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

[brainpiercing]

Feint=provoke AoO?

Feint causes the target to become flat-footed (IIRC), which is usually better than an AoO. There is no need to change that, IMHO, even though feinting is probably an underused mechanic, due to the action consumption.

I remembered the feat needed to make the target of an AoO flat-footed: It was Mercurial Strike, from Dragon 310, and you need to draw the weapon to make the AoO. The difficult thing is even threatening when unarmed without crap levels... AND unfortunately dragon is not a common resource in many groups I would say.

The thread discussing this was here: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=8535.0 (hopefully it won't be taken down just yet, I still have to copy that .

[dman11235]

I meant what if we changed it so that feinting caused the target to provoke an AoO from anyone in reach?  That might make feinting better and useful.  Maybe just provoke an AoO from you and feats to allow you to make them provoke from everyone.  This also makes it so that feitning gets the attack on the turn of the feint, no matter what.

[Ziegander]

So, if your Feint is successful, the enemy is flat-footed for 1 round and provokes an AoO from you? And then with Improved Feint it doesn't make the action cost any faster, but it makes your AoO an auto-crit?

[X-Codes]

I think I'd rather that Feint always be an attack action (so with +16 or better BAB you can feint/attack/feint/attack), and then with Improved Feint your opponent is flat-footed until you miss with an attack.

[SneeR]

Improved Feint should make feinting a swift action.

[dman11235]

i was thinking more along the lines of X-Code's idea.  Feint is an attack action, makes them FF against the next attack that goes their way, as long as it happens before their next turn.  Improved Feint makes it last until YOUR next turn, regards of how many attacks.  Or maybe of up to your Int in attacks.  Maybe something else.  BUt we're getting off topic, this was jsut an idea that the previous statement by brainpiercing sparked for me.

[Ziegander]

i was thinking more along the lines of X-Code's idea.  Feint is an attack action, makes them FF against the next attack that goes their way, as long as it happens before their next turn.  Improved Feint makes it last until YOUR next turn, regards of how many attacks.  Or maybe of up to your Int in attacks.  Maybe something else.  BUt we're getting off topic, this was jsut an idea that the previous statement by brainpiercing sparked for me.

Well, I suppose that's a fine change to Feint, but that doesn't give us a good "lethally readied AoO" type mechanic. Maybe that sort of thing is a lost cause in D&D 3.5.

[X-Codes]

The thing is, a feint doesn't really have anything at all to do with AoO's.  It's a technique meant to make your opponent think you're going to attack in one place while your actual attack will be directed somewhere else, while an AoO is an attack directed at an obvious opening in your foe's defenses.

Besides, if the issue is making the attacks super-deadly, then making an opponent flat-footed against an AoO really doesn't help that much.

Also, if we want AoO's in general to be super-deadly, then changing one specific sort of AoO won't really help there, either.

[Ziegander]

Besides, if the issue is making the attacks super-deadly, then making an opponent flat-footed against an AoO really doesn't help that much.

I don't necessarily mean "super-deadly" just deadlier than they currently are.

Also, if we want AoO's in general to be super-deadly, then changing one specific sort of AoO won't really help there, either.

Well, most of the posters here disagree that AoO should be super-deadly, or even deadly at all, in general, so now I'm looking to offer a compromise. I see AoOs as attacks directed at an obvious opening in your foe's defenses, as you put it. A lot of other posters see them as kind of "afterthought attacks." And to be honest, that's basically all the designers put them in the game for, was just a throwaway mechanic to make Fighters feel like they could do something to protect the squishies.

[ImperatorK]

Well, most of the posters here disagree that AoO should be super-deadly, or even deadly at all, in general

Really? I didn't notice. I'm sure that I, at least, agree with the premise that AoOs should matter more by being either more deadly or more useful.

[Ziegander]

Well, should AoOs, by default cause the provoking action to fail? Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not pay the feat tax, do not give foes a reflex save to negate.

Someone moves out of one of your threatened squares? AoO, and if you hit, then they don't move.

Someone tries to chug in potion in your face? AoO, and if you hit, the potion is wasted.

Someone tries to cast a spell in your face? AoO, and if you hit, the spell fails.

With this ruling, I would say that Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, and Trip do not provoke attacks of opportunity, nor does making an Unarmed Strike against an armed opponent. I think it might also be prudent to do away with Combat Reflexes, saying that all characters get 1 attack of opportunity per round + 1 per point of his/her Dex modifier. Finally, it would probably also be a good idea to use 4e's concept of Threatening Reach and make that a feat, so that creatures with reach don't threaten beyond adjacent squares unless they take a feat to do that.

All of the above makes AoOs more useful and also makes reach weapons slightly less useful, seems like a good compromise. However, none of the above necessarily makes AoOs more deadly. Should deadly AoOs be the purview of the Fighter class? Or should deadly AoOs be something that must be granted via feat specialization (which could still make the Fighter quite good at getting there)?

[ImperatorK]

Well, should AoOs, by default cause the provoking action to fail? Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not pay the feat tax, do not give foes a reflex save to negate.

Someone moves out of one of your threatened squares? AoO, and if you hit, then they don't move.

Someone tries to chug in potion in your face? AoO, and if you hit, the potion is wasted.

Someone tries to cast a spell in your face? AoO, and if you hit, the spell fails.

