|
Of course, these are only my current thoughts on the issue.. I am, as always, open to debate and suggestion. Can anyone give me some actual playtest feedback on how this has affected play?Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I can, I can actually give you a lot of feedback on how this has affected play on both sides of the isle. The groups I play in were under the same misaprehension that CMBs that were attacks (i.e. disarm and trip) could be used as AoOs. In my most recent use I triped an enemy as an AoO, now about the only issue I can see is that you are taking an AoO and if you don't have a feat you provoke the AoO which the DM didn't take because his creature was trying to run away, but the basic problem is that it's an AoO oppening up an AoO, what if the enemy in response to my trip decides to use his AoO to disarm me, opening up an AoO for me since technically I haven't actually taken an AoO yet. Then since his AoO provoked an AoO lets say I took my AoO to prevent his disarm attempt, then technically he wouldn't have been able to make that disarm because I can't make my trip attempt and therefore never provoked the disarm attempt in the first place. I know that technically you used your AoO just by declaring your trip attempt and thus you shouldn't get to make an AoO against his CMB unless you have the combat reflex feat, but if there is one thing this playtest has taught me is that someone will argue that point and say that the fact that we are arguing means clarification is needed.
See that is the kind of sillyness that I'm talking about, one solution is to say that no you can't make CMBs as AoOs, and then the improved feats that work as an attack roll add a line saying, you may perform this manuever as part of an AoO.
When characters have the improved feat (DMs and Monsters both) then the resolution becomes much simpler. As for the action denial, it doesn't really, if it works, it might prevent a single action, but really characters have three actions a turn. I've been in a scenario where I was tripped while trying to make it to an ally to heal him. I lost the move action, so instead I took a double move to stand (luckily he didn't have Combat reflexes) and then a swift action to heal myself. That is about the only issue you're dealing with, a tripper with Combat reflexes recreating the lockdown. I'm not that worried since as it stands that is a three feat combo to make it work and can be defeated by someone accepting an AoO to crawl away and then get up instead of get up next to the guy.
As for the loss of actions, Maybe in a few very rare instances, a narrow hallway with multiple opponents all of whom have not already taken their AoO's could it become something akin to a lockdown scenario.
Some minor rules snatches might be full round actions like charge, where they get triped by someone they are passing to charge another guy. then getting tripped does by the rules shut them down (unless they have swift action abilities which there are a lot more of now).
But having played in two games where we have CMBs as doable for AoOs no it hasn't become a problem for either the players or the DM.
I thought you still could use a combat maneuver for your AoO, as long as it was one that used an attack such as disarm or trip, instead of one that used up a full action, like bull rush or grapple.
This is my understanding as well.
Here's how my group is handling it (under 3.5E rules):
a) Allow maneuvers only for those who have the 'Improved ...' feat, to give these feats more meaning and make them really about options, not just about pluses;
b) Trust in the players not to exploit the AoO loop (Trip as an AoO, enemy wants to rise on his next action, provoking another AoO, getting tripped again, ... ad infinitum).
...
b) Trust in the players not to exploit the AoO loop (Trip as an AoO, enemy wants to rise on his next action, provoking another AoO, getting tripped again, ... ad infinitum).
Doesn't an AoO occur just before the action causing it? So you couldn't trip someone attempting to get up from prone with an AoO since he's still prone when you get the AoO?
|
|
Doesn't an AoO occur just before the action causing it? So you couldn't trip someone attempting to get up from prone with an AoO since he's still prone when you get the AoO?...
b) Trust in the players not to exploit the AoO loop (Trip as an AoO, enemy wants to rise on his next action, provoking another AoO, getting tripped again, ... ad infinitum).
It happens during, sort of an interupting action.
It happens during, sort of an interupting action....
Doesn't an AoO occur just before the action causing it? So you couldn't trip someone attempting to get up from prone with an AoO since he's still prone when you get the AoO?
Isn't the victim still prone then? The action being incomplete. I saw it's not in the rules but I'm sure this was adressed, probably in an FAQ. It really deals with the chain tripping (and other similar issues) very simply, IMO.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
It happens during, sort of an interupting action....
Doesn't an AoO occur just before the action causing it? So you couldn't trip someone attempting to get up from prone with an AoO since he's still prone when you get the AoO?
Isn't the victim still prone then? The action being incomplete. I saw it's not in the rules but I'm sure this was adressed, probably in an FAQ. It really deals with the chain tripping (and other similar issues) very simply, IMO.
