|
As title says, but more indepth explanation is warranted, I play with a group that does not "believe/use" AoO's of any type should exist, they cannot understand why a creature/npc/pc gets a free attack and feel strongly that they should only have attacks on their respective turns, this is a PURE PF game, no 3.5 splat of anykind.
What are some good combos to perhaps exploit this and show them the error of their ways? I have had conversations/heated arguments on why removal of them hurts certain classes and concepts and makes others FAR stronger. They simply dismiss it entirely.
Thanks.
You want to exploit a game without AoOs? Be a spellcaster. Stand in front of the enemy and cast spells. Once they receive enough game-ending SoS spells, they'll learn :)
|
|
I'm going to go the other way and tell you the error of YOUR ways: group > one player (you)
If you go in with intent to exploit the system expressly to show them that they are 'doing it wrong" then you're being a dick. Don't be a dick.
Point taken. Perhaps I misspoke on what I was asking for. I don't really intend to be a dick. Insomuch that I would rather play something that would excel in the environment as is. Exploit was an unfair word to use, and I take it back.
Obviously melee characters lose out and casters seem favored.
HappyDaze is right. 'Showing them' that they're having wrongbadfun will just annoy them and make the game experience worse for everyone. It sounds like you've already tried convincing them why you agree with the AoO rules, which would have been my first suggestion. If they are still adamant, you can either accept their house rule or find a different group which doesn't play with that house rule. Heck you could even start a new group like that as GM.
I personally like the AoO rules the way they are, but I can see where your group are coming from. A lot of video game RPGs have a turn based system where everybody just stands around doing nothing until it's their turn. To someone who is used to that system of "I go, you go," getting smacked in the middle of your turn might be a little annoying.
|
I agree that the OP is looking at it wrong, but also see no reason they shouldn't adopt a character which works well under the house rules of the group.
Lathiira's suggestion is a good one except for the 'stand in front of the enemy' part. A pure spellcaster is still going to get carved up if they stand on the front lines. However, if there are no AoO you can always just walk away from your opponents (move action) with impunity and then cast a spell (usually a standard action). Even if they chase after you (move action) they then only get a single attack (standard action) rather than the multiple attacks (full round action) which all combat types rely on to level the playing field with casters.
Another possible option would be a Rogue. No AoO means that you can always flank anyone 'threatened' (though that concept becomes meaningless EXCEPT for flanking if there are no AoO) by another member of the party. A well built Rogue getting sneak attack damage on every attack can be devastating.
Pure spellcaster with lots of long range direct damage spells is probably the best bet though. Creates a bizarre sort of 'casually strolling about lobbing spells' situation, but that's the reality under the rules of the table.
Are you the DM or a player? If the DM, focus on monsters that will do exaclty like others have said, walk past the front line and right back to the squishies. If you use minatures, you've got a very visual way to show the party that without AoO combat becomes a casters and rogues beat everything because they can simply move as they see fit and not worry about where the players are.
I agree with the people arguing that you shouldn't force your ruling through. It isn't necessary the an' error of their ways'.
I am interested in understanding why they have so strong feelings against AoOs? I can see some reason for removing them: If you combats become faster without them; Allowing using combat maneuvers much more often, is IMO a way to making combat more fun (although it doesn't need removal of AOOs entirely).
Finding a commonground between you and your players needs an understanding of why the don't want AoOs, and why you do?
If I was you, I would suggest them (one of them) to try and build a character to utilize AOOs more, such as a trip-monkey. My personal experience is that AOOs is a good thing, and can help create situations that are more interesting than just 'i hit you with my sword'.
Combat maneuvers. If it wasn't for the AoO that I'd eat for doing them without the right feats, I'd do them a lot more often.
But I'd also fear them being done TO me a lot more often, so I may have to spend a feat to bolster my defense.
|
Well, casters gain and lose at the same time. You can no longer defender your casters; if the GM wants to get them, he can run monsters past your allies.
Rogues actually have the biggest gain; flank is easy to set up. Same with 1-hit wonders (vicious strikers), as they will be able to get where they want.
It's not a bad thing, just a bit different. Spellcasters and archers can front-line and be fine, flanks can be continually set.
|
|
Fly by attack at low levels.
Flyby attack is for flying creatures. The ground based equivalents are Spring attack and Shot on the Run.
Interestingly, both of those feats have Mobility as a prerequisite, but under the 'no AoO' rule Mobility does... nothing. Indeed, there are several AoO related feats which are part of feat chains that also provide non AoO benefits (e.g. 'Bodyguard'). How are these handled in the house rules under discussion? Are you able to take Spring attack without first getting Mobility, do you have to take Mobility as a 'does nothing feat', or has another feat been substituted in as a prerequisite?
If the AoO feats just go away with no replacement prerequisite then that makes some feats more easily obtainable than originally intended. Other feats (e.g. all the Improved combat maneuver feats) allow you to take some action without provoking an AoO AND provide some other small benefit... do those all become 'small benefit' feats?
Flanking, casting, ranged attacks, movement all are no longer tactical options. Also, much fewer 5 foot steps, since you can just take a full movement to run out of the way.
No AoO situation: Fighter charges BBEG Wizard and takes his swing. BBEG casts a nice damage touch spell on Fighter, hitting his low touch AC, then takes a move action to get behind a pillar preventing another charge. Next turn, fighter can move up and swing once, with the same results.
AoO situation: Fighter charges BBEG Wizard and swings. BBEG can cast defensively and hope to make his check (and that the fighter doesn't have feats that let him swing anyway) and then makes a 5'step away. Fighter 5' steps up and makes his full attack.
Really, it makes casters even stronger than they were already. Also, now the squishy players are easily attacked if people can just walk past the fighter to get to them.
Archers also get stronger. It is also harder to protect the squishy types.
Darn I was ninja'd.
|
Total absense of AoO works..... but the entire game design assumes this is NOT the game....
many, many systems work perfectly fine without AoO but the entire game is build around this (and many other basic concepts).
Clumsily remove one like a gangrenous limb and the whole game suffers.
I also do not like AoO much but hey.....
Morlaf
You want to exploit a game without AoOs? Be a spellcaster. Stand in front of the enemy and cast spells. Once they receive enough game-ending SoS spells, they'll learn :)
Or an optimized archer, standing right in front of a melee fighter and riddling him full of arrows.