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

[Ziegander]

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.

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.

So, if we accept the notion that AoOs should be more deadly than regular attacks, rather than a lot less so, how would we go about making that notion a reality? In redesigning D&D, I would rule that all critical hits, always scored on a natural 20, deal double damage, no more, no less, and with such a rule it would be simple and effective to say that AoOs are automatic critical hits.

[DDchampion]

Considering the amount of critical-immune stuff out there, why simply don't make aoos deal double damage? If the aoo then turns a critical hit on top of that, hey, cool beans, you one-shoted that adult dragon!

And since we're at it, make sure to remove/nerf the easiest ways to avoid aoos. If you take a 5-foot step, then you can't take any other actions this round. No defensive casting. Etc etc.

[dman11235]

You might want to include an automatic attack bonus or defence drop for them.  Every time you see an AoO in media, not only does it do lots of damage, but it also is an easy hit.  So might want to add a +4 attack or (more accurately) a -4 AC for the target when provoking.  Just whenever doing an action that would provoke they get it?  Or only when they provoke one?  Not sure if there's a noticeable difference.  Add in feats to support this new rule too.

As for damage, I don't think double damage is the way to go.  I don't think it would be balanced to make this THAT awesome.  How about instead, it's max damage for the dice?  Not sure if something like Flaming would be included or not, probably though.

I do need to comment though, there is a class that rakes in on AoOs: Monk with the Decicive Strike variant.  DS deals double damage in exchange for making one attack in that round, but the damage carries over until the start of your next turn.  Combine with Robilar's Gambit (Karmic Strike), Crusader stances, extra reach, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Trip, that's actually a tasty amount of damage.

[Agita]

Random thought (literally, just the first random thing that came to mind) playing into the to-hit bonus/AC penalty: What if AoOs considered the provoking party to be flat-footed? Probably also makes them too awesome, though.

[ImperatorK]

Random thought (literally, just the first random thing that came to mind) playing into the to-hit bonus/AC penalty: What if AoOs considered the provoking party to be flat-footed? Probably also makes them too awesome, though.

Yeah, then every Rogue would be an AoO master. Maybe just make it not work for Sneak Attack? Or make it similar to flat-footedness, but not exactly the same? Or allow adding only half of Sneak Attack on AoOs?
Wait, does Sneak Attack even work not on your turn? I assume it does, why shouldn't it.
Something we should take into account when thinking about this, is that there are ways to make AoOs a decent tactic. Karmic Strike, Robilar's Gambit? There are feats that give more attacks on AoOs. There are classes that give bonuses on AoOs (Warblade).

[X-Codes]

I was going to say something about you keeping your better PA multiplier on a Leap Attack when you make AoO's, but it seems that the Errata to the feat may have actually changed that, too, when they changed the wording of the feat to make it not give a 6:1 ratio with a two-hander.

I think you still keep your better PA multiplier on a charge.  You definitely keep the full effect of Shock Trooper for AoO's, although other multipliers like Headlong Rush will have to be looked at.

[brainpiercing]

There are class features and feats to make AoOs better. Giving that to everyone would just devalue those. IMHO like everything in D&D, it's class features and feats that should make things awesome, not just a baseline ability to do them.

[X-Codes]

There are class features and feats to make AoOs better. Giving that to everyone would just devalue those. IMHO like everything in D&D, it's class features and feats that should make things awesome, not just a baseline ability to do them.

On the other hand, some of these class features are the only good thing about these classes, and some of these feats require a bucket of feat taxes to take.

[dman11235]

Random thought (literally, just the first random thing that came to mind) playing into the to-hit bonus/AC penalty: What if AoOs considered the provoking party to be flat-footed? Probably also makes them too awesome, though.

That might work actually.  Although ImperatorK is right, we have to keep in mind how powerful this is.  If we make it FF, then no damage increase.  You can currently SA on not-your-turn, although I don't think that will be a problem.  You can already SA against flanked, and that's easier to set up than an AoO.  This would make precision based damage classes slightly better, but mostly those with Sudden Strike, rather than Sneak Attack or Skirmish.

@X-Codes:

Right.  Robilar's Gambit is a minimum of level 12 iirc, and has significant investment required.  Karmic Strike has a larage investment, and the feats that grant more than one attack on an AoO have huge investments.  The PrCs tha focus on AoOs....I'm not sure I even know of any.  Monk's the only class I know of that lends itself well to them, with Decicive Strike.  This new option allows for more classes/feats to be made to work with this specific rule, though we would have to check with existing ones and fix them.

[brainpiercing]

On the other hand, some of these class features are the only good thing about these classes, and some of these feats require a bucket of feat taxes to take.