This is correct from what I recall. They're still prone, so while they provoke an AoO, they can't be tripped with it since they're not yet standing. Same goes for a disarm on someone trying to pick their weapon off the ground - they don't have it yet, so you can't disarm them (though in that case, you could then trip with your AoO.)
Well for "playtesting" experience... we've been using the standard method (maneuvers on AoO) for the past 8 years with a more complicated form of maneuvers.
It's the main reason why the consolidation to CMB was so great, because it made situations like these so much easier to adjudicate.
If it's been fine for us for the past 8 years, I don't see why it would suddenly be bad with the newer easier to run rules now.
And for what its worth, I really don't want to see it limited to people with the corresponding improved feat, as this really kills spontaneous planning. Not everyone is going to think ahead about AoO. I'm almost more willing to say that someone provoking an AoO cannot react to someone else provoking an AoO, and allow that to be the simplification, if one is needed.
|
I can, I can actually give you a lot of feedback on how this has affected play on both sides of the isle. The groups I play in were under the same misaprehension that CMBs that were attacks (i.e. disarm and trip) could be used as AoOs. In my most recent use I triped an enemy as an AoO, now about the only issue I can see is that you are taking an AoO and if you don't have a feat you provoke the AoO which the DM didn't take because his creature was trying to run away, but the basic problem is that it's an AoO oppening up an AoO, what if the enemy in response to my trip decides to use his AoO to disarm me, opening up an AoO for me since technically I haven't actually taken an AoO yet. Then since his AoO provoked an AoO lets say I took my AoO to prevent his disarm attempt, then technically he wouldn't have been able to make that disarm because I can't make my trip attempt and therefore never provoked the disarm attempt in the first place. I know that technically you used your AoO just by declaring your trip attempt and thus you shouldn't get to make an AoO against his CMB unless you have the combat reflex feat, but if there is one thing this playtest has taught me is that someone will argue that point and say that the fact that we are arguing means clarification is needed.See that is the kind of sillyness that I'm talking about, one solution is to say that no you can't make CMBs as AoOs, and then the improved feats that work as an attack roll add a line saying, you may perform this manuever as part of an AoO.
I'd favour ruling that whatever you do for your AoO action, it can't provoke an AoO on you. It's nice and simple, and I can't think (offhand) of it causing any serious issues.
|
On the 'infinite trip' note, this was clarified by Wizards multiple times while 3.5 was going. When making an AoO, the opponent is treated as if they haven't completed their action yet. In the case of getting up from prone, the AoO should be made as if they are still prone (so likely a +4 to hit) which also means they cannot be tripped again.
I really don't see how people could view not being able to use a CM-as-AoO as something that makes combat over simplistic and keeps the fighter from being proud. If you want to do these things, do them on your own turn, or ready an action. I also don't see how the full plate fighter who just power attacked three times in a round is nerfed because he can only attack AGAIN (when it isn't even his turn!) at his highest modifier, instead of tripping.
All of these arguments about it adding flavor, diversity, cinematics, etc. If you demand that kind of play even in the middle of someone else's turn, just make an AoO a regular standard action and let everyone get in on it... or even a full round action... that would make combat more dynamic for sure.
I think the confusion about trip on this very thread is a perfect example of the kind of confusion and complexity that is always going to come up during maneuvers. And if you think trip is bad, do you really want to be looking up hardness and hip-points for a magic weapon or whatever when people start sundering as an AoO?
I'll be real honest, I'm not even sure what part of the book hardness and HP of magic weapons is located, and in the middle of an AoO is not when I want to have to look it up before play can resume.
I think I may be the only one, but I say NO to maneuvers as a part of a AoO, even with the feats.
|
|
I really don't see how people could view not being able to use a CM-as-AoO as something that makes combat over simplistic and keeps the fighter from being proud. If you want to do these things, do them on your own turn, or ready an action. I also don't see how the full plate fighter who just power attacked three times in a round is nerfed because he can only attack AGAIN (when it isn't even his turn!) at his highest modifier, instead of tripping.
All of these arguments about it adding flavor, diversity, cinematics, etc. If you demand that kind of play even in the middle of someone else's turn, just make an AoO a regular standard action and let everyone get in on it... or even a full round action... that would make combat more dynamic for sure.
I think the confusion about trip on this very thread is a perfect example of the kind of confusion and complexity that is always going to come up during maneuvers. And if you think trip is bad, do you really want to be looking up hardness and hip-points for a magic weapon or whatever when people start sundering as an AoO?
