I've given this some thought over the past few days and wondered about some of the hidden ramifications of doing so. One of the benefits, I think is that it would make for a more dynamic maneuver filled combat, since the primary deterrent to many of these is the AoO. Its a given that it will renders some feats useless, or nearly useless. Feats a tier above could simply be moved down to fill the slot of the previous feat. Casting would become easier, reach would be slightly less useful, abilities such as Come and Get Me could still create attacks. I'm wondering if there's anything game breaking that would rear up. Would trip be too good? Perhaps, but as it is now, I find it rarely used at all. Movement would be less restricted and much of the debate on where and when something provokes would be removed. Large advantages in my opinion. Thoughts?
i think it would make for boring, unimaginative combat
Elaborate?
People would end up being directly in combat casting spells.
Trip maneuver would lose some of its ability.
Combat reflexes and several other things that rely on AoO would become dead.
People would move around with out any worry.. meaning they will charge your backline
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i think it would make for boring, unimaginative combatElaborate?
Bad Guy : Oh, I'm down to 1/4 hit points. I'll run away with impunity and let my cleric friend heal me back at base.
Evil Caster : Hahaha, you foolish melee combatant person, you got up into melee with me, I shall now cast a massive touch attack save or die spell and touch your touch ac, you giant metal encased tortoise!
Polearm Fighter : Wah! Everyone just runs past my polearm and attacks me with short swords, and then I can't attack them! How were these things ever invented, they're useless!
Everything would reduce to bows and arrows at range, or falcata's at close range, no reason to use reach weapons normally, and wizards and sorcerers would have no fear of melee guys or casting a standard action touch spell and then moving away to avoid full attacks in response.
It makes it so that you can't block things, which can muck with some plots:
- can't block someone from running away
- can't block attackers from getting at your hostage/woundedguy/spellcaster
- can't block the doorway the PCs are trying to escape through
I think no AoO would streamline things dramatically. As noted, there would be many minor impacts but we did without them just fine in AD&D and had just as much fun. AoO basically prevent you from doing things you want to do (or, at least, are a disincentive) and as such are inherently negative. Now, I'm a bit of a wargamer, and the added 'realism' (if such a term can be used in a game where dragons fly and no one ever breaks a bone no matter how hard they fall) of AoOs means that this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make, but if you want a faster, funner game where you have to think a bit less and get to thwack, cast and run a bit more, then go for it.
MDTs various problems can occur whether you have AoO or not - the polearm wielder backed up against the wall, full withdraws, high concentration bonuses... Try it Riatin, let us know how it works out.
Bad Guy : Oh, I'm down to 1/4 hit points. I'll run away with impunity and let my cleric friend heal me back at base.
Already a viable strategy, although it does create a second thought on doing so. The more people you have around you the less of an option it is at the moment. I agree that would be a negative, but it would also be possible for the PC's.
Evil Caster : Hahaha, you foolish melee combatant person, you got up into melee with me, I shall now cast a massive touch attack save or die spell and touch your touch ac, you giant metal encased tortoise!
This is already possible with casting defensively, more difficult than it was in 3.5, but still possible and not that difficult.
Polearm Fighter : Wah! Everyone just runs past my polearm and attacks me with short swords, and then I can't attack them! How were these things ever invented, they're useless!
In small encounter fights, I don't really see the use of polearms anyway, but eliminating the usefulness of options is bad. My group doesn't use polearms much though so that's a smaller consideration than it would be in someone else's game.
Everything would reduce to bows and arrows at range, or falcata's at close range, no reason to use reach weapons normally, and wizards and sorcerers would have no fear of melee guys or casting a standard action touch spell and then moving away to avoid full attacks in response.
I have no worry about things reducing to sniping at range or everyone brandishing falcata's. Casting at close range would still be a very large risk for a caster, maybe a slightly lower risk than presently though.
I would point out that 2E never had AoO and got along just fine without them.
The first foray into 3.x was Wheel of time D20, and the first thing our new DM did, was cut out AoOs they were just too complicated to keep track of.
It went fine.
My biggest concern is to keep track of the Feats and prereq's and make sure you also cut out the Feats that rely solely on the AoO concept.
