Just wondering what a game would be like if one was to flip Attacks of Opportunity for Range and Melee attacks
Melee attacks Cause Attacks of Opportunity
Range attacks do not
Casting spells would still cause Attacks of Opportunity
Melee touch attacks would casuse attacks of opportunity
Range touch attacks would not.
Well, then no one would ever pick up a (non-reach) melee weapon. Ever. No, not even then. If melee attacks provoked AoOs, then taking a full attack in melee is one of the stupidest things a character could do. Whirlwind Attack would just be suicide, because, if you can use it, then you would provoke an attack of opportunity from multiple enemies.
Under your rule, it would be safer (and thus more logical) to stand full face against a troll and fire a full around of arrows into it than to hack at it with a giant sword.
It would also mean that melee touch attack spells would never be memorized. Why should a mage bother with a melee touch attack, when a ranged touch attack is much better? It works on a stat that the wizard is more likely to have a high stat in (Dex) and can be used in melee or at range while still hitting a touch AC.
What about AoOs with melee weapons? Do they provoke AoOs too? If I am (stupidly) in melee combat with Foe A and a second one (Foe B) runs past me (thus provoking) and I attack it with my AoO, does Foe A get to attack me now, since I made a melee attack and thus provoke? What if I have Combat Reflexes and a decent Dex? Do I get to attack Foe A back, since it also provoked?
If you are going to mess with the AoO rules, don't do this. Do something else. Getting rid of them altogether would be better than this.
Can you explain why you are considering this? What is the aim of this change?
Well i was watching a movie... and thought. That Range Attacks of opportunitie was an attemp in D&D to incurage melee combat. But a more real approch would be for it to be reversed.
Two melee fighter battleing each other would be creating just what you discriped
Ranger Combat would be the safer way to go, which would also explain why most people today carry guns instead of swords.
---------------------------------------------------------------.
It never made since why the guy swinging the big 2-handed battle axe does not cause ""attacks of opportunity"" while the ranger 80 feet back poping off arrow would cause ""attack of opportunity"
----------------------------------------------------------------.
Guess a more even handed idea would be just get rid of "attack of opportunity", for Range combat (range touch spells). But leave the rest alone.
This would promote both melee and range combat, depending on the time area, and what weapons were common and at hand.
That ranger 80 feet back isn't provoking any attacks. Even if it did provoke, who can swing a melee weapon at a target 80 feet away? You only provoke AoOs with a ranged attack if you're threatened by someone with a melee weapon.
Not sure about this idea though it does trigger some thought. Casting a spell or Aiming and firing an arrow at a distant target does take a high level of concentration and leaves the caster/archer open to attacks by adjacent foes whilst they are distracted, fair enough. In melee a swordsman is up close and personal and as concerned with defending himself as with attacking, and timing his attack to avoid opening himself to counter-attacks. Therefore a successful melee attack should not open itself to an attack of opportunity.
However this does give me an idea of how to deal with critical fumbles. Traditional in our game we have a house roll that if you roll a 1 on your attack then you roll a further d6 and on a 1-2 you drop your weapon 3-4 attack anearby friend or 5-6 attack yourself. This makes for some hilarity at times but always seemed a bit ... silly.
I think I am going to try fumbles provoke attacks of opportunity instead. That sounds more elegant. The attack was mistimed or overstretched leaving the attacker open to a counter-attack. (hmm perhaps everyone is doing it this way)
And idea I've been tossing around to speed up play and promote the usage of Combat Maneuvers untrained is to remove Attacks of Opportunity as an automatic thing.
Instead, when you do something that leaves you open to attacks, you get the condition "Exposed" (no puns now) until the beginning of your next turn.
A normal person can't do anything out of turn against someone who becomes exposed, meaning.. no attacks out of turn "automatically".
However, here's how other things interact with this new condition:
- Sneak Attack can be done against an exposed target. (Flanking = treat target as exposed?)
- You have a -2 penalty to AC.
- Combat Reflexes allows making an attack out of turn against someone who gains the exposed condition.
- TWF grants the offhand attack -OR- you can cause one target to become exposed (more targets with additional feats, etc).
- Unbalancing Strike (bonus feat for Monk?), allows a successful attack to make target exposed.
- Rogue (or other combat-low/sneaky class) ability to make enemies in area exposed.
The point of this change would be to make it so there's less "extra attacks" going on, but still have a decent reason to not want to gain this condition.
.