I'll be real honest, I'm not even sure what part of the book hardness and HP of magic weapons is located, and in the middle of an AoO is not when I want to have to look it up before play can resume.
I think I may be the only one, but I say NO to maneuvers as a part of a AoO, even with the feats.
A base list of weapon hardness and hp can be found on the last page of chapter 8, magic weapons add +1 to hardness and hp for each +1, Armour and shield add +2 to hardness and 10 hp per +1. Note that's actual +1, not special abilities. I printed out the page with hardness and hp and now adjudicating sunder on the fly takes all of 5 seconds.
And my wizard will force cage your fighter :P.
CMBs as part of AoOs is not that hard to adjudicate if you familiarize yourself with the CMB rules. It's a lot easier to do on the fly now, and the beta pdf makes making reminder flash cards sooo easy to make. I have em for the grappled condition, the weapon hardness and hp chart, and each CMB. As such the time it takes to adjudicate AoO CMBs is the exact same as a normal attack. And a simple clarification on AoOs is all it will take to fix the confusion, not a total ban.
As for the balance, is it unbalancing to allow CMBs as AoOs? you haven't actually said it was, you just find it too confusing and game slowing. I'm sorry, I need more to convince me that they shouldn't be part of the game when my gaming simulationist style says they should.
"I'm sorry, I need more to convince me that they shouldn't be part of the game when my gaming simulationist style says they should."
Much to your credit, I think they could be a fine part of your game, and thanks to the flash cards, print-outs, and your grasp of the rules, I doubt you would have trouble. I would guess that many DM's (especially me) are not as well organized, and would have to go reaching for the rule book when these situations arise. Granted, there will be much less rule checking as time goes on, but right now, I would rather keep the books open to what I'm doing, (or about to do to someone), then search for a table to resolve an AoO.
I think we agree that the balance of the game is not really affected by this adjudication, although I could see more of the large monsters with reach taking maneuver feats, but that isn't really the issue.
I see AoO's as a necessary interruption to the flow of combat and that disruption should be minimized. I think you have done that through skill and preparation, but I don't expect everyone (especially new DM's and players) to be as skilled.
Note: Before in this thread we debated if Zombies are allowed AoO's. What do you think?
|
|
And for what its worth, I really don't want to see it limited to people with the corresponding improved feat, as this really kills spontaneous planning. Not everyone is going to think ahead about AoO. I'm almost more willing to say that someone provoking an AoO cannot react to someone else provoking an AoO, and allow that to be the simplification, if one is needed.
AGREED!!!!!
I actually do see this as something that affects game balance a bit.
If the fighter is resigned to just doing damage on an AoO, he has less impact on the foe's plans than if he can trip them. Even buffed up and hunting for bear most monsters are going to be able to absorb the damage and just keep moving past him, straight to their target.
If he can trip them than means he'll have a chance at a full attack next turn, that's going to do significantly more damage than the single AoO. It also means he has a way to make them spend an action doing something they don't want to do, namely getting back up. He can actually protect the caster and have some battlefield control which the fighter really needs.
Currently it's not that hard to adjucate either. Roll CMB, is it high enough? Yes the target is tripped, etc. if No then the target isn't.
There are plenty of ways for monsters to still bypass the fighter, this would just insure that when you get in his area you WILL notice he is there.
Finally it's still very believable that someone would choose a disarm or trip action instead of a simple attack. Think about in action movies when two people are racing to get to the artifact. They grab, trip and disarm each other the whole way, everytime they get a chance. It also seems a bit odd to me to say "you can do this in the middle of pressing a full attack, but not when someone is running past you not paying attention to their defense."
|
|
I think we agree that the balance of the game is not really affected by this adjudication, although I could see more of the large monsters with reach taking maneuver feats, but that isn't really the issue.
no, not the balance... just the fun
but hey each to their ownand believe me i don't have tables or things like that i reach for the book or things like that,my players sometimes help me when i don't find soemthing so i may continue running the game, but sionce theyhave fun with this alternatives they let me slow a bit.
and its more fun than just hit again and again or use spell after spell to lay down enemies.
i understand your worry, but really ever AoO becomes a combat Maneuver or it becomes a tactical situation instead of a it more of smack?
lots of wisdom
excellent points!
and no Zombis hae shown unable to AoO... ok in their turn they grab you while other bite you... only zombies like the ones in left4dead that are more than ghouls with extra speed and actions get to AoO anyone
|
|
If you want to curtail maneuvers, why not allow characters with improved trip/disarm/etc (or even greater trip/disarm/etc) to use them as attacks of opportunity? It would make those feats slighty more valuable to take ...
