# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## AoO suckage?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

22 posts • Page 1 of 1

Emerald
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 565
  Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:18 pm

### AoO suckage?

- Quote

Post by Emerald » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:25 am

I've seen several mentions in various threads here, most recently by Heironymous Rex in the "Saga's bad rep" thread, that AoOs are a bad idea and that WotC devs should have gotten rid of them by now, but haven't really seen anyone explain why. (My group doesn't really run AoOs by RAW due to not using a full battlemap and no one playing tanky types, so I don't have much experience with them in play, good or bad.) Since it's much more entertaining to see Denners rant about things than to analyze things myself, I have a few questions for the Den:
1) What, if any, are the problems with AoOs? Is it that they're interrupts? That figuring out what provokes is a pain? That they don't meet their design goals?
2) If you were going to replace AoOs (for balance, simplicity, or otherwise), how would you do it? Immediate actions? 2e-style initiative and movement?
Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:54 am

What people most don't like about AoO is that they require too much fiddling and concreteness in order to really use them. It's really no surprise that D&D became more battlemat based after they implemented them in earnest.
Unfortunately, they're pretty much here to stay. If you get rid of them, you have a Mutants and Masterminds situation where ranged attacks becoming superior to melee attacks all of the time. If, for example, 4E got rid of Attacks of Opportunity that would instantly kill off all of the melee builds overnight.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Josh_Kablack
  King
  Posts: 5317
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Online. duh

###

- Quote

Post by Josh_Kablack » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:15 am

I have no idea what Rex's issues with AoOs are.
But in general, they do add quite a bit of complexity to the game: They are interrupts which not only require exact tracking of positioning and potentially varying attack reaches, but can also trigger other interrupts. Furthermore, due to wording changes and rules "clarifications" between the precise triggering conditions for AoOs will vary somewhat between different game groups. (of note are how different MCs handle: stand from prone, charging and the withdraw action)
Of course, AoOs do offer some gains in both game balance and verisimilitude in return for that complexity. AoOs provide a real, if not terribly frequent, threat that melee characters can use against ranged and spell-slinging characters. More importantly, AoOs also serve to limit the "I'm faster so I run in, hit him and then run away before he gets to counterattack strategy" from being an auto-win. In D&D that can mean crazy combos stuff involving speed-boosting and teleportation or plane-hopping magic.
AoOs are also part of the way in which D&D abstracts what would be "facing" in other games. Other games (HERO, FF-Tactics series) handle that by basing your defense values on which way you leave your mini at the end of your move and assuming that you react better against threats in your front arc. That approach can sometimes cause plausibility conflicts between dynamic combat situations and static positioning - and is occasionally open to outright rules abuses with abilities that can move enemies.
From a game design standpoint, you totally CAN handle the issues that AoOs address with a combination of facing rules and movement restrictions (such as the HERO system's rule that "an attack action ends your phase"), but doing so gives you a very different game (like how Spring Attack and Shot on the Run are impossible under that restriction)
Last edited by Josh_Kablack on Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Top

CCarter
  Knight
  Posts: 454
  Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:41 pm

###

- Quote

Post by CCarter » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:22 am

Well, we use them, but AoOs are particularly a punishment for doing anything swashbuckly or cinematic rather than playing stuck-in-the-mud.
In 4E particularly you can probably complain that the whole system is schizophrenic since you can't even tell whether hitting someone actually is hurting them due to HP being so abstract, but you still need to track a grid position in 5ft increments so as to implement the AoOs. I don't know how much people even care about them in 4E given that they're only a [1W] attack in most cases, though I suppose they're important for fighters.
There are traditionally problems with AoO interaction with other bonus attack feats. 3.0 had Bag of Rats; in 3.5 they nerfed Whirlwind as a consequence when the problem was Cleave. 4E made Cleave a power instead and thus not useable on AoOs, though immediately after release (I don't know if its been errated) you could still have people theoretically pulling it off with Heavy Blade Opportunity IIRC. The basic problem here is the total unfairness of minding your own business and then get hacked to bits because the guy next to you let their guard down for a second.
AoOs don't simulate even openings perfectly. If a character can take an AoO on someone who stops to reload their crossbow for a second, characters should logically also be allowed to make as many attacks as they have on inanimate objects or adjacent unconscious creatures, since those can't defend themselves at all.
AoOs (at least in 3.5; not sure about 4) also don't have a defined action type, rather than being free or immediate actions.
As far as other systems go that could have similar intents, a couple of systems I've seen e.g. DragonQuest have a roll to break engagement with an adjacent enemy (i.e. roll or you can't move, rather than taking damage). JAGS has an interrupt system where any action can be interrupted by another action that's shorter in time (e.g. Charging is a Long action, so the charger can be hit with a Medium action such as a normal attack on the way), as long as the other character has enough action points left, which was interesting but gets complex.
Top