I like the idea of rolling a 1 to provoke Attacks of Oppotunity (or cause the exposed condition in the suggested change). Since people can do combat maneuvers on that attack, it can create the "drop weapon" or "fall down" effects from the side of the attacker, giving it more logical sense.
Well i was watching a movie...
AH! There's the problem! :) Seriously, though, I could see modern handguns not provoking an AoO in melee, 'cause you really don't need to aim much at point blank range. Maybe even rifles. But with most ranged weapons, you can't really be effective while engaged in the "dance of death" that is hand-to-hand combat, especially if the ranged weapon is one that must be reloaded or otherwise set up between each shot (nocking an arrow, loading a bolt onto a crossbow or a bullet into a firearm).
Hitting a target with a bow and arrow is especially tricky while ducking and dodging (not that I've ever tried it, mind you), and you will always see archers take a particular stance when firing (there are probably a couple variations, but they all involve spreading the legs about shoulder width and turning the side of the body toward the target). An attacker with a melee weapon should have very little problem landing a good blow on someone who takes this stance even for a second, hence the RAW regarding ranged attacks and AoO.
OTOH, melee weapons are usually well suited to parrying counterattacks, either with the business end (the blade, etc.) or with the haft (in the case of polearms, axes, and whatnot). The exceptions are melee weapons that rely on a chain to increase the force of the blow, such as a flail or nunchucks. (I HAVE tried this, and I assure you that it is not even worth trying to block an incoming attack with a flail, although I have succeeded in disarming an opponent with well-timed counterattacks using one -- boffer weapons, of course, or I probably wouldn't be here to tell the tale! :))
I think the suggested solution might be a little heavy-handed for what you want, OP.
Mainly because AoOs are melee attacks. Does taking an AoO incur an attack from the target who incurred an attack? What about from other adjacent targets? It sounds very difficult to manage.
I think the original concept was that your enemy got a free attack any time you "let your guard down". For most ranged attacks, you have to stop physically protecting yourself in order to attack, which means you do not want to be winching a crossbow when the guy with the longsword is in arm's reach.
|
That ranger 80 feet back isn't provoking any attacks.
This. To provoke an Attack of Opportunity you must be in the reach of the opponent. For most people fighting with non reach weapons that is five feet. The only way a ranger provokes for ranged attack is if he is right in the guy's face trying to shoot him.
...which would also explain why most people today carry guns instead of swords.
I was having a conversation with some guys at my gaming shop the other day about bringing a handgun to a fistfight. The consensus (from trained gunmen and trained martial artists) was that if you were within ten feet of someone, it was a bad idea to pull a gun on them. You were better off either backing up to shoot or rushing them and engaging hand to hand. Essentially, this was because, at eight feet or so, a trained fighter can get to the gunman and disarm him before the gunman can really get a shot off anywhere vital. He has a good chance if the gun is already drawn and raised.
Think of firing a ranged weapon as having to re-draw the gun each time you wanted to fire, because, essentially, you do. You have to draw a piece of ammunition each time you fire your ranged weapon.
It never made since why the guy swinging the big 2-handed battle axe does not cause ""attacks of opportunity"...
Well, if Fighter McAxewielder is trading full attacks with someone (which he more or less has to do in order to be useful) then he's not getting off for free. He gets to throw his one-to-four attacks at his enemy and then he has to absorb a roughly similar number of attacks. So, in a sense, he is provoking extra attacks (which I think is what you are wanting). If he were to spring attack in and out, or whatever, then he would provoke a single AoO and the enemy would likely have to move to attack, limiting it to just a single attack.
All in all, AoOs are an abstraction of the system to encourage realistic tactics. A normal archer would never stand toe-to-hoof with a monster and unload his bow on it. He would never have a chance. Your squishy wizard in his cloth robes would never consider trying to work through the complicated gestures and intricate wording required to cast a spell if Fighter McAxewielder was whirling his greataxe in the mage's face. Tactically, it's dangerous to sprint past guys with weapons, since they might be able to hit you since you can't properly dodge or defend yourself (and before you ask about being flat-footed or losing certain bonuses, remember again that this is an abstraction and that the attack itself is a loss of defenses). It made sense to stand toe-to-hoof with something if you were Fighter McAxewielder. The two of you are engaged in simultaneous combat (though one of you is slightly quicker than the other, i.e. one has a higher initiative count). You are dodging, blocking and absorbing hits. So is it. You aren't provoking AoOs because (if you want to look at it this way) you were able to pay enough attention and had the right equipment to bear in order to negate them.
The AoO system works pretty well as it is. Melee already has a hard enough time against magic (and even archers). Don't further upset that balance.