I like this idea. A LOT.
In my games the only AoO's you get are standard attacks, the special attacks (combat maneuvers) as AoO's were too powerful. (Gattling Tripper builds for instance...)
- - -
Can someone point out where the no AoO trip vs standing up rule is? I would love to see it. AND where is it in the rules (3.5) that states you can use special attacks as AoO's. This has been the source of many agruments and I would love to see it.
AoO looping is very easy to adjudicate. Add one line to the text of PFRPG somewhere: you can not make an attack of opportunity while you are provoking an attack of opportunity. If you want to go wild and crazy, add an example. For example, a spellcaster who provokes an attack of opportunity by casting while threatened cannot in turn make an attack of opportunity if his foe decides to grapple him, regardless of if his foe lacks Improved Grapple. This is far more rational than outright banning CMB during AoO.
AoO looping is very easy to adjudicate. Add one line to the text of PFRPG somewhere: you can not make an attack of opportunity while you are provoking an attack of opportunity. If you want to go wild and crazy, add an example. For example, a spellcaster who provokes an attack of opportunity by casting while threatened cannot in turn make an attack of opportunity if his foe decides to grapple him, regardless of if his foe lacks Improved Grapple. This is far more rational than outright banning CMB during AoO.
Agreed.
|
|
AoO looping is very easy to adjudicate. Add one line to the text of PFRPG somewhere: you can not make an attack of opportunity while you are provoking an attack of opportunity. If you want to go wild and crazy, add an example. For example, a spellcaster who provokes an attack of opportunity by casting while threatened cannot in turn make an attack of opportunity if his foe decides to grapple him, regardless of if his foe lacks Improved Grapple. This is far more rational than outright banning CMB during AoO.
If you're too distracted to defend yourself, you're surely too distracted to take advantage of someone else in the same position. I think that's a very simple solution to adding this very good martial character bonus to combat.
|
|
Just to be clear as to my use of CMs as AoO: I allow them when the CMs doesn't cause AoO themselves, i.e.: The attacker as reach, the victims isn't threatening (no melee weapon in hand) or the attacker as an Improved CM feat....
Furthermore, if you make an AoO as a maneuver and you don't have the imp feat, your AoO now provokes an AoO and now it just gets silly.
So perhaps limiting the AoOs as maneuvers that you have feats to substantiate it is the way to go.
Robert
For an explanation...
As it is in 3.5:
You CAN make a special combat maneuver in lieu of your combat maneuver (someone who pointed out that a fighter who just Power Attacked full is capable of making the AoO at full BAB is unfair using the PF rules - would see that in 3.5 PA did affect the maneuvers - since many required opposed attack rolls such as Disarm and Sunder, while others required touch attacks - such as Trip, or Grapple).
IF the maneuver you make as you AoO provoked and AoO (such as a Disarm attempt by someone who doesn't have Imp. Disarm), then the first other person who just provoked an AoO himself, can now make one against the guy trying to perform the disarm as an AoO.
Provided neither of the opponents have Combat Reflexes; once the AoO is resolved against the disarm, resolve the AoO made for the disarm. Then if the first combatant can still do what he initially wanted to do - resolve that action now
Its worth noting here that if one or both had Combat Reflexes they could continue to provoke AoOs from each other for each time they try to do an AoO that provoked another AoO; this is the silliness I suggested.
Futhermore, it's worth noting that if one or the other combatant couldn't threaten the other at the time of provoking the AoO, (due to reach for instance), you don't actually provoke; so you could try to disarm even without the Imp. Disarm and if you have reach, (and your disarm target doesn't), you still don't provoke the AoO.
As it stands in PF:
Jason indicated he was preferring a system that removed all of that - allowing no Combat Maneuvers as an AoO.
What I was proposing was a middle ground:
Either -
1_ Allow a Combat Maneuver as an AoO but ONLY if the person has the "Improved X feat" of that maneuver
or
2_ Allow a Combat Maneuver as an AoO, but only if the AoO you take does not in turn provoke the AoO (either via reach, the person is Flat-Footed, or if you have the Imp. X Feat).
Robert
|
|
AoO looping is very easy to adjudicate. Add one line to the text of PFRPG somewhere: you can not make an attack of opportunity while you are provoking an attack of opportunity. If you want to go wild and crazy, add an example. For example, a spellcaster who provokes an attack of opportunity by casting while threatened cannot in turn make an attack of opportunity if his foe decides to grapple him, regardless of if his foe lacks Improved Grapple. This is far more rational than outright banning CMB during AoO.