RobbyPants
  King
  Posts: 5201
  Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RobbyPants » Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:39 pm

> CCarter wrote:AoOs don't simulate even openings perfectly. If a character can take an AoO on someone who stops to reload their crossbow for a second, characters should logically also be allowed to make as many attacks as they have on inanimate objects or adjacent unconscious creatures, since those can't defend themselves at all.

I'm assuming this is for balance and to keep the game less lethal. If you got a free AoO every time someone dropped, PCs would never survive if they got KOed. You'd have to increase the number of HP a character could survive at below zero.

> CCarter wrote:As far as other systems go that could have similar intents, a couple of systems I've seen e.g. DragonQuest have a roll to break engagement with an adjacent enemy (i.e. roll or you can't move, rather than taking damage). JAGS has an interrupt system where any action can be interrupted by another action that's shorter in time (e.g. Charging is a Long action, so the charger can be hit with a Medium action such as a normal attack on the way), as long as the other character has enough action points left, which was interesting but gets complex.

I know Warhammer Quest did this. They had an Escape Pinning roll that you had to check to move from melee. I don't remember if it got more difficult if you were surrounded my multiple creatures or not. Given that it was rolled on a d6, I'm assuming the answer is no.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:55 pm

AoOs are a good idea if you want tactical minis. I love me some tactical minis in my RPG, so I love them. One good idea from Trailblazer is that the fighter gets bonus AoO damage (rather than the stupid 4e mark system). This is nifty, assuming you don't let players cheese the system with Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by tzor » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:02 pm

As the others have pointed out they are complex.
I'm really tempted to go into a "I used to walk five miles to school in the snow sonny" routine, given that the original AD&D had not only facing (your AC varied depending on your facing) but also weapon vs armor type, so that not only was position one more +/- to the roll, so too was what weapon he was using and what armor you had on. And those rounds were one minute long.
Attacks on spellcasters was based on the notion that spells took segments and if you struck between the "segments" you could disrupt the spell. Now that was massivly complex, given that initiative didn't really map sort of into segments.
I really think AoO is a good idea, but it has to be massively simplified. I would even go and admit the magic incluence and call it an interrupt. One option, which I really haven't thought of in detail would just make an Interrupt a couple of conditions occur in which case you make your turn before the event that was supposed to take place.
Top

TheFlatline
  Prince
  Posts: 2606
  Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

###

- Quote

Post by TheFlatline » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:49 pm

> Psychic Robot wrote:AoOs are a good idea if you want tactical minis. I love me some tactical minis in my RPG, so I love them. One good idea from Trailblazer is that the fighter gets bonus AoO damage (rather than the stupid 4e mark system). This is nifty, assuming you don't let players cheese the system with Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike.

The only thing particularly complex about AoO's back in 3.x was the movement rules. Reloading, spell casting, and the other stuff wasn't that big of a deal (if you weren't dealing with someone with reach, you 5-foot step back, load, and shoot, or 5 foot step and cast, or 5 foot step and chug your potion, or whatever).
AoO's are one of the few real benefits fighters end up getting. In 3.x you'd see fighters/barbarians popping off an AoO and greater cleaving the fuck out of everything around. It sounds like a problem, but it was so incredibly situational that a Wizard's fireball was more devastating than AoO popping off a cleave chain.
In 3.x AoO's stopped appearing after a while. Some things simply prompt them, which is fine (I kind of wish more did for the fighter's sake), but as far as the movement actions prompting AoO's, they eventually resulted in characters burning movement to avoid them, which is perfectly fine.
I would have liked to have seen fighters have more ways to use AoO's. Like with a successful bluff check if your enemy misses his next attack you get an AoO or something like that. Not particularly useful at higher levels, but before you get your second attack, being able to throw a bluff as a move-equivalent and get your normal attack in would rock.
If AoO's could be streamlined, I'd like to see them come up a *lot* more often, so that melee fighters could capitalize on them and form builds around fighting defensively, and using opportunities they create to AoO the enemy.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:17 pm