But yeah... From point of view AoO are a new concept, and it's easy enough to go back to the way I'm USED to playing.
Bad Guy : Oh, I'm down to 1/4 hit points. I'll run away with impunity and let my cleric friend heal me back at base.Already a viable strategy, although it does create a second thought on doing so. The more people you have around you the less of an option it is at the moment. I agree that would be a negative, but it would also be possible for the PC's.
Not with impunity, you have to balance 'can I survive a hit' or not, or 'Do I have enough acrobatics'. In other words, you either have to quit early enough you can survive the hit, or you have to pump resources into it. Without the AoO, anyone can do it with impunity. I forsee most of the bad guys running away with the PCs not able to do anything about it. And yes, same for the PCs. Kind of boring if everything always runs away.
Evil Caster : Hahaha, you foolish melee combatant person, you got up into melee with me, I shall now cast a massive touch attack save or die spell and touch your touch ac, you giant metal encased tortoise!This is already possible with casting defensively, more difficult than it was in 3.5, but still possible and not that difficult.
Not nearly as easy, and not without cost. If you fail to cast defensively to avoid the AoO, you lose your spell. Now there is no spell loss, and no danger. Plus, to reliably defensively cast, now you have to spend resources, feats and such, or equipment. Without the AoO, every caster gets a huge power boost in that all of them are equally good at casting in combat.
Everything would reduce to bows and arrows at range, or falcata's at close range, no reason to use reach weapons normally, and wizards and sorcerers would have no fear of melee guys or casting a standard action touch spell and then moving away to avoid full attacks in response.I have no worry about things reducing to sniping at range or everyone brandishing falcata's. Casting at close range would still be a very large risk for a caster, maybe a slightly lower risk than presently though.
Not at all. You cast and move. Cast a major nasty spell, then move 30 feet. You've just removed the fighter's biggest offensive ability, iterative attacks. Reverse it, move and then cast fireball, or some other area effect attack. Basically, you've removed the biggest bonus a melee specialist has, their iterative attacks. Thus only archers are going to be fully effective, which reduces everything to archers vs casters.
I would point out that 2E never had AoO and got along just fine without them.
Yeppers, and we should limit elves to 6 levels in everything but wizard, and get rid of sorcerers, and limit dwarves to 10 levels in fighter and nothing else.
There were lots of things that weren't in 2E that you got along without just fine. The system was built with all that inherent to it. You would have similar issues if you went into 2E and then chopped out wizards. It would have ramifications all throughout the gameplay and negate a bunch of stuff.
I would point out that 2E never had AoO and got along just fine without them.
and my Model-T got 3 miles to the crank and ran well enough on them dirt roads!
seriously though, AoO aren't hard to deal with, I don't know what paint-chip eating players keep complaining about them. If you really don't like them though, check out Trailblazers use of Combat Reactions, basically other uses for AoO, most of them are good enough so that players will forgo making AoO for these options instead. Or even easier, just don't make an AoO if its too complicated for you and leave them to the players that can.
I would point out that 2E never had AoO and got along just fine without them.
That's not entirely true. Opponents had a free attack if you turned your back on them IIRC.
That being said, I think the game could run very well where only two or three distinct circumstances that would cause AoO.
'findel
|
I've given this some thought over the past few days and wondered about some of the hidden ramifications of doing so. One of the benefits, I think is that it would make for a more dynamic maneuver filled combat, since the primary deterrent to many of these is the AoO. Its a given that it will renders some feats useless, or nearly useless. Feats a tier above could simply be moved down to fill the slot of the previous feat. Casting would become easier, reach would be slightly less useful, abilities such as Come and Get Me could still create attacks. I'm wondering if there's anything game breaking that would rear up. Would trip be too good? Perhaps, but as it is now, I find it rarely used at all. Movement would be less restricted and much of the debate on where and when something provokes would be removed. Large advantages in my opinion. Thoughts?
In one of my old campaigns, we got rid of AoOs for a few sessions. It was great. Players didn't waste tons of time debate EVERY LAST LITTLE MOVEMENT in fear of AoOs. Yes the players were terrible, but still, it helped a lot.
