One thing that I think irritates almost everyone, but especially new players, is the concept of Attacks of Opportunity. Well, this is the case in my playtest.
Now... I like them, and I am not making the case for their redaction. However, I refuse to believe we can't define them more concisely than a chart that includes every action in the bloody game.
So what is an attack of opportunity?
Try: "Your opponent is allowed to attack you when you let your guard down within reach of their weapons."
This doesn't quite cut it, it still requires an explanation of movement, and there is a long list of actions that do not fall under the above definition (sunder? WHY?). So please, forum, take a shot: define what it is about an action that makes it incur an AoO.
I think AoO's are dumb and mire down combat.
I think they are unnecessary was well, nd I actually dont use them in any of my camapigns with players that are inexpereinced and only use them when players are present who played in games with them and are used to them.
I think they should be dumped just to clean up combat.
SUNDER. This one should really be taken off the AoO-provoking list.
(I mean, how is this different than just Power Attacking?)
I'd really be happy if ALL Maneuvers didn't provoke AoO's,
albeit Unarmed Maneuvers would without Improved Unarmed.
...well, with those gone, at least things would be clearer... 8-/
This is weak but looking at table 9-2, I only see one theme. Unless you are doing something that looks threatening (draw weapon) or scarey (redirect spell) they get an AoO. Basically you have to be doing something aggressive, else the other guy gets an AoO. Off the table, the AoO pattern seems to be similar in that you are so busy doing something extra (like moving or making a special attack) that you leave yourself open. I therefore say unless you are physically threatening them 100% of the time, they get an AoO. I would include pointing a wand, casting a cone area of effect spell, or having your hands glow with a touch spell should be threatening.
Some things are a stretch to reach this definition. But maybe that means they should cause an AoO? (I think that is where you are going with this.) I could see someone being stabbed while trying to draw that sword. So Combat Maneuvers mean that you are not threatening UNTIL YOU SUCCEED. Think of it as the inexperienced brawler drawing his hand back for a haymaker but the other guy bopping him in the nose first.
FYI, I do think that we should have more non-magical Swift Actions. These should be so quick they do not cause an AoO. But I don't think alot of people agree with me. But if I wrote the rules, I would say Swift Actions never cause an AoO, Move actions always cause them and Standard Actions that do not 'affect' your opponent cause them. (I say 'affect' so Escape Grapple does not cause one).
I would have to agree with you guys that AoO's are pretty useless in combat. Wow!! An extra attack, whoopdy doo!!! No real significance there.
However, if PF wanted to go a different route than 3.5, it would not only allow AoO's but to have it where you can use special abilities or feats. I think this would add to the value of having AoO's in the game, but if they keep it the same as 3.5 where you would just get an attack, then I would rather not have it in the game at all.
I would have to agree with you guys that AoO's are pretty useless in combat. Wow!! An extra attack, whoopdy doo!!! No real significance there.
Tell that to the raging, full power-attacking half-orc barbarian with rogue levels and sneak-attack dice, Improved Critical, and his rapier.
AoO do one very important thing: introduce consequence to certain actions that otherwise would be trivial. Consideration and tactics are very much a vibrant part of D20.
|
Although they do increase complexity, I also think they are a useful tactical element. AOOs seem like a standardization of the rule (possibly a house rule of ours) about a character being subject to one parting shot when they broke away from a melee engagement with another character.
That being said, I think the rules as written make Acrobatics too much of a must-have skill for melee combatants. The amount of tumbling going on in my party to avoid AOOs is pretty amazing (not a Pathfinder problem, it was this way in 3E as well).
From looking over the list of combat maneuvers, my take is that the actions that provoke AOOs are those that appear to be, shall we say, tactically unwise while in a threatened square. Let's be clear: there is a guy standing next to you trying to gut you with a sword, and you're going to stand there and drink a potion?
(cue Club Obi-Wan melee from Temple of Doom) Okay, yeah, whatever.
|
I would have to agree with you guys that AoO's are pretty useless in combat. Wow!! An extra attack, whoopdy doo!!! No real significance there.Tell that to the raging, full power-attacking half-orc barbarian with rogue levels and sneak-attack dice, Improved Critical, and his rapier.
AoO do one very important thing: introduce consequence to certain actions that otherwise would be trivial. Consideration and tactics are very much a vibrant part of D20.
I absolutely agree with you. My group DREADS AoO. They have learned to be cautious in combat. Our only hang up with attacks of opportunity is answering an AoO with an action which ALSO provokes an AoO. Everything else seems simple and straightforward.
Whether or not you feel that AoOs should stay, we have to accept that they probably will stay. My hear goes out to the dissenters, but it as simple to ignore AoOs in Pathfinder as it was in 3.5. If you ignore them now, more power to you.
Now, for those of us who like them, use them, and have to explain them to new players: We need to redefine. And yes, there are several actions that incur an AoO but don't seem to match the "conceptual space". I think this is another manifestation of the old "Gamist/simulationist" dichotomy: there are those who think AoOs are intended to balance certain actions, and those who think that AoOs represent a character letting their guard down.
The status quo favors the gamist explanation. I humbly ask that we might find a definition that allows for both.