I agree with the end result, but not the mechanic.
Instead, I propose:
"You cannot take an AoO that WOULD in turn provoke an AoO from your foe."
Robert
|
|
It happens during, sort of an interupting action.Doesn't an AoO occur just before the action causing it? So you couldn't trip someone attempting to get up from prone with an AoO since he's still prone when you get the AoO?...
b) Trust in the players not to exploit the AoO loop (Trip as an AoO, enemy wants to rise on his next action, provoking another AoO, getting tripped again, ... ad infinitum).
All AoO's that are provoked are essentially done and resolved BEFORE the action that provoked it is resolved.
Thus logic dictates that one trying to stand up (provoking an AoO) would have their AoO resolved BEFORE actually standing up.
Thus he is still prone.
Thus you cannot trip him; though you still get a +4 to attack him (since he's prone).
The horrible loop that was created in 3.5 was:
Alex trips Brad.
Brad tries to stand up.
Alex makes AoO to disarm (with a +4 bonus since he's prone, and since it's an "opposed attack" guy on ground has a -4 for being on ground - that's an 8 point swing in the disarmers favor!)
Brad picks up weapon (its the most lucrative weapon in his inventory and feels he's worthless without it).
Alex makes AoO to trip
Now it's Alex's turn - full attack action while poor Brad is prone.
Brad tries to stand
Alex makes AoO to disarm
Rinse and repeat.
The cliche culprit: Spiked chain wielder with Imp Disarm, Imp. trip, and Combat Reflexes.
I've seen this TOO many times to count.
Robert
|
|
On the 'infinite trip' note, this was clarified by Wizards multiple times while 3.5 was going. When making an AoO, the opponent is treated as if they haven't completed their action yet. In the case of getting up from prone, the AoO should be made as if they are still prone (so likely a +4 to hit) which also means they cannot be tripped again.
WotC has FAQs that specifically address this. Karui is exactly right - you cannot "trip" a prone target. Standing up provokes an AoO - and the target is still prone until AFTER the AoO is resolved - since AoOs are resolved BEFORE the action that provoked it actually happens.
Robert
|
|
[...]
- - -
Can someone point out where the no AoO trip vs standing up rule is? I would love to see it. AND where is it in the rules (3.5) that states you can use special attacks as AoO's. This has been the source of many agruments and I would love to see it.Sure. Here is an exact quote:
When a character gets up from prone, when does the attack of opportunity take place? When he is still prone? When he is standing? Can the attacker choose when to attack? In one case, the attacker can get a +4 bonus to hit. In the other, he can make another trip attack.
All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them (see Chapter 8 in the PH). When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who's getting up, your target is effectively prone, and therefore cannot be tripped. You could ready an action to trip a prone foe after he gets up, however.Regards,
Ruemere
Thanks Ruemere - I don't have access to WotC website at work (thankfully i have access to Paizo - it can be said that my job is alot of reason that I switched to PF - since I needed a distraction while at work, and this was the one site I could get past IT barriers with). :-)
I was going to post that tonight; but you saved me the hassle.
Thanks; that should just about clear this up.
Robert
|
|
That's a good and very valid if completely OT question. I think they should be allowed a single AoO, but I think zombies move to slowly and lack the mental capacity to perform a CMB as an AoO.
Note: Before in this thread we debated if Zombies are allowed AoO's. What do you think?
Well IF we adopt the "cannot make an AoO unless you have the Imp. X Feat, that would work itself out perfect here - since Zombies would certainly lack the Int needed for Combat Expert - and thus Imp. Trip/Disarm.
Robert
|
|
Sure. Here is an exact quote:
When a character gets up from prone, when does the attack of opportunity take place? When he is still prone? When he is standing? Can the attacker choose when to attack? In one case, the attacker can get a +4 bonus to hit. In the other, he can make another trip attack.Thanks!
|
|
That's a good and very valid if completely OT question. I think they should be allowed a single AoO, but I think zombies move to slowly and lack the mental capacity to perform a CMB as an AoO.
Note: Before in this thread we debated if Zombies are allowed AoO's. What do you think?Well IF we adopt the "cannot make an AoO unless you have the Imp. X Feat, that would work itself out perfect here - since Zombies would certainly lack the Int needed for Combat Expert - and thus Imp. Trip/Disarm.