> I would have liked to have seen fighters have more ways to use AoO's. Like with a successful bluff check if your enemy misses his next attack you get an AoO or something like that. Not particularly useful at higher levels, but before you get your second attack, being able to throw a bluff as a move-equivalent and get your normal attack in would rock.

D&D Essentials lets the fighter make an AoO whenever an enemy in his "aura" makes an attack that doesn't target him. That's a start.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

CCarter
  Knight
  Posts: 454
  Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:41 pm

###

- Quote

Post by CCarter » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:13 pm

> RobbyPants wrote: I'm assuming this is for balance and to keep the game less lethal. If you got a free AoO every time someone dropped, PCs would never survive if they got KOed. You'd have to increase the number of HP a character could survive at below zero.

I'm guessing they probably just didn't think it through to even see there was a disconnect. Most gamers at least think of provoking an AoO as 'doing something' rather than being a result of 'not doing something'.

> I know Warhammer Quest did this. They had an Escape Pinning roll that you had to check to move from melee. I don't remember if it got more difficult if you were surrounded my multiple creatures or not. Given that it was rolled on a d6, I'm assuming the answer is no.

Aha, thanks. That was the other one I was thinking of but couldn't remember the name (only borrowed it off a friend briefly). I don't know, sorry.
Top

MGuy
  Prince
  Posts: 4665
  Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
  Location: Indiana

###

- Quote

Post by MGuy » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:26 pm

I too am a fan of AoOs. I've been working on a system that in fact has many character abilities that only work when burning an AoO. I believe that interrupts add depth to the game. I'd compare it to like a card game like MAGIC or yu-gi-oh where you have various effect chains that go off with instants, trapcards, quick plays, flash, blah blah blah. But then again I like a reasonable level of complexity and (I guess because of 4E) I now have an aversion to streamlining things too much.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.

> MGuy wrote:Finally a thread about fighters!

Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:48 pm

Then again, I am sympathetic to complaints that AoO are too complex for new players to instantly grok. It is a major stumbling point.
The problem is I don't know of a way how to appreciably reduce the complexity without reducing it to a 'lol no' cockblock or screwing over melee-focused characters.
Personally, I think the best we can hope for is to have a 'Zone of Control' option that's exclusive for a small minority of monsters and a certain category of PCs. Meaning that while for the most part players can Flynn and dance their way through gaps in the zombie line, every now and then they'll be surprised by a marilith tearing them up for trying to carelessly flank her. That way when it's time to wean the PCs onto more complicated tactics you can use the Schrodinger's Cat threat of 'what if this dragon has a Zone of Control ability?!'
The ZoC will work like AoOs; that way groups that don't want to deal with them don't have to (because the DM just won't use those monsters) and it won't screw over melee-focused combatants. In fact I think a lot of players of melee classes will actually really appreciate the change, since it'll make them feel more special. It'd go something like this:
Zone of Control [Melee]
You have the ability to strike enemies that let their guard down in melee.
If a creature or object within your melee reach:
[*] Uses a non-converted standard action to do anything other than to use a power.
[*] At any point in a movement routine moves more than one square within your reach under its own volition.
[*] Ends its turn in the helpless or stunned condition or is unable to take actions.
You can make a melee basic attack as a free action against that creature or object. This attack occurs right after a creature initiates its triggering action but before it is resolved or in the case of creatures or objects unable to take actions occurs at any time during the round. A target cannot be subject to more than one Zone of Control attack in one round regardless of how many different time it triggers one. You may not make a Zone of Control attack if the number of Swift Actions + previous Zone of Control attacks exceeds 2 between the start of your turns. This limit increases to 3 at level 4, 5 at level 7 and becomes unbounded at level 11.
Unlimited Zone of Control [Melee]
You are a bastion of defense; no enemy can drop its guard while around you.
Prerequisites: Zone of Control, Level 10 or lower.
You can make an unlimited number of Zone of Control attacks in a round. The restriction on one ZoC attack on a creature per round remains the same. At level 11, you automatically select another feat that you're otherwise eligible to take to replace this feat.
It'll of course be imperative to emphasize that you can NOT have abilities in the game that let you replace the ZoC melee basic attack with anything else. But I'm strongly against game effects that selectively modify certain powers anyway.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:03 am