I wouldn't get rid of them completely, but I would remove the leaving a threatened area one. It pisses me off and makes no sense in a game without facing that if a person leave a threatened square, even if he was a fighter get trying to move to a different engagement, he would have to take a AoO. He wasn't turning his back (because of lack of facing), nor was he running away in panic. He was making a tactical movement based on the situation at hand, and it made no sense that a 5 foot step would prevent AoOs.
Casting in front of people should probably still provoke, but normal moves shouldn't. I think it would also help with mobile fighting in general since the fear of AoOs really define 3.5/PF melee combat. It prevents combat maneuvers, it stops movement except 5 foot step, and the metagaming that players do when they see a AoO occur is insane.
You see though, just because a mechanic called "facing" doesn't exist in mechanics it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the world and is expressed through other mechanics.
In other words when moving more than 5 feet, yes the fight IS turning his back on the encounter. That is what it is expressing. The lack of facing is expressing lots more combat that is happening with in the six seconds that isn't being rolled as well as simplifying the rules a bit.
Casting in front of people should probably still provoke, but normal moves shouldn't. I think it would also help with mobile fighting in general since the fear of AoOs really define 3.5/PF melee combat. It prevents combat maneuvers, it stops movement except 5 foot step, and the metagaming that players do when they see a AoO occur is insane.
Leaving the casting one in certainly sounds like a good option if I choose to do this, as MDT has noted, it has some large side effects. My main problems currently are exactly what you allude to in the quoted paragraph, fear of AoO's along with preventing combat maneuvers and crazy amounts of metagame thinking boil the game back down into an exercise in rules knowledge more than I prefer.
As far as movement, I think grapple, trip, Stand still, entangles, and a myriad of spells are more than enough to hamper movement.
I've given this some thought over the past few days and wondered about some of the hidden ramifications of doing so. One of the benefits, I think is that it would make for a more dynamic maneuver filled combat, since the primary deterrent to many of these is the AoO. Its a given that it will renders some feats useless, or nearly useless. Feats a tier above could simply be moved down to fill the slot of the previous feat. Casting would become easier, reach would be slightly less useful, abilities such as Come and Get Me could still create attacks. I'm wondering if there's anything game breaking that would rear up. Would trip be too good? Perhaps, but as it is now, I find it rarely used at all. Movement would be less restricted and much of the debate on where and when something provokes would be removed. Large advantages in my opinion. Thoughts?
Have you heard of Trailblazer? It bills itself as a 'system optimizer' for 3.5; it presents an alternate to the core AoO rules.
It reduces the instances in which you get an AoO and also limits the number of AoOs a character can make per round based on your BAB.
The big change is that moving into a threatened area does not provoke an AoO. Though some actions still provoke an attack, such as casting spells and similar actions.
If you are interested in a viable system that still uses AoOs in a limited fashion its worth checking out. Our group used it and the sky didn't fall on us.
That's not entirely true. Opponents had a free attack if you turned your back on them IIRC.
That being said, I think the game could run very well where only two or three distinct circumstances that would cause AoO.
'findel
I think 4E's simplification of AoOs or (Opportunity attacks, in 4E terms) was right on the money. A greatly decreased list of actions that provoke while preserving the danger of haplessly running around a melee.
Yeppers, and we should limit elves to 6 levels in everything but wizard, and get rid of sorcerers, and limit dwarves to 10 levels in fighter and nothing else.
There were lots of things that weren't in 2E that you got along without just fine. The system was built with all that inherent to it. You would have similar issues if you went into 2E and then chopped out wizards. It would have ramifications all throughout the gameplay and negate a bunch of stuff.
Level limits sucked... We never played with those. Also, there are certain settings that were not 'class-friendly' Dragonlance was pretty harsh to clerics in the 'war of the lance' time frame... and though i never played it, I heard Darksun screwed over wizards something fierce.
and my Model-T got 3 miles to the crank and ran well enough on them dirt roads!
The question was not 'which system is better'. It was 'Will removing AoO break the game?' My statement simply points out NO. It will not.
If they want to remove magic, or hit points or saving throws... THAT would be potentially game breaking, but AoO are not intrinsically necessary and have not been a part of every version.