Robert
i insist a rogue watching a fighter run in front of him should need imprioved trip to put his leg in the way so the fighter falls to the ground
|
|
i insist a rogue watching a fighter run in front of him should need imprioved trip to put his leg in the way so the fighter falls to the ground
So, you're saying you agree that making CMs available as AoOs should only happen if the attacker has the Imp.Feat applied to that maneuver?
Just trying to make sure I know you're feelings on it.
Robert
|
|
Something else I thought of:
By disallowing any CMBs as AoOs (at all), also limits the creatures whose physical anatomy is designed for grappling.
Lets say someone tried to move around or cast a spell near and otyugh - should it not be allowed to use it's AoO to initiate the grapple - since it's body and reach are designed as tentacles for doing that very thing.
Robert
The thing about zombies came up because they are limited to a single move action or attack action each round. While AoO are "melee attacks", they are not listed as a type of action, so it falls into a gray area.
I think some creatures such as wolves get to make a trip attempt every time they hit with their bite, and creatures with things like improved grab would still get to initiate a grapple, regardless of if it is a normal attack or AoO.
I'm going to go whip up a Aboleth with improved trip now...
|
|
Hmm.. currently, Combat Maneuvers should not be used as part of an AoO (despite any combat maneuver language issues). I made this change for two reasons...
The first was to streamline the turn sequence. AoO's are disruptive enough as they currently stand, but adding in a Combat Maneuver can easily bog things down.
The second was that I wanted to curtail the use of Combat Maneuvers as an "Action Denial" strategy. Now, I can understand why players like this strategy (its quite effective if done right), but when turned on the players, the game can quickly become no fun for anyone. Through the use of trip, disarm, and grapple, you can usually completely nullify an opponents planned action, or at least hamper it to the point of being insignificant. I am not 100% sure this is good for the game as a whole....
Of course, these are only my current thoughts on the issue.. I am, as always, open to debate and suggestion. Can anyone give me some actual playtest feedback on how this has affected play?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I completely disagree. Not everyone is a "damage" warrior. This denial of CMB manoeuvres for AoOs will lead to everyone playing a barbarian or fighter with a two-handed sword. What else can I do with my dang little halfling rogue/fighter?
|
|
i insist a rogue watching a fighter run in front of him should need imprioved trip to put his leg in the way so the fighter falls to the ground
So, you're saying you agree that making CMs available as AoOs should only happen if the attacker has the Imp.Feat applied to that maneuver?
Just trying to make sure I know you're feelings on it.
Robert
no
quite the contrary i think that circunstances are sometiems more important than trianing, trianing just give you an advantagefor example y someone runs next to you its as easy foir a fighter or a rogue to just put something in the middle, move the leg or something just to make the runner lost his balance even if you lost yours in the process
no grapple in your examples, i use grapple when enemeis fall or are prone...
if they move you can trip or knockback
if they try to use spells i will bull rush or knock, just the logical options
I have not realized this change in the rules until I read this thread. To be honest, as a GM, I've never seen the players choose these options when making an attack of opportunity, and in a campaign of which I'm a PC, I believe I'm the only one who has ever used them as AoO.
I can't agree that using them as AoOs make the game less fun, whether I'm doing it or it's being done to me. If anything, the few times I've done it, it's been fun, and has let me break out of my slog fest.
I can certainly see the confusion of an AoO provoking an AoO and the resolution of actions on the part of the recipient of the AoO. Clarification can solve this.
As far as action interdiction on someone else's turn, I can see why this some don't like this, as in fact I disdain it myself... but I can't agree with it in this case.
A good example of bad action interdiction, are the spells in the PHBII, that can be cast as immediate actions... On my turn I'm about to resolve my actions, when through no fault of my own, a spell caster completely nullifies anything I would have done. What the heck?
The AoO case is different. In drawing an attack of opportunity, I'm deliberately preforming an action that may be dangerous to me. I should expect to take the consequences of such a decision.
The ready action is a good interdiction tool, but has conditions to it that are warranted. You are giving up a standard action to influence some future action on your opponent's part which may or may not occur.
Besides the chain tripper combo messiness, the only other abuse I can think of when addressing this issue is big opponents with reach, as they get AoOs on opponents moving through threatened squares.
But again, my experience tells me otherwise. First off, there are many ways to mitigate this scenario, with Spring Attack, Mobility, Tumbling (now Acrobatics), and other ways I'm sure. In fact, consider the following actual play example and how the players handled it:
In my Age of Worms campaign, while fighting the giants in Kongen Thulnir, I started tacking on a version of the Awesome Blow feat to the giants attacks. I know this isn't in the rules, but it made sense, and I felt made the combat more interesting. I had a feeling the PCs were going to blow through the giants pretty easy anyway, so I wanted to give the giants a little something before they died. The first time I pulled it on the PCs, they asked, "Hey, can they do that?", to which I replied, "Well it they just did didn't they?" (what can I say, the monsters didn't read the MM...)
