Attacks of Opportunity have often been the plague of many of game. What gets them, how many do you get and why? Does it make a heck of a lot of sense for a person who is fighting enemy b to automatically land one amazing hit on enemy a because he went into his pouch,. Mechanically it can bog down the game. Of course I am a fan that the fewer rolls the better.
I like to think of attacks of opportunity as reactionary hits, things you do on an inpulse against opponents who have let their guard down.
-----------------
When a character provokes an attack of opportunity, treat the person as if they were flatfooted. Deal half the damage to the character. If your opponent succeeded an acrobatic check, ignore executing damage. There is no limit on the number of attacks. However, your initiative is lowered by 2 each time you take an attack of opportunity. You can not lower your initiative below 1.
Any player reduced to 0 or below by an attack of opportunity is instead knocked unconscious.
If this is the second consecutive attack made against this opponent, deal full damage.
-----------------------
When I came up with this rule the idea was to satisfy everyone.
1. PUnish npcs and pcs who perform risky maneuvers in combat
2. Try to figure out what a reactionary action would differ from a deliberate action
3. reward players who perform reactionary attacks on opponents they were already fighting.
4. Try to reduce the book keeping of keeping up on what npc performed an attack of opportunity.
5. Limit attacks of opportunity in combat and strengthen the importance of initiative
Wow, that's actually kind of confusing. Personally, I'd go the other way and make it simpler and faster. All of your AoOs are at 10 + BAB + Str + misc modifiers. Basically, you take 10 on the roll. As you said, it is reactionary, thus a muscle memory and should be consistent, but weak.
*humms to himself in the corner, hoping no one sees that he has no problems with attacks of opportunity and never really had any confusion regarding them*
Attack of opportunities exist for one reason, to deter people from doing activities that might just invigorate the game. its a punishment system so that your fighter thinks hes cool when he wastes feats on something that he could just do in 2nd ed, with just a penalty to his attack or action roll. Its a minigame mechanic that adds nothing and just slows down game.
I have no problem with the idea of counter attacks, this just has never been it
Sneaksy does have a point, in regards to the "makes you hesitant to try something cool". Maybe the "take 10 on attacks of opportunity" could be used to help in that regards. It certainly makes it easier to decide, rather than the heming and hawing my group sometimes does. You know the gnoll has a +5 attack bonus, after seeing it trade a few blows with the fighter. The fighter has an AC of 18, he can try to trip is without much worry. The mage has an AC of 14, he decides against it.
Although that might be a bit too "cut and dry" for a lot of tastes, including mine. Still, food for thought....
Sneaksy does have a point, in regards to the "makes you hesitant to try something cool". Maybe the "take 10 on attacks of opportunity" could be used to help in that regards. It certainly makes it easier to decide, rather than the heming and hawing my group sometimes does. You know the gnoll has a +5 attack bonus, after seeing it trade a few blows with the fighter. The fighter has an AC of 18, he can try to trip is without much worry. The mage has an AC of 14, he decides against it.
Although that might be a bit too "cut and dry" for a lot of tastes, including mine. Still, food for thought....
The initiative may be a bit too much (the lowering) for anyone who doesn't use a spreadsheet like i do.
I don't think that a person should be killed from a reaction. (though it is possible it is less likely). I like the idea of comparing the DC of one character to the CMB of another. It's not too restrictive on the person's turn, If the dm does not have the cmb of all his players he could simply ask it and then ask for damage. I still would rather only have half of the damage considering it is a reaction and not a full blow. Or something to the effect of (roll half of the die rounded down that you normally would roll for damage). You can round down to 0.Of course, this could be combined with some type of multiple damage die alternative for multiple attacks (which aren't really multiple attacks but multiple hits which techincailly depends on the flavor of your game).
I'm the DM and I have a player who hates AOOs. The player isn't dumb but he refuses to learn the AOO rule(s) and every game he will attempt something that causes an AOO and start the complaining. Don't ask me what happens when a monster with reach gets an AOO on him, just suffice to say that the game bogs down into an argument that can get heated.
I say this just to outline that I think about AOOs and the rules regarding them quite a bit. First of all I like them as I feel they add an element of risk to combat. Certain actions a character takes come with risk. Now remember combat is abstract, all the PCs, NPCs, and monsters are acting simultaneously. It is simply played out in a one goes at a time mode.
