot of logical sense, but really, who cares? This has never once come up in my years of playing D&D. I can't imagine why you'd let such a thing get in the way of just playing the game.
Sylian 06-30-07, 08:56 AM	I always thought it was strange that you get an Attack of Opportunity against someone who is casting a spell or shooting a bow, but not against someone who is paralyzed, by say Hold Person.
Nom 07-01-07, 02:09 AM	It's a quirk more than a flaw. The AoO is not there to reward the attacker, but punish the defender. For example, you provoke an AoO for starting concentration, but not for maintaining it. Why? Because if you are maintaining concentration then everyone already has a chance to hit you while your guard is down. However, when you start concentration - especially if it's for a standard action - they don't. Thus the AoO.
Thubby 07-01-07, 02:27 AM	when your engaged in combat, you make dozens of "attacks" most of which are in an effort to make your enemy screw up. the number of attacks you get in a dnd sense is how many of those dozens you can use to actually hurt someone. when an AoO ocures, you get an opportunity that you wouldnt normaly have to turn one of those swings that would otherwise be pointless into a destructive attack if you made a good case in my game i'd probably let you use your AoO against the lamp
Mirage_1 07-01-07, 10:47 AM	Maybe I missed something, but I always wondered why a paralyzed person doesn't automatically provoke AoO each round, but if that paralyzed person casts a still/silent spell they all of a sudden provoke any thoughts?
Prince_of_Parkness 07-01-07, 11:07 AM	Id just make a house rule that a paralyzed person counts as an object for the perpose of attacking