Anyway, this serves as an example of tripping as part of an AoO. The PC moved toward a giant, provoke an AoO, and got whacked and knocked prone as well as knocked 10' in a direction of the giant's choice. His action was interrupted. The players took it in stride. The tank with the 40+AC provoked, usually didn't get hit, then the other martials, bum rushed that giant and took it out.
Now this example doesn't address some of the problems discussed in this thread (for instance, I did not have to worry about the AoO provoking an AoO as the giants had reach on the PCs), and the mechanics are different, but the outcome is similar.
And it does reinforce my opinions on the matter. It didn't make play less fun, but more so. After the initial shock, of the first knock down, the players made conscious choices on whether or not to provoke the AoO, or rather who should.
So my answer, is make them part of the game and don't hog tie them to feats and such.
I've seen alot of good points here that have solidified my support of Maneuvers-as-AoO's.
Supporting the equivalence of "Maneuvers ARE Attacks" re-inforces CMB's simplification goal.
Making more and more exceptions doesn't.
Distinct from that, there's the AoO which provokes AoO chain mentioned.
Obviously, without Combat Reflexes, AoO's are self-limited.
Perhaps like the stipulation that Movement can only provoke one AoO from a particular opponent, no matter how many threatened squares of theirs you move thru, it could be clarified that you can only provoke one AoO from a specific action type (Movement, Attack Actions, Spellcasting, ?)
...? (That could probably be phrased better, too)
|
|
Maneuvers as AoO's are a common occurrence in my games, stemming from the fact that AoO's do not provoke AoO's (I cannot remember where I read that, but it is in there somewhere I'm sure). If they do not provoke AoO's in return, this opens up the field for fighter-tupes who want to do something flashy and do not have the feats or actions to pull it off.
We started encouraging flashy play while playing Eberron, and it has sort of stuck.
Ryn, who's thinking of the six-fingered man "Kill the dark one and the giant, but leave the third for questioning." Inigo had something to say about that...
AoO looping is very easy to adjudicate. Add one line to the text of PFRPG somewhere: you can not make an attack of opportunity while you are provoking an attack of opportunity. If you want to go wild and crazy, add an example. For example, a spellcaster who provokes an attack of opportunity by casting while threatened cannot in turn make an attack of opportunity if his foe decides to grapple him, regardless of if his foe lacks Improved Grapple. This is far more rational than outright banning CMB during AoO.
I'd go with that and adding the usefull:
All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them. When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who's getting up, your target is effectively prone, and therefore cannot be tripped. You could ready an action to trip a prone foe after he gets up, however.
Heck, I'd enjoy an optional "CMs as AoO" sidebar with that text in it if it hurts to many peoples' game-flow but enought people enjoy the option/variant.
I'm (obviously) with many others here who don't want the melee combatants' only viable strategy to be further gimped because it "slows down play" or is "no fun." Personally, I find that having the wizard sit there and decide which insta-stop spell to use on his turn takes a lot longer than resolving the fighter's grapple AoO.
3.0 was the beginning of the death knell for melee viability at high levels; Pathfinder continues hurtling headlong in that direction. Advanced melee feats and abilities need to be bolstered, not nerfed! But the weakening (or even outright hamstringing) of melee tactics' viability continues: improved grapple (et al) separated into 2 feats each, and reduced from +4 to +2, and maneuvers are much more difficult to perform... and now they can't be used for AoO... Power Attack no longer scales with BAB past a low level... non-melee classes' hp increased across the board... non-melee class skills consolidated, but not fighter class skills... for assassins, spells removed and poisons drastically lowered in effectiveness...
EDIT: I'm very sorry, everyone, for all of the posts like this one, that were apparently nothing more than a waste of everyone's time. Reasoned discussion has failed, but this ranting is a very poor response on my part. Mea culpa.
I'm (obviously) with many others here who don't want the melee combatants' only viable strategy to be further gimped because it "slows down play" or is "no fun." Personally, I find that having the wizard sit there and decide which insta-stop spell to use on his turn takes a lot longer than resolving the fighter's grapple AoO.