I don't see an AOO as an extra out of turn attack, it is an attack that all creatures in combat get each round if they wield a melee weapon and something they threaten lets their guard down i.e. performs some risky action. That sounds pretty cool to me. The designers could have come up with some other abstract penalty for performing a risky action like "The creature performing a risky action is considered flat-footed until the beginning of its next turn" OR "All melee attacks and ranged attacks from within 30' against the creaure who performed a risky action gain an extra 1d6 damage until the beginning of the creatures next turn."
Anyway you slice it it is just some abstract penalty for performing some risky action while in melee combat. Could have been a lowering of AC, or attacks against you do more damage, or extra attacks. You could likely think of other penalties that could be applied. I like the AOO one the best as there are limitations to what ones enemies can do i.e. without some feat a creature only gets 1 AOO a round and only enemies that threaten you at that moment get an extra attack. Better than applying a penalty to the creature who provokes as that would apply against all enemies for an entire round.
Eric.
|
I agree, AOO slow down the game and limit peoples actions. Now I do think certain actions should carry some kind of penalty when in melee. I like the lowering AC idea, as doing this risky action takes your concentration and leaves you open to attacks. I'd go with instead of AOO, when performing a "risky action" you are considered flat-footed until your next action. So that way you loose your dex bonus to AC and leaves you open to sneak attacks too.
I actually think I'm going to try this out in my pathfinder game and see what people think.
Am I the only one who thinks AoO should increase at the same rate as getting additional attacks?
When we went to C&C, it was good riddance to attacks of opportunity and hello fast flowing combat that rewarded creativity. That being said, for backwards compatability, AoO need to be there and they need to do pretty much what they always did.
Contributor
|
I mostly like the AoO rules the way they are. I'm sometimes tempted to make them more involved (and I like the above suggestion of increasing the number with iterative attacks). As a person who practices historical sword combat, I believe that AoO are extremely representative of the reality of combat, except that more things should provoke them. Of course, that WOULD slow combat to a crawl, which I don't find the current system does. None of my group have trouble understanding or implementing the AoO rules, and everybody who wants to find a way to take those risky actions can make it happen, what with tumble, combat casting, spring attack etc.
The only time people get burned by AoO in my games are when they choose to take the hit for the team, or when they take a risk (I'm going to guess he doesn't have Combat reflexes... whoops) or when someone has some splat-book special power like close-quarters fighting that is designed to burn people.
Honestly, if AoO get taken out of Pathfinder, I'll house-rule them right back in. It would be too big a detriment to my group's enjoyment of the tactical aspect of the game, and our perception of game-world reality.
One of the main problems with the system now is that a player whom is about to make an attack or has been dueling with one npc, all of asudden catches another npc doing something that drops his guard, stops fighting him and begins to attack the other player.
I don't think that a of os are all that neccessary for backwards compatability. No more than the grapple rules are.
Doing away with the attack all together is an interesting approach. Characters who would have provoked an attack of opportunity is instead flat footed until their next turn, losing their AC. This makes me not mind extra attacks as base attack goes up.
Here's something to throw up. What if flat footed raised all crit ranges by 1. This way there is still the extra chance of more damage.
It sure would make flat footed more than just checked at the beginning of the round. and all of the "improved" feats could simply say it prevents being flat footed for that particular action.
Combat reflexes would just have to be altered. Perhaps adding a bonus against attacks on flat footed opponents
The only problem I see is keeping track of who is flat footed and who isn't.
One of the main problems with the system now is that a player whom is about to make an attack or has been dueling with one npc, all of asudden catches another npc doing something that drops his guard, stops fighting him and begins to attack the other player.I don't think that a of os are all that neccessary for backwards compatability. No more than the grapple rules are.
Doing away with the attack all together is an interesting approach. Characters who would have provoked an attack of opportunity is instead flat footed until their next turn, losing their AC. This makes me not mind extra attacks as base attack goes up.
Here's something to throw up. What if flat footed raised all crit ranges by 1. This way there is still the extra chance of more damage.
It sure would make flat footed more than just checked at the beginning of the round. and all of the "improved" feats could simply say it prevents being flat footed for that particular action.
Combat reflexes would just have to be altered. Perhaps adding a bonus against attacks on flat footed opponents
The only problem I see is keeping track of who is flat footed and who isn't.
I see a much bigger problem. Okay, never mind, there's no problem. Let's use that system. I call rogue ;)
Seriously, I think the system works as is.|
|
I have found that once you actually read the rule book instead of flipping through it, AoO (and grapple, and reach, and everything else)makes total sense. Unless you are a dullard (or an ignoramus). I have a player whose is a dullard. He hates AoO and grapple, etc. Everyone else is smart, they think the rules are just the bee's knees.