If Ogre is right (and I have no reason to doubt him...) then even the people making the beginner set doesn't seem to think they are NEEDED.
seriously though, AoO aren't hard to deal with, I don't know what paint-chip eating players keep complaining about them.
We found some 'cheat sheets' detailing every action that does and doesn't incite an AoO. Yeah, there are a LOT of them... and having to look up EVERY action you may ever want to do... Is time consuming and frustrating...
I don't feel any condensation for a group who wants to ditch them and just get back to the game.
(haven't read all responses)
I believe perhaps that the biggest consequence of removing AoOs would be an increase in the use of ready actions on both sides.
Attacks of opportunity are used to balance spellcasting for one thing. The characters who benefit most from removing aao from the game are also the ones who are least likely to be trying to use combat maneuvers.
It is true movement would be less restricted but to my mind that would be a bad thing. I suppose this is just going to be a matter of taste and how any given individual is wired to think but for me spatial thinking and positioning add a lot of fun to the game. If movement is too easy then tactics don't matter.
Imho you are trying to fix a problem without having fully evaluated what it is you actually want to improve or if there is even problem to be fixed. If you figure out what you really want my bet is that fiddling with aao will not be the ideal solution. Unless the problem is that you just dont like aaos in which case I will gladly just yell at you incoherently for a while then run off into the woods.
You would need to replace them with more instant, outside-your-turn interrupt/control abilities for dealing with things like casters and bosses running away...
Give people 1 per round. And you would need them to have no triggers. They would be at-will. No fuss to keep track of anything.
Entangle, stun, grease, and things like them might be good candidates.
In reality, all AoOs do is interrupt someone with damage. This would just interrupt people with interrupts.
Just remember their damage will go down, especially if they are DEX characters.
thats not how it works now. its LEAVING the threatened square that causes the AoO, not entering it
The big change is that moving into a threatened area does not provoke an AoO.
Right you are. Apparently I shouldn't post at work...
When I played 4e, when you had a tank who was marking an enemy, you wanted to try and provoke that enemies AoO as it would cause your tank to be able to inflict pain on the baddy.
In pathfinder, I know of at least one class that does this, The order of the shield cavalier. By provoking, you increase his chances to hit by like 5-25% if the monster dared to swing at you.
One option would be to remove the standard AoO, but then add a new action (either standard or full-round): Threaten
Threaten: You stand at the ready to take advantage of an opening in your opponents defenses. If he provokes an AoO you may take it.
Full-round version: You may make as many AoO as you have attacks on a full attack action, using the appropriate bonuses.
So, players who don't want to deal with the issue can just ignore this option, while those who do can use the action.
You can't really compare what we had in 2E with what we have now in Pathfinder. It was rare to even have mini's in most 2E games whereas 3rd+ was much more a tactical mini's game.
Apples and Oranges.
Do it. I ran a mini-campaign for PF that didn't use AoO as part of my Fencing & Firearms playtest. Everything worked fine.
I would advocate a change somewhere down the middle, where martial characters gain the ability at a certain level, and thus you can maintain all the previous feats that are related, but remove it from classes that are spell based. It is my belief that AOO should be a primay feature of martial classes that fight on the front lines for the majority of their career.
I've given this some thought over the past few days and wondered about some of the hidden ramifications of doing so. One of the benefits, I think is that it would make for a more dynamic maneuver filled combat, since the primary deterrent to many of these is the AoO. Its a given that it will renders some feats useless, or nearly useless. Feats a tier above could simply be moved down to fill the slot of the previous feat. Casting would become easier, reach would be slightly less useful, abilities such as Come and Get Me could still create attacks. I'm wondering if there's anything game breaking that would rear up. Would trip be too good? Perhaps, but as it is now, I find it rarely used at all. Movement would be less restricted and much of the debate on where and when something provokes would be removed. Large advantages in my opinion. Thoughts?
I NEVER understood AoO. I just swung my sword, someone runs by me and I get another attack just because? You can cast a spell without aoo, just take a 5' step back. Why should anyone get a second attack because you are getting up from the ground after being knocked down, moving across someone who just attacked, or things like that? Please explain it to me!