I don't have any problem nerfing the 3.0/3.5 Improved Trip feat (not because it's necessarily unbalanced, but because "trip every round" is not any more interesting than "swing a sword every round", IMO). But that doesn't mean that (a) every Improved [Maneuver] feat has to be nerfed, (b) every maneuver needs to be more difficult, and (c) maneuvers as AoOs need to be banned. That's like swatting a fly with an atom bomb!
|
|
I've seen alot of good points here that have solidified my support of Maneuvers-as-AoO's.
Supporting the equivalence of "Maneuvers ARE Attacks" re-inforces CMB's simplification goal.
Making more and more exceptions doesn't.Distinct from that, there's the AoO which provokes AoO chain mentioned.
Obviously, without Combat Reflexes, AoO's are self-limited.
Perhaps like the stipulation that Movement can only provoke one AoO from a particular opponent, no matter how many threatened squares of theirs you move thru, it could be clarified that you can only provoke one AoO from a specific action type (Movement, Attack Actions, Spellcasting, ?)...? (That could probably be phrased better, too)
Thats already the case, Quandary. Provided a defender has Combat Reflexes, he can make multiple AoOs against the same target - but only if they're provoked for different types of actions. He still can only take ONE for the purpose of movement regardless of how many of his threatened squares you walk through.
Robert
AoO looping is very easy to adjudicate. Add one line to the text of PFRPG somewhere: you can not make an attack of opportunity while you are provoking an attack of opportunity. If you want to go wild and crazy, add an example. For example, a spellcaster who provokes an attack of opportunity by casting while threatened cannot in turn make an attack of opportunity if his foe decides to grapple him, regardless of if his foe lacks Improved Grapple. This is far more rational than outright banning CMB during AoO.I'd go with that and adding the usefull:
All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them. When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who's getting up, your target is effectively prone, and therefore cannot be tripped. You could ready an action to trip a prone foe after he gets up, however.
Heck, I'd enjoy an optional "CMs as AoO" sidebar with that text in it if it hurts to many peoples' game-flow but enought people enjoy the option/variant.
To stop the overuse of CMs as AoO perhaps a penalty could be added to the roll when they are used this way. If (for example) there was a -5 modifier to the roll (perhaps mitigated by the relevant improve CM feat) then the choice between normal damage and a CM would be more meaningful. It would also explain why monsters without the relevant feat usually just go for damage.
|
|
Maneuvers as AoO's are a common occurrence in my games, stemming from the fact that AoO's do not provoke AoO's (I cannot remember where I read that, but it is in there somewhere I'm sure).
Actually it's the other way around - the FAQ wizards released for their 3.5 rules has a specific question that addresses that issue and it says that IF someone provokes and AoO, and that attack is in the form of an attack that also would provoke, it does!
For instance, you start to cast a spell, I take an AoO to grab/grapple you - but I don't have Imp. Grapple, allowing you to take an AoO to attack me provided you are armed with a one-handed weapon and actually threaten me. (I say 1-handed since you need one hand free to cast - it would not be possible to have a 2 handed weapon readied if you were beginning to cast.)
Regardless, this is the type of thing that I wouldn't mind seeing removed from the combat sequence. I'm still quite passionate about the notion that CMs should be viable as an AoO; but making it so that you can't perform one IF it would in turn provoke and AoO back is good use of finding middle-ground and simplification.
I'd prefer to word the rule as "You cannot perform an AoO in an attack or maneuver that would in turn provoke an AoO."
As opposed to "You can only perform a CM as an AoO if you have the associated Improved Feat." As I prefer to allow such maneuvers a bit more frequently and openly without limiting it to only those with the feats - just so long as it doesn't in turn provoke an AoO.
Robert
|
|
I'd prefer to word the rule as "You cannot perform an AoO in an attack or maneuver that would in turn provoke an AoO."
As opposed to "You can only perform a CM as an AoO if you have the associated Improved Feat." As I prefer to allow such maneuvers a bit more frequently and openly without limiting it to only those with the feats - just so long as it doesn't in turn provoke an AoO.
Robert
Just thinking out loud - how about "If you declare an action that provokes an AOO, you cannot take an AOO yourself until that action is completed." I mean, you're performing an action that distracts you from your own defense...it makes sense you don't have the ability to take advantage of someone else's distraction.
|
|
Just thinking out loud - how about "If you declare an action that provokes an AOO, you cannot take an AOO yourself until that action is completed." I mean, you're performing an action that distracts you from your own defense...it makes sense you don't have the ability to take advantage of someone else's distraction.
sounds reasonable and pretty much clear