I see what you mean. However... then I would rather homebrew some more feats than change the base mechanic.

Basically if you said that any AoO you take during one combat turn keeps all other damage mods from your last action, then that should be fine IMHO.
Making targets flat-footed would cause some crazy shenanigans with Iaijutsu focus and the like. In fact there is a feat that makes targets of AoOs flat-footed, already, and I remember trying to work out a build to turn this into a shtick.

[Ziegander]

On the other hand, some of these class features are the only good thing about these classes, and some of these feats require a bucket of feat taxes to take.

I see what you mean. However... then I would rather homebrew some more feats than change the base mechanic.

Basically if you said that any AoO you take during one combat turn keeps all other damage mods from your last action, then that should be fine IMHO.
Making targets flat-footed would cause some crazy shenanigans with Iaijutsu focus and the like. In fact there is a feat that makes targets of AoOs flat-footed, already, and I remember trying to work out a build to turn this into a shtick.

My whole premise, however, is that AoOs should, by default, be more deadly than a normal attack. Someone shouldn't have to specialize in AoOs to make sure they are more deadly than his normal attacks, because they already should be getting there.

If I were rewriting the game, I'd make nothing immune to crits, make crits always double damage, and then make AoOs auto-crits. And there could still be plenty of other feats for a crit specialist and for an AoO machine, but at least this will make the bog standard AoO a deadly strike.

But since rewriting the game isn't something anyone else is interested in hearing about, how might we slightly alter the rules for 3.5 so that AoOs are more deadly? Simply stating that they are "double-damage" isn't a horrible idea, but it lacks a certain elegance to it. Making enemies flat-footed means that the Rogue is a lot more deadly with his AoOs than the Fighter, which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

[brainpiercing]

Well, you'll certainly drastically rebalance the game in doing so. I wouldn't care about it, too much, because if anything, only hitting should be easier. How do you do more damage with a snap attack you make from pure reflexes more than anything else? What you are thinking of in fiction/movies isn't AoOs, it's readied actions, IMHO. I'm perfectly fine with making readied attacks do more damage.

It's also bad from a gameplay perspective: If anyone could just deal double damage with an AoO, firstly, reach weapons would be MUCH stronger. And people would be sitting around a lot waiting for people to run into their threat range, rather than advancing and eating the AoO in the process. Incorporate Thicket of Blades and the like, and you'll just have shut down the dynamic battlefield. That doesn't seem like fun to me.

Go even further and remove 5-foot steps, and you've lost all tactical maneuverability in a melee.

[Ziegander]

Well, you'll certainly drastically rebalance the game in doing so. I wouldn't care about it, too much, because if anything, only hitting should be easier. How do you do more damage with a snap attack you make from pure reflexes more than anything else? What you are thinking of in fiction/movies isn't AoOs, it's readied actions, IMHO. I'm perfectly fine with making readied attacks do more damage.

Except that readying actions in D&D typically blows worse than just about anything else, and "taking advantage of an enemy's misstep" never seems to cost a warrior any action momentum in media.

If anyone could just deal double damage with an AoO, firstly, reach weapons would be MUCH stronger.

This is a legitimate concern in any discussion about making AoOs do more stuff/kill things faster.

Incorporate Thicket of Blades and the like, and you'll just have shut down the dynamic battlefield. That doesn't seem like fun to me.

Ruling that AoOs deal double damage doesn't make the control on the battlefield exerted by a Thicket of Blades build any worse it just means that they mop up enemies faster.

Go even further and remove 5-foot steps, and you've lost all tactical maneuverability in a melee.

I never said anything about doing this, and I definitely wouldn't ever do this.

[DonQuixote]

What you're describing stems more from the foe goofing up than from what seems to provoke an attack of opportunity in D&D.  For instance, combatants often circle one another without any attacks of opportunity going out, yet trying to move around your target would provoke one in D&D.

You say that pulling out a potion and drinking it would be a good way to get killed, but that's only if you do it the way that Link does--stop everything else and stand with your legs spread shoulder-width apart as you calmly empty a bottle into your mouth.  However, I could easily see a swordsman, while remaining on his guard, using his off-hand to pull a potion out of his pouch, uncorking it with his teeth, and drinking it all without losing sight of the enemy.  Sure, his opponent might get the chance to land a hit or two in there, but only along the terms of D&D attacks of opportunity.

I do agree that there should be a mechanic for taking advantage of someone who leaves themselves open, but--given the wide range of situations that are covered by attacks of opportunity--I think it might make more sense as something applied to specific cases, rather than to every attack of opportunity ever.

[brainpiercing]

Except that readying actions in D&D typically blows worse than just about anything else, and "taking advantage of an enemy's misstep" never seems to cost a warrior any action momentum in media.

