Attacks of Opportunity - Why Aren't They More Deadly?

[McBeardly]

To be honest I like the whole AoO count as flat-footed deal. I makes rogues focus a lot more on reacting rather than acting.

[Whisper]

In D&D, warriors to the majority of their deathdealing on their own turns. Which I suppose makes sense from a game mechanics point of view. But, given the existence of attacks of opportunity and what they're meant to represent, why then, are a warrior's attacks far less effective when they are taking advantage of their enemies' foolish moves and/or missteps?

For example, a Barbarian leap attack pounces on a guy, charging and attacking him four times, dealing 2d6+30 damage with each hit. Then, the victim pulls out and drinks a potion, provoking an attack of opportunity from the Barbarian which deals 2d6+20 damage if it hits. Now, in real life, pulling out a potion and drinking it in combat with and in front of a guy with a greatsword will get you killed. But in D&D it results in somewhere roughly between 1/4 and 1/5 the Barbarian's normal damage output.

Okay, hold on a moment, there, Slim.

Your barbarian gets that damage output by making multiple attacks. Now, if his opponent must divide his attention, this gives him an opportunity to make *another* attack. And you're somehow construing this as "less" damage?

I've been thinking about this concept ever since I watched Sucker Punch a couple weeks ago, and it just doesn't seem right. In the movie, Baby Doll straight up kills an adult dragon in one attack of opportunity that she got because the dragon made a battlefield misstep. It seems to me that AoOs should be more deadly than regular attacks, because, nearly by definition, they have messed up in a way that opens up their defenses.

Wait, so you're reality checking this based on one of the most unrealistic films in the history of filmmaking?

If we want to reality check things, we have to think in terms of realities, not film. So what does an attack of opportunity really represent? When might one get an opportunity to make *more* attacks?

Is it, as you say, when an opponent makes a tactical misstep? No, it isn't. Compromised defenses do not allow for *more* attacks, they allow for *more successful* attacks. I do not suddenly become faster when my opponent stumbles, or is distracted.

So what does allow for more attacks? Well, anyone who has trained for actual hand-to-hand combat knows this: the reduction of a deterrent threat. In other words, I can attack more when I no longer have to watch out for my opponent's counters. In practice or in the ring, ceasing to threaten a counter attack can swiftly draw a flurry of strikes.

[brainpiercing]

So what does allow for more attacks? Well, anyone who has trained for actual hand-to-hand combat knows this: the reduction of a deterrent threat. In other words, I can attack more when I no longer have to watch out for my opponent's counters. In practice or in the ring, ceasing to threaten a counter attack can swiftly draw a flurry of strikes.

Alright, but that's what AoOs do now: You take your guard down, the other guy gets an attack. Now if you were to want to model reality better, you would have to say that....


ok, i'm jumping on an entirely different train of thought, here: Actually, Armor Class! Why do you get all sorts of AC, but not DEFENSE AC? Because really, that's the most important kind in a lot of melee combat.

So basically, what should happen is that you get your BAB, or a fraction of it, to AC whenever you actually threaten the square where the attack is coming from, and you don't get it when you don't threaten, in addition to provoking AoOs. Now this creates two problems:
Reach weapons now just got better, yet.
Ranged weapons never have to deal with being threatened.

I'm thinking this is too big a change to quickly incorporate into any set of house rules, but... short of straight up increasing all AC by BAB in melee, and thereby making melee combat very defense-heavy, how could such a thing be designed? I must say it gets very hard in straight up single-roll mechanics, whereas parrying by roll mechanics are tedious. Also, it's not really the parry itself that's working here, it's the threat of a counter-attack.

So the elements of attack are
BAB + bonuses + d20

The elements of defense are
10 (for the d20) + AC + bonuses

For an ideal 50% hit probability case, AC + bonuses are equal to BAB + bonuses.

Now strangely enough this pits a straight-up scaling mechanism against a monetarily scaling mechanism.