I agree with Lago. AoOs should be a special ability for "defenders" or whatever you want to call characters. Just make it a special attack and you're good to go.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

TheFlatline
  Prince
  Posts: 2606
  Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

###

- Quote

Post by TheFlatline » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:12 am

> Psychic Robot wrote:I agree with Lago. AoOs should be a special ability for "defenders" or whatever you want to call characters. Just make it a special attack and you're good to go.

I do kind of dig this as a class feature.
Though you could go two ways. You could keep it simply straight attacks, or you could intend for it to be the start of better combat maneuvers.
I personally don't see the issue with bluffing someone so you get an AoO, cropping them, and activating cleave off of it and throwing down some extra damage. It's limited to landing the killing blow on the enemy, which isn't always going to happen with the fighter.
The question boils down to: how much more effective does the defender become from straight bonus attacks vs the ability to chain into some synergy.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:26 am

> The question boils down to: how much more effective does the defender become from straight bonus attacks vs the ability to chain into some synergy.

Depends on the power level you're going for and the level of min-maxing you want available.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

Slade
  Knight
  Posts: 329
  Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:23 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Slade » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:44 am

> TheFlatline wrote: I do kind of dig this as a class feature.

Why not a feat that defender type get for free? I mean, after the newbies stop being new they may want AoOs to play with.
Top

TheWorid
  Master
  Posts: 190
  Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:17 pm

###

- Quote

Post by TheWorid » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:49 am

I'm totally on board with making AoOs a special defender ability. It makes defenders feel special while not forcing everyone to stand still during combat.

> FrankTrollman wrote:Coming or going, you must deny people their fervent wishes, because their genuine desire is retarded and impossible.

Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:54 am

> Why not a feat that defender type get for free?

Melee abilities as feats and spellcaster abilities as class features is a bad setup.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:25 am

The Threatened Area is a Zone of Control system. Every tactical game with a melee component needs a Zone of Control system, because otherwise your location doesn't matter very much.
Honestly the only real big problem that AoOs have is the quantum nature of movement as a series of discrete one-square actions and as a single action that moves you a number of squares. Because that doesn't make any sense to anyone. If you just had every single square of movement out of or through someone's one of control provoke an AoO, it would be a lot easier to describe how it works.
Because seriously, 90% of people have a serious hangup on the fact that you can take an AoO in the middle of someone's movement as they move out of one of your threatened squares, but the next square of movement is considered part of the same action and you can't take an AoO then (although someone else could). Other than that, it's pretty simple.
-Username17
Top

MGuy
  Prince
  Posts: 4665
  Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
  Location: Indiana

###

- Quote

Post by MGuy » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:24 am

Actually I've always thought and ruled that each step provoked... I couldn't conceive that it worked another way.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.

> MGuy wrote:Finally a thread about fighters!

Top

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Roy » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:02 pm

> MGuy wrote:Actually I've always thought and ruled that each step provoked... I couldn't conceive that it worked another way.

Huge guy with Spiked Chain bitch slaps you away with Knockback, and then spams AoOs on you as you fly away.

> Draco_Argentum wrote:

> > Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.

> Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?

> Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.

> Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.

> Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.

Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Top

MGuy
  Prince
  Posts: 4665
  Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
  Location: Indiana

###

- Quote

Post by MGuy » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:38 pm

> Roy wrote:

> > MGuy wrote:Actually I've always thought and ruled that each step provoked... I couldn't conceive that it worked another way.

> Huge guy with Spiked Chain bitch slaps you away with Knockback, and then spams AoOs on you as you fly away.

Actually, yes... That is exactly how it would happen. I mean by the time he gets extra AoOs and the rest of the feats needed to do that there are more spectacular effects to worry about.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.

> MGuy wrote:Finally a thread about fighters!

Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

22 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to “In My Humble Opinion...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS