You're welcome.

Jesus, like GURPS isn't rules-lawyer heaven...

RPGPundit

The AoO makes its first appearance in D&D in the J. Eric Holmes-edited Dungeons and Dragons boxed set from 1977, for what it's worth. This is the second version of the game ever produced, after the brown books and before AD&D1.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThat doesn't sound like a problem with AoOs, it sounds like a problem with a shitty group full of cynical rules-lawyers.

  Nobody has any business arguing over rules EVER.  If a group can't handle as crunchy a game as D&D without descending into argument every time someone moans that the rules don't make sense) then either split up the group or play a different game.  That's a problem with a fucked up social contract and group dynamic, nothing to do with rules.

I'll give you that the group argued over rules a lot in the D&D game, and not just over AoO (though it had the most).

Oddly enough, the exact same group of people went on to become my Rifts group, which rarely ever has an argument over rules.  Part of that is that I'm (arguably) a better GM than the guy who ran D&D.   But I think the level of detail in the D20 games are part of it, too.

I'm not saying it's a bad rule, or causes problems by itself.  But for certain groups of people, rules like that certainly exacerbate the situation.  IMO, more vague rules that leave exact interpretations up to the GM seem to cause less problems.

Quote from: James McMurrayExamples? Either an action explicitly states that it provokes an AoO or it doesn't provoke.

Here's one I can remember - a Bard using a song.  The DM said it was a spell ability and thus provoked.  The Bard player argues that it is functionally equivalent to talking, and thus doesn't provoke.

Quote from: James McMurrayNot true. You just ignore any feat or spell that mentions it. you'll lower the power of reach weapons a lot, and raise the power of disarms, spellcasting, etc. a little bit, but other than that things proceed as normal. You might have one or two oddities caused by feat prereqs, but it should be fairly simple to decide to ignore the prereq, ignore the entire feat chain, or replace the prereq with something else.

It's a matter of perspective.  You see it as a minor adjustment, I see it as throwing the balance off too much.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: jgantsHere's one I can remember - a Bard using a song.  The DM said it was a spell ability and thus provoked.  The Bard player argues that it is functionally equivalent to talking, and thus doesn't provoke.

Depending on what song it was, it either provoked or didn't.  Supernatural (Su) abilities don't, but Spell-like (Sp) abilities do.  So Countersong (Su) would not provoke but Fascinate (Sp) would.

I have no trouble with the concept, it's the execution that bothers me.

Partial Replacement Mechanic

Attack of Opportunity: Whenever somebody within reach does something it is possible you may do something of your own to him. Such as interrupt a wizard casting a spell, or a bard singing a song. To determine if you can take action -- make an "Attack of Opportunity" (AoO) in other words -- you must make a Reflex Save against a DC of 15 if unengaged, a DC of 30 if engaged with another. if the Reflex Save succeeds you may then take action against the person who triggered the AoO. Please note that it doesn't matter what the other person does, so long as he does something. Even talking could allow an AoO, if your character notices it.

The DC is set high because we tend to miss things you'd think we'd spot. When dealing with something else we tend to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. Thus the much higher DC for such situations.

Quote from: CalithenaThe AoO makes its first appearance in D&D in the J. Eric Holmes-edited Dungeons and Dragons boxed set from 1977, for what it's worth. This is the second version of the game ever produced, after the brown books and before AD&D1.

which is funny, cause i seem to have ignored it then, too.  
Never let it be said that i let rules get in the way of having fun..  

Quote from: mythusmageI have no trouble with the concept, it's the execution that bothers me.

Partial Replacement Mechanic

Attack of Opportunity: Whenever somebody within reach does something it is possible you may do something of your own to him. Such as interrupt a wizard casting a spell, or a bard singing a song. To determine if you can take action -- make an "Attack of Opportunity" (AoO) in other words -- you must make a Reflex Save against a DC of 15 if unengaged, a DC of 30 if engaged with another. if the Reflex Save succeeds you may then take action against the person who triggered the AoO. Please note that it doesn't matter what the other person does, so long as he does something. Even talking could allow an AoO, if your character notices it.

The DC is set high because we tend to miss things you'd think we'd spot. When dealing with something else we tend to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. Thus the much higher DC for such situations.

I don't like it being a reflex save. I can understand the reasoning but I think it makes rogues way too good at it and fighters way too weak. I also think being able to do it if they do anything at all is way too powerful. Shouting "Help!" shouldn't drop your concentration enough to let someone hit you.

Quote from: mythusmageI have no trouble with the concept, it's the execution that bothers me.

Partial Replacement Mechanic

Attack of Opportunity: Whenever somebody within reach does something it is possible you may do something of your own to him. Such as interrupt a wizard casting a spell, or a bard singing a song. To determine if you can take action -- make an "Attack of Opportunity" (AoO) in other words -- you must make a Reflex Save against a DC of 15 if unengaged, a DC of 30 if engaged with another. if the Reflex Save succeeds you may then take action against the person who triggered the AoO. Please note that it doesn't matter what the other person does, so long as he does something. Even talking could allow an AoO, if your character notices it.

The DC is set high because we tend to miss things you'd think we'd spot. When dealing with something else we tend to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. Thus the much higher DC for such situations.

I don't think this helps at all.

Instead, it adds another die roll to the combat.

-O

As I mentioned in my post, the best house rule I've come across for those who want to simplify AoOs is in Iron Heroes. If you do anything other than attack, withdraw or go total defense while being threatened, you provoke an AoO. I think free actions like talking might be an exception as well, but that's the entire list. It's simple, and easy to remember, and I suggest it for people who are having trouble using the chart.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't like it being a reflex save. I can understand the reasoning but I think it makes rogues way too good at it and fighters way too weak. I also think being able to do it if they do anything at all is way too powerful. Shouting "Help!" shouldn't drop your concentration enough to let someone hit you.

You takes your chances. Besides, he only gets a chance to hit you.

Now you could make it a Wis Check instead if a Reflex Save doesn't do it. But I wanted to factor in experience. Besides, you'd expect rogues to be more on the ball. After all, noticing things out of the ordinary is part of their stock in trade.

Edit: Or, now that I think of it, make it a Spot Check.

As to more die rolls, what till you see my combat variant. Even more dice rolls, and math!

Quote from: mythusmageBesides, you'd expect rogues to be more on the ball. After all, noticing things out of the ordinary is part of their stock in trade.

Except that AoOs aren't "noticing something out of the ordinary." They're based on the victim losing concentration, not the attacker seeing some sort of triggering event. And no, I don't expect rogues to be better at combat then fighters. That's just me though, YMMV.

Quote from: James McMurrayExcept that AoOs aren't "noticing something out of the ordinary." They're based on the victim losing concentration, not the attacker seeing some sort of triggering event. And no, I don't expect rogues to be better at combat then fighters. That's just me though, YMMV.

Then somebody at Wizards basically misunderstood why wargames have attacks of opportunity. Unit A sees unit B doing something, and takes advantage of the opportunity to do something to unit B.

BTW, I'm not talking about rogues being better at combat, I'm talking about rogues being better at noticing stuff. It does you little good to spot the cleric chanting an invocation when you can't hit the broadside of a barn.

QuoteBesides, you'd expect rogues to be more on the ball. After all, noticing things out of the ordinary is part of their stock in trade.

Umm, that's exactly what sneak attack is all about.  Being able to spot an opening, and going for the weak spot.

But that's a seperate effecct from AoOs.  You want more AoOs, you take Combat Reflexes, and put that Dex bonus to work.