An easy way to think of it is "Most standard or full-round actions which aren't attacks provoke, as does movement in an enemy's threatened sqaures".
I personally like attack's of opppertuniy, my only problem is that I think they're too easy to overcome (I've yet to see a character with tumble ranks take a hit whilst rushing past an enemy).
An easy way to think of it is "Most standard or full-round actions which aren't attacks provoke, as does movement in an enemy's threatened sqaures".
I personally like attack's of opppertuniy, my only problem is that I think they're too easy to overcome (I've yet to see a character with tumble ranks take a hit whilst rushing past an enemy).
...And Movement itself is a Standard or Full-Round Action which isn't an Attack, after all.
Personally, I think the Tumble vs. CMB with scaling w/ multiple opponents IS reasonably balanced.(and failing means you stop right where you are, which can majorly suck)
Toy Robots, could you just clarify which exact examples you're thinking of when you write:
"several actions that incur an AoO but don't seem to match the "conceptual space"?
Or are you meaning certain examples strongly "don't work" with ONE of the Gamist/Simulationist perspectives?
An easy way to think of it is "Most standard or full-round actions which aren't attacks provoke, as does movement in an enemy's threatened sqaures".
I personally like attack's of opppertuniy, my only problem is that I think they're too easy to overcome (I've yet to see a character with tumble ranks take a hit whilst rushing past an enemy).
Not saying it wasn't easy to avoid AoO's in 3.5 but I think pathfinder is significantly harder...
Situation Base Acrobatics DC (1)
Move through a threatened area 15 + opponent’s
base attack bonus
Move through an enemy’s space 20 + opponent’s
base attack bonus
1 This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to
movement. This penalty increases by +2 for each additional
opponent avoided in one round.
|
|
SUNDER. This one should really be taken off the AoO-provoking list.
(I mean, how is this different than just Power Attacking?)
I'd really be happy if ALL Maneuvers didn't provoke AoO's,
albeit Unarmed Maneuvers would without Improved Unarmed....well, with those gone, at least things would be clearer... 8-/
The biggest thing that provides an opening for an attack in close combat is . . . making an attack.
It is impossible to attack someone without creating an opening on yourself in the process.Given that combat is supposed to assume the general give and take of an exchange of blows, then indeed, no maneuver should provoke an AoO since those are assumed as the normal attack sequence of the opponent anyway.
|
|
This is weak but looking at table 9-2, I only see one theme. Unless you are doing something that looks threatening (draw weapon) or scarey (redirect spell) they get an AoO. Basically you have to be doing something aggressive, else the other guy gets an AoO. Off the table, the AoO pattern seems to be similar in that you are so busy doing something extra (like moving or making a special attack) that you leave yourself open. I therefore say unless you are physically threatening them 100% of the time, they get an AoO. I would include pointing a wand, casting a cone area of effect spell, or having your hands glow with a touch spell should be threatening.
The biggest issue is trying to define everything.
In AD&D, you drew an AoO (techically, gave your opponent a free attack), if you cast a spell in melee or you broke contact in melee (later modified to allow spending a deliberate action to withdraw to avoid the attack).With more than a dozen specific actions now defined, each must be classified as to where it fits in that scheme. Of course, I have seen "experienced" AD&D players not comprehend that maneuvers that would draw such a free attack in AD&D also provoke them in 3E/3.5, so it is hardly just new people who can get confused.
This is weak but looking at table 9-2, I only see one theme. ....
The biggest issue is trying to define everything.
....
I am guessing that the original posters intent was to figure out a mechanic for when AoO's occur. This would help both for new situations and allow you to not refer to the Actions in Combat table all the time. For example, the mechanic might be that you draw an AoO if you do not have a chance of giving damage. The mechanic I just stated is not adequate, but something like that. Then you don't need to define anything (although we probably would define the most common things), you just apply the mechanic to determine if it causes an AoO.
This is not a house rule or even a suggestion to change the rules, but in my mind my hypothesis that Swift Actions do not cause an AoO, that Move Actions always causes an AoO and that Standard Actions cause an AoO if it does not negatively affect the opponent is a good start. I am guessing the OP is also open to reclassifying AoO's if the mechanic suggests it is necessary to apply a Unified Theory to AoO.
Does 'negatively affect the opponent' adequately cover things like Escape Grapple and Fighting Defensively?
So: Unified AoO Theory?
A Standard or Full Round Action which is not focused on Physical Threat provokes.
Move Actions therefore provoke.
Fighting Defensively is still a Standard/Full Attack Action.
Full Defense increases your AC, but since it's basically NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE (like Moving, Casting, etc), what it IS doing still is "Focusing on Physical Threat" but with the sole aim to avoid it.
Escape Grapple is essentially an alternate Grapple Roll, and is thus "Focused on Physical Threat".
(That it's basically Defensive-focused is more or less similar to Full Defense)
Likewise, Tumble allows you to focus your Standard/Full Round Moves vs. Physical Threat, not provoking.
Un-Improved Unarmed Attacks are thought to not be adequate to deal with (Armed) Physical Threat, and likewise don't grant the "Armed" Condition (without Feat) which enable AoO's in the first place.
...?