I think that the above pretty much highlights it there. If your players stink, or just plain are fond of whining, removing AOO's may help your game move smoothly. In the games I've seen it's also made however for some gutsy moves, such as wizards risking AOOs in order to place themselves for a strategic lightning bolt. And it helps the development of focused combat styles such as the monk with mobility. He didn't become immune to AOO's but he managed his risks and built up a more heroic character than removal of the mechanic would have left room for.
Well, my players don't stink, nor are they whining. And I understand that there is a niche for the 'master of avoiding AoO's' but I don't feel that is a niche that is required in the game. I think that currently AoO's are simply a penalty that slow and detract from the game. They do have an element of checks and balances to them, keeping certain actions from being too easy (in combat casting, potion drinking), but I think they make certain actions too difficult (movement, maneuvers), and I think they invent their own complications in certain areas (reach, standing from prone, etc). In no way is this a player complaint or lack of proficiency.
I think no AoO would streamline things dramatically. As noted, there would be many minor impacts but we did without them just fine in AD&D and had just as much fun. AoO basically prevent you from doing things you want to do (or, at least, are a disincentive) and as such are inherently negative. Now, I'm a bit of a wargamer, and the added 'realism' (if such a term can be used in a game where dragons fly and no one ever breaks a bone no matter how hard they fall) of AoOs means that this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make, but if you want a faster, funner game where you have to think a bit less and get to thwack, cast and run a bit more, then go for it.MDTs various problems can occur whether you have AoO or not - the polearm wielder backed up against the wall, full withdraws, high concentration bonuses... Try it Riatin, let us know how it works out.
Back in the old days, before AoO existed, in our AD&D campaigns we instituted movement rules to keep people from doing some of the things MDT has mentioned. Combat in our games was frequently interrupted by cries of "You couldn't do that! Run right past me without me being able to hit you!? That's crazy!"
So we made up rules to make combat more "realistic" to avoid things like minions rushing past the tank with impunity to attack the squishy guys behind them.
I'd rather not return to those days of "I could TOTALLY do that!" "No you couldn't!" "Yes I could!" Attacks of Opportunity are a means to avoid much of that sort of combat contention. Of course they aren't perfect, but they work pretty well to stop a lot of that nonsense.
Well, my players don't stink, nor are they whining. And I understand that there is a niche for the 'master of avoiding AoO's' but I don't feel that is a niche that is required in the game. (...) In no way is this a player complaint or lack of proficiency.
I tend to agree with the above statement. AoOs should be reserved for blatant disregard of being engaged in melee and even then, there's a strong case for these actions to be simply disallowed.
I sometimes have a hard time believing that one can crank a crossbow (for example) in front of a ranging barbarian:
Player - "I crank my crossbow."
DM - "But you just got charged by the barbarian! He's going to hack you!"
Player - "Don't care, I've got plenty of hp left."
DM - *rolls* " that's a hit. 30 points of damage."
Player - "Ouch. Ok, now that my crossbow is reloaded..."
I understand that hit point are an abstracted concept and that damage doesn't necessarily translate in serious bleeding injuries and all, but nevertheless...
Which brings me to something I've been meaning to ask on these boards - what if, once you are engaged in melee, you have no other choice but to fight back or retreat (with a 5ft step or otherwise)?
'findel
I'd rather not return to those days of "I could TOTALLY do that!" "No you couldn't!" "Yes I could!" Attacks of Opportunity are a means to avoid much of that sort of combat contention. Of course they aren't perfect, but they work pretty well to stop a lot of that nonsense.
Yup, this is half the reason AoOs were invented. This part of the reason, though, stems from a lot of people's basic misunderstanding of what it means to be playing a turn-based game.
So we made up rules to make combat more "realistic" to avoid things like minions rushing past the tank with impunity to attack the squishy guys behind them.
For instance, in this example, if a monster does this it's likely it had a higher initiative roll than your tank, and your tank can't react because he's not ready. Initiative = readiness to act. (Presuming no AoOs.)
However, the other reason AoOs came about was for their interrupt capability, and that is a somewhat necessary function.