I'll give you that - readied actions are generally not what you want to do. However, I think I would need more of an opening in order to justify letting the AoO deal so much more damage. (As DonQuixote said just now, too.)

This is a legitimate concern in any discussion about making AoOs do more stuff/kill things faster.

If you were ever in any game of mine you would strongly come to feel that as a double-edge sword... Enemies get tactics, too, you know.

Ruling that AoOs deal double damage doesn't make the control on the battlefield exerted by a Thicket of Blades build any worse it just means that they mop up enemies faster.

Obviously it makes Thicket even better. While the stance is unlikely on low-level bad guys, I'm not beyond giving it to an enemy to create a tactical challenge. So... double edged sword?

D&D already is a game that is full of glass cannons.

Go even further and remove 5-foot steps, and you've lost all tactical maneuverability in a melee.

I never said anything about doing this, and I definitely wouldn't ever do this.

Wasn't you, someone else said it. (To make five-foot steps full-round actions, as I understood it. Doesn't make sense, too, you already have Withdraw.)

[Ziegander]

Except that readying actions in D&D typically blows worse than just about anything else, and "taking advantage of an enemy's misstep" never seems to cost a warrior any action momentum in media.

I'll give you that - readied actions are generally not what you want to do. However, I think I would need more of an opening in order to justify letting the AoO deal so much more damage. (As DonQuixote said just now, too.)

This isn't a bad idea. Let's brainstorm some mechanics for this sort of "in between an AoO and a readied action" attack.

A simple rule would be that whenever an enemy is flat-footed AND provokes an attack of opportunity, that AoO deals double damage/is an auto-crit. That could make Feinting in combat not absolutely terrible.

If you were ever in any game of mine you would strongly come to feel that as a double-edge sword... Enemies get tactics, too, you know.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. You're coming across as giving me a warning when I was agreeing with you that making reach weapons even more powerful than they already are is a legitimate concern.

Wasn't you, someone else said it. (To make five-foot steps full-round actions, as I understood it. Doesn't make sense, too, you already have Withdraw.)

Ah, okay. Yeah, the 5ft step is a good thing and not something that should be taken out of the game. It might be a good idea to make the rules about 5ft steps more clear, and it would definitely be a good idea to expand on the mechanics of the 5ft step, but no way to taking them out of the game.

[SneeR]

I've always saw AoOs as more "afterthought attacks." Like, Bob Barbarian is ganking some poor goblin. A kobold runs by; Bob Barbarian notices this out of the corner of his eye and swipes his axe at the runner in a quick manner so as not to drop his defense against the goblin in front of him. In my mind, this is more akin to sticking out your sword and clotheslining them than getting an extra attack. It shouldn't be a killing blow, merely an incentive not to go prancing about the field willy-nilly.

[brainpiercing]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. You're coming across as giving me a warning when I was agreeing with you that making reach weapons even more powerful than they already are is a legitimate concern.

Ummm... maybe that came off wrong. I wasn't giving you a warning, I was giving you a perspective in a... well maybe not optimal manner. Look, the thing is, if you want to make a bad guy hard to melee, give him reach. I would feel very scared to give a goblin even a longspear with your rules change at low levels. And basically, the longspear is my favourite weapon for low level enemies. I've sent my groups against platoons of low-level Crusaders, too. I see the game world as a very equal opportunities thing.

I've always saw AoOs as more "afterthought attacks." Like, Bob Barbarian is ganking some poor goblin. A kobold runs by; Bob Barbarian notices this out of the corner of his eye and swipes his axe at the runner in a quick manner so as not to drop his defense against the goblin in front of him. In my mind, this is more akin to sticking out your sword and clotheslining them than getting an extra attack. It shouldn't be a killing blow, merely an incentive not to go prancing about the field willy-nilly.

This is my feeling, too. There should be something else, but I think a part of what Ziegander wants is buried somewhere in the Feint rules, because that is what you do to set up an attack against a weak spot by provoking a detrimental action.

Then of course, maybe there could be two kinds of AoOs:
- The regular kind, which happens when someone moves, or does generally combatty things that still provoke (unarmed attack, ranged attack)
- the aggravated kind, which happens when someone does something blatantly stupid, and stuff you would be specifically watching out for, like casting spells

And even I feel that there could also be a basic "stupidity toll". Like the first time you provoke that AoO from one enemy, you get normal damage. Second time you get double, because the guy will be watching out for that now.

Still, I think most methods to make normal AoOs better should go over the hitting route, not the damage route.

[bhu]

possible idea for fighter remake...

bonus damage dice with attacks of opportunity...

[dman11235]

Feint=provoke AoO?