That's actually a good idea. I find it weird that you can get hit in the face all of a sudden and still continue to do whatever you where doing like nothing happened.

[Eldritch_Lord]

Well, should AoOs, by default cause the provoking action to fail? Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not pay the feat tax, do not give foes a reflex save to negate.

Someone moves out of one of your threatened squares? AoO, and if you hit, then they don't move.

Someone tries to chug in potion in your face? AoO, and if you hit, the potion is wasted.

Someone tries to cast a spell in your face? AoO, and if you hit, the spell fails.

With this ruling, I would say that Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, and Trip do not provoke attacks of opportunity, nor does making an Unarmed Strike against an armed opponent. I think it might also be prudent to do away with Combat Reflexes, saying that all characters get 1 attack of opportunity per round + 1 per point of his/her Dex modifier. Finally, it would probably also be a good idea to use 4e's concept of Threatening Reach and make that a feat, so that creatures with reach don't threaten beyond adjacent squares unless they take a feat to do that.

All of the above makes AoOs more useful and also makes reach weapons slightly less useful, seems like a good compromise. However, none of the above necessarily makes AoOs more deadly. Should deadly AoOs be the purview of the Fighter class? Or should deadly AoOs be something that must be granted via feat specialization (which could still make the Fighter quite good at getting there)?

I think giving the person hit some way to mitigate it would be appropriate; I don't like giving absolutely everyone an automatic interrupt on an AoO.

How about this: someone hit by an AoO can make a Ref save (DC 10 + damage dealt) to not completely lose what they were doing--you don't burn the spell slot, you don't waste the potion, etc.--but you still lose the action you took to try to cast or drink the potion or whatever, with the usual Concentration rules for spellcasting to see if you lose the spell after all.  A PC martial type would still be likely to auto-interrupt with it, but minions/summons wouldn't be quite as dangerous in small numbers

[Ziegander]

I think giving the person hit some way to mitigate it would be appropriate; I don't like giving absolutely everyone an automatic interrupt on an AoO.

Well, the AoO has to hit.  Mitigating the interrupt = avoiding the situations where you provoke one in the first place. And 5ft steps still exist and for good reason. Concentration would still allow casting defensively to avoid provoking, and actually, it could be used to "do anything defensively" to avoid provoking an AoO when you do anything that would normally provoke. That seems nice. Makes Concentration important for characters other than casters. Tumble would still be important in that it would let you move through squares rather than moving around them defensively.

And yes, the way I see it you only lose the action interrupted, you wouldn't lose a potion you attempt to drink or a spell slot on an attempted cast.

[zugschef]

i'd say the AoO has to deal damage, merely hitting is not enough.

[dman11235]

You have to change both those skills though, right now just a rank can allow anyone to auto-succeed, depending on items/build, and 15 ranks?  That's all you need.

[SneeR]

What if your Tumble check was your AC for the use of movement? Only skilled martial types could hit, then.

If we wanted to go for saves, I think Fortitude Save DC: damage dealt is good to keep your action. Again, martial types are more likely to stay their ground and keep chugging that potion like a boss, but the fragile types will flinch and stop (though I agree that the action should just be interrupted and lost, not any resources the action deals with).

[caelic]

I think we might be asking the wrong question here.

I'm not sure the question is why fighters can't inflict competitive damage outside of their turn; we know why (no pounce-leap attack-battle jump synergy.)

The real question, I think, would be "Why the hell do fighters need to pounce-leap attack-battle jump in order to inflict competitive damage?"  Why are there only a few genuinely viable strategies for a fighter?

Of course, that's also a much bigger question, and one that's at the heart of 3.5's design problems.

[Ziegander]

Wait. Wait, wait.

...

Wait.

Okay, maybe I've got something here, maybe I don't. Characters are entitled to a number of Opportunity Attacks per round equal equal to their Dexterity bonus (minimum 0). Here's the interesting part: Characters are also entitled to one free readied action per round. Actions readied in this way must still be triggered by a specific event, but they do not cost players a standard action to ready. If they do go off, awesome. If they don't, well it didn't cost you anything. Readied actions must be standard actions and can be used for movement.

Now, if a creature is hit with an attack that is readied to interrupt their action, if that readied attack hits and deals damage, then that action simply fails. Opportunity Attacks are provoked by all the normal stuff minus unarmed strikes and combat maneuvers, but they don't auto-interrupt actions like everybody's free readied action does. So, casting a spell provokes an attack of opportunity, but even if you're hit by one and dealt damage you are never at risk of losing the spell when hit with an Opportunity Attack like you are with a readied attack.

Concentration can be used to perform any action defensively, and in successfully doing so a creature avoid provoking attacks of opportunity and also avoids losing their action when hit and dealt damage by a readied attack.

Should there be some penalty for failing a Concentration check so that it's not just an automatic skill that characters always have max ranks in and make checks with for every action in every combat round?

[X-Codes]

Nerfs beatsticks way more than anyone else, actually.  If something is capable of hitting hard, they just ready an action to interrupt the Beatstick's attacks.  If not, they ready an action to leave the Beatstick's reach (and probably use Concentration to negate the AoO).

EDIT: Well, not as bad as I first thought.  If they train Concentration, then it's just another layer of failure for them when it comes to the readied attack.  They're still SoL with the readied move.