But how about this: Using the AC as DR optional rule from Unearthed, all AC bonuses from armour are halfed, and I believe excluding the magical bonuses, but we would probably have to include those.
Now:
This could  make the total AC:
10+1/2 armour bonus + dex + shield + other/magical + BAB!
And you gain 1/2 armor as DR/-

Total attack bonus
1d20 + BAB + Str/Dex + enhancement + other.

So...

For example, at level 1, wearing full-plate:

AC = 10+4(Armor)+1(dex)+1(bab) = 16; DR 4/-
AB:
1d20+4(Str)+1(Bab) = 5 (15.5 average)

At level 10:
AC = 10 +5 (armor+2) +1(dex) +10(bab) = 26, 25 w/o dex, 16 AoO, 15ff, but 21 touch!; DR 5/-
compared to regular:
10 + 10(armor) +1(dex) =21. Here you can see how useless heavy armour really is. In my game if you want to have reasonably good AC you will want 30 by level 10.

So now you have a system where shields are more valuable because they won't get reduce from provoking, total AC will probably be higher, and combat is more ablative. Also, hitting with touch attacks will get pretty difficult, eventually.

But it goes one:
When making power-attacks, what you're really doing is not making a wild powerful attack, but rather one that will leave you more open after the fact. So, we can easily make Shocktrooper's one maneuver obsolete by simply saying that Power-attack ALWAYS goes off BAB-AC, and not attack bonus.

[ImperatorK]

When making power-attacks, what you're really doing is not making a wild powerful attack, but rather one that will leave you more open after the fact. So, we can easily make Shocktrooper's one maneuver obsolete by simply saying that Power-attack ALWAYS goes off BAB-AC, and not attack bonus.

Monsters with many attacks get stronger. When it's a feat, you have specifically optimize to get it, but as a normal rule it makes some enemies much more dangerous.

[dman11235]

@Whisper: That's not actually how it works.  IN D&D, you don't get to make more attacks per round as you level, you just have more attacks per round that have a chance of connecting.  Even at level 1 you're making a bunch of attacks, it's just that all but 1 have literally no chance at hitting, and are mostly just for show (explained a number of ways based on character).  Some weapons are still 1 attack per round (ranged comes to mind), but primarily a higher BAB/more attacks is merely a way of saying that your strikes are of higher quality.

NOt only that, but D&D's reality is Hollywood's take on reality in most circumstances.

The problem with AoOs is that they don't punish battlefield missteps.  In a "real life" fight this misstep happens and you get an attack, but in D&D it works differently: that attack is usually not very dangerous.  You don't get the modifiers that you had during your turn, so it does less damage than an attack made then (usually).  But I don't think it would be right to allow them to do more damage.  So what about making them an easier hit?  I think that's a start.  BUt what about making them affect the action that provoked the AoO?  I think that's better.  So imo, it should be a bonus on the attack (+4?  More?  No, I think +4 works) with the option of increasing it (feats and such), and then some way of preventing the action that provoked it (not sure the mechanic).

[Whisper]

@Whisper: That's not actually how it works.  IN D&D, you don't get to make more attacks per round as you level, you just have more attacks per round that have a chance of connecting.  Even at level 1 you're making a bunch of attacks, it's just that all but 1 have literally no chance at hitting, and are mostly just for show (explained a number of ways based on character).  Some weapons are still 1 attack per round (ranged comes to mind), but primarily a higher BAB/more attacks is merely a way of saying that your strikes are of higher quality.

Meh, rationales are interchangeable.

That one, of course, is particularly unrealistic. Only novices slice the air with no chance of connecting. Trained fighters will abort many of their strikes when the opponent responds with an appropriate defense.

NOt only that, but D&D's reality is Hollywood's take on reality in most circumstances.

Yeah, D&D's combat system fails realism on so many levels that it's not even funny. AC contains no element of the defender's weapon skill. Hits are way too frequent, and too many can be absorbed. Damage contains no element of the attacker's skill, or the quality of the hit. And so on and so on and so on.

The problem with AoOs is that they don't punish battlefield missteps.  In a "real life" fight this misstep happens and you get an attack, but in D&D it works differently: that attack is usually not very dangerous. 

An opportunity is not a misstep. A misstep is "getting hit". An opportunity is "opponent focuses on something other than counterthreat".

Just about everything you do that provokes an AoO is a deliberate action, planned in advance. How you rationalize calling that a "misstep" I simply do not understand.

Defense doesn't work by standing still and catching incoming blows. It's a dynamic process of distancing, counterthreat, disranging, interception, slipping, and so forth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZE21oUMMm4

Now, obviously blue kinda sucks. Not very good at gap-closing. But watch how white takes advantage of this to control the range of the fight. It's obvious that for a skilled fighter, offense and defense blur together, and the very notion of an "attack" becomes somewhat of an abstraction.

[dman11235]

That one, of course, is particularly unrealistic. Only novices slice the air with no chance of connecting. Trained fighters will abort many of their strikes when the opponent responds with an appropriate defense.

Exactly.  Those hits the fighters abort?  Those are the ones I'm talking about.  Though it can be fluffed in just about any way, including the wiffing.

Also, when I put "real life" in quotes, that was supposed to convey that I was talking about real life according to movies.

So anyting about the topic at hand?  Agree with my statement?

[b100d_arrowz]

I get around this on the monster side by either making sure they have combat reflexes, or make them pay via hydra  Usually after the first time they get hit 5-12 times for a stupid action they remember to never do anything like that again... and then gleefully inflict the maximal punishment on my poor stupid things like said hydras 

[SneeR]

@Whisper: That's not actually how it works.  IN D&D, you don't get to make more attacks per round as you level, you just have more attacks per round that have a chance of connecting.  Even at level 1 you're making a bunch of attacks, it's just that all but 1 have literally no chance at hitting, and are mostly just for show (explained a number of ways based on character).  Some weapons are still 1 attack per round (ranged comes to mind), but primarily a higher BAB/more attacks is merely a way of saying that your strikes are of higher quality.

That's a very personal interpretation.

RAW supports only 1 actual attack made at level one, minus AoOs.
I see it as 1st-level combat is more realistic, in the sense of two sword fighters circling each other (5-foot steps), using a whole three (or six) seconds to find the exact right time to hit.
At higher levels, they can reliably bite flesh with their blades while swinging more precariously.

[Daniel]

It seems to me that AoOs should be more deadly than regular attacks, because, nearly by definition, they have messed up in a way that opens up their defenses.

Just because someone performs an action that provokes an AoO doesn't mean that they seriously messed up. It just means that they provided a small opening to an opponent. I think that the best way to model what you want is to allow an AoO that deals double damage if an opponent rolls a 1 on an attack roll.

[TC X0 Lt 0X]

Being Flat-Footed on AoOs seems to be the best way to make them deadlier.

[veekie]

^^
I think thats probably the best quick patch change really. Most opportunist types seem to be oriented towards a roguely nature anyway.

[TC X0 Lt 0X]

Well yeah, beyond a Lockdown Build anyway.

[veekie]

Incidentally flatfooted also makes it dangerous to provoke from strength primary types too, for one simple reason. Combat maneuvers are really easy for them to perform, even without the feat. You are provoking an AoO...except you don't because the target is flatfooted, you make a touch attack, against a flatfooted target, which is practically autohit, and then you're down to a strength check. Good odds to suddenly trip, disarm or grab your enemy in the opportunity.

[Ziegander]

Incidentally flatfooted also makes it dangerous to provoke from strength primary types too, for one simple reason. Combat maneuvers are really easy for them to perform, even without the feat. You are provoking an AoO...except you don't because the target is flatfooted, you make a touch attack, against a flatfooted target, which is practically autohit, and then you're down to a strength check. Good odds to suddenly trip, disarm or grab your enemy in the opportunity.

Good point. It took me a minute to realize what you were actually saying, but I take that as a net positive to the "quick fix" of making targets of OAs flat-footed. I love using combat maneuvers as part of attacks of opportunity.

[ImperatorK]

So with this houserule:
Sneak Attack is more useful and classes like Rogue can deal more damage if built properly.
It is easier to use special attacks (tripping, disarming, grappling, etc.).

Anything more? Because if there's no major problems with it, I like this idea very much.