Attacks of Opportunity, And Other ProblemsOne great failing of the SRD (System Reference Document), or the d20 system, or even the As such, even now, what I'm about to write here is only my interpretation of some of the written rules, and I know for a fact many have interpreted these same rules very differently. I could be wrong. The problem is that one never really knows unless they write Wizards of the Coast (or whomever) and asks for clarification, and this is often a tedious and time-consuming process, especially if you have dozens of questions. Furthermore, I'm told one could easily get different answers for the same question from several different representatives, though this hasn't happened to me, personally. I've never felt the need to ask the same question more than once, so I'm not sure why some people feel this way unless they are given to asking the same questions more than once. Perhaps several friends each asked, compared notes, and apparently thought the answers were different, but then I suspect maybe the questions were loaded differently, or they each asked slightly different questions. Often how one asks a question may shape the reply. But I digress. Even if WotC confirms the intent of the authors for a particular rule was "such and such," a GM should still feel free to alter those rules since all rules are simply guidelines, after all. GMs should do whatever they feel makes the most sense to them and their players. Even when doing this one would still be playing 3e, of course, but they'd be using some house rules or rule variants, and this is fine. A GM should just make sure his or her players know what they're doing ahead of time since no one likes being unfairly surprised, and it's generally a good idea to strive for consistency, too, so whatever ruling one makes, one should stick to it for that group of players. Again, I digress. Recently I was looking harder at the third edition (or 3e, or even 3.5e, or SRD) combat system and I noted several huge implications in the rules that several others have been telling me is not how they play. Why is that? I think it's because the rules are very misleading. Some rules often seem based upon strange or unrealistic assumptions or initial premises, so this is not too surprising. Anytime one builds upon a wholly unrealistic premise, it's nearly inevitable to arrive at peculiar conclusions. Most notably, for this article, I'm going to take exception to the Attack of Opportunity rules - or at least in how some people might interpret them. First and foremost, Attacks of Opportunity are described as "free actions" and this makes little sense from the start. I mean, get real! This combat system even takes pains to account for such little things, like drawing a dagger and the time it takes to do that, so one would think it would be wise enough not to foolishly assume an attack of opportunity (or AOO) took no time at all. Sure, it might be so fast and at such relativistic speeds - speeds approaching the speed of light - that time dilatation might account for why it appears to take no time, but I honestly don't think the authors were contemplating the relativistic physics of combat at this level, or actually felt AOOs moved near the speed of light. Far more likely, they fudged things or glossed them over to get a desired result, but didn't want to bother explaining or justifying them beyond that. Simplicity is often quick and easy, but also frequently pretty unrealistic. In fact, they do many unrealistic things in the name of their new combat system. Getting material spell components out for free is very unrealistic. Have you ever tried to find things in your pockets or purse in less than a second? It often takes much longer than a free action; however, it's not so unreasonable to think such an action could be combined with a move. Also, making a spell caster's touch attacks count as "armed" attacks, when they are clearly not, is another fudge factor. They just didn't want to make such "touch" spells virtually worthless, but they also didn't want to give spell casters the improved unarmed strike for free, which is about what it would take to justify this (even assuming that feat is realistic to begin with). Or simply allowing one to draw arrows or sling bullets as free actions is yet another bogus rule. Again, combining such actions with a move action sounds about right - I could draw an arrow from my quiver and nock it while hustling along for about 30 feet. Of course, shooting 10 arrows in a minute in the midst of combat is not exactly realistic, either, let alone even more than that using multiple attacks and various feats, but to do otherwise makes bows and arrows rather weak compared to a sword's 10 or more attacks in that same amount of time, and they didn't like that, so they fudged it. It may be true some attacks could go that quickly - particularly when fighting one opponent and no movement is involved - but in general, most attacks would realistically take longer than 6 seconds to set up and execute - though, admittedly, less than a minute as well. But we needn't get into that here. NOTE: Though possible to discharge 10 arrows per minute, this hardly takes into account the time usually required for aiming accurately at moving combatants or moving oneself and taking up new positions amidst the chaos of open melee. I suspect those who timed the firing rate of bows and arrows didn't account for the typical time required for targets to present themselves so much as they just timed how fast a skilled bowman could fire arrows at a stationary target. If you disagree, that's fine, but I did feel it important to explain my skepticism in this regard. Firing at large bodies of men in the distance (spray and pray) or stationary targets is rather different from close quarter combat, wherein friend and foe are often both in the mix and conditions are decidedly less than ideal. In short, the listed firing rate is probably a bit optimistic, though we'll go with it and not make a rule change for the sake of simplicity. However, getting arrows from quivers, etc. would not be free actions so much as move equivalent actions, though they could easily be combined with move actions. But while we're at it, even taking an attack of opportunity would probably provoke an AOO from a second opponent, if they were also adjacent to one's square, but the rules don't cover this eventuality. For Al fighting both Bob and Charlie, if Bob did something that provoked an AOO, Al could take it, but that might open Al up to Charlie. There are many problems like this, or so they seem to me to be problems given the way some players use these rules. Granted, 3e combat is not meant to be overly realistic - it's a roleplaying game, after all, and not a combat simulation game - but certain problems may crop up that will need to be addressed since they happen frequently enough to matter. For example, the very notion of retreating from combat is nearly impossible the way many interpret these rules. Given two combatants, A and B (or Al and Bob), if they begin in a toe-to-toe scenario and Bob wishes to retreat, some players feel the rules imply the following. Here, we will assume Al and Bob each have the same movement rate of 30 feet. First, if Bob runs away, Al gets an AOO. Bob's AC is also lower if he had a Dex bonus since he can't use that while running away. Fair enough. But then some also say Al can, upon his initiative count, also run after Bob and end up in the same relative position as they had before. If Bob wishes to retreat again, Al gets another AOO on Bob and then Al runs after him again, and this goes on and on each round until Bob dies. Of course there's the option to "withdraw". Here, Bob withdraws from Al and moves 2x Bob's normal movement rate, and this does not provoke an AOO. Fair enough. But then some claim Al may then "Charge" Bob, go 2x his normal rate, and he will get a On the other hand, one may interpret the rules differently (and, I feel, more realistically). The run action is a full round action and would probably preclude things like taking attacks of opportunity, drawing a weapon while running, getting out an arrow or getting out material spell components, etc. It even precludes things like getting one's normal Dexterity bonus for one's AC, after all. Full round actions, like running at 4x one's rate, usually precludes everything else that round, and though the rules might not explicitly say this, I feel this must also include taking AOOs. It's just common sense, really. You couldn't even activate a pearl of power while running at 4x your rate, and you need only mentally think about that item somewhere on your body to use it - you don't even have to get it out and hold it - but you can't do even that and still run, so it's only realistic not to allow one in full flight to take AOOs, too, or prevent one who took the time to take an AOO from running at full flight that same round. Therefore, if Al takes his AOO on Bob as Bob runs away, that's fine, but Al could not run after Bob at 4x his normal rate afterwards, IMHO (In My Honest Opinion). Sure, he could take the AOO and follow Bob, but only at his normal movement rate of 30 feet. Thus, Bob would have moved 120 feet, while Al gave chase and moved 30 feet, and the following round would start with Bob 90 feet ahead of Al and likely to stay at least that far ahead of him - (unless Bob turns to fight some more). On the other hand, if Bob simply withdraws, Bob can move 2x his move, or 60 feet. Though Al cannot get an AOO for this, he might be able to charge. The quote below might even suggest it. "CHARGE
Charging is a special full round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
Movement During a Charge.
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here's what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. (Helpless creatures don't stop a charge).
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.
Attacking on a Charge.
After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge." OK, so we see that since Bob is apparently 60 feet away now (and assuming Bob didn't turn a corner or move around an interposing object, like a tree or a boulder or the like, since the withdraw move does not require one move only in a straight line like the charge rule does) then Al might charge a straight 60 feet (2x his move) and attack Bob at First of all, the start-stop, choppy action of the combat round is merely an illusion. Bob isn't running 60 feet and then stopping to wait for Al to catch up and clobber him, and Al certainly isn't letting Bob get 60 feet away before he starts chasing him. In actual fact, Al sticks to Bob like glue and there is NEVER even 10 feet between them, let alone 60 feet. If Bob ever gets that far ahead of Al, he'll stay that far ahead since they have the same movement rate. So Al can keep up with Bob, but can never charge Bob like that. This charge rule only applies to charging a target that starts at least 10 straight feet away. Therefore, though Al can follow Bob as he withdraws, he cannot realistically charge him. Maybe Al might be able to run past Bob as Bob withdraws. Bob begins his withdrawal and moves away, while Al sees this and runs possibly up to 4x his movement. Well, he can't get 4x his move unless it's straight, and Bob is in the way of that. He might get 3x in a curved path, but that might come so close to Bob that Bob could get an AOO as Al passed Bob - unfortunately, the withdraw action is also a full round action, so one should not get AOOs while so engaged). Still, realistically, since Bob could probably alter his withdraw into a run mid round, after he sees Al running after him in a curved path, odds are Al can't catch Bob like this, either. Maybe this is the reason why a 3x, but curved path run, is not given as a standard option. A few other problems arise that wouldn't if one broke down rounds into two 3-second rounds instead of one 6-second round, but we need not get into that here. In any event, interpreted "properly" these rules DO allow for Bob's escape. Granted, with several opponents running after Bob, Bob's odds don't look good and several running opponents will probably out pace him and quickly surround him if Bob uses withdraw at 2x, while they run at 4x and cut off Bob's avenues of escape. Thus, Al's friends can probably catch Bob, even if Al can't. But if Bob just runs and takes the AOO hit on him from his opponent, should Bob survive, the next round he'll usually have 120 feet on any pursuers (sometimes a little less, but at least some distance from anyone who took an AOO on him such that the following rounds this won't happen to him again). Therefore, one can get away after incurring, at most, a single AOO on them as they run away. This practice of allowing repeated AOOs and pursuit until your opponent drops is ludicrous. However, Al need not take the AOO, and he can run after Bob and keep up with him and keep him in sight, so whether Bob withdraws or runs, keeping up with Bob is often not the problem (who gets tired first is a different topic, of course). The point is, though one can keep up with Bob, they cannot get in a free AOO or a Yes, I know a GM is free to interpret attacks of opportunity, or some associated combat rules, differently than I have, and they even might be led astray by the crazy notion AOOs should be free actions simply because the rules foolishly say they are, so instead of thinking about it and considering if that even makes a scrap of sense, some might take them at their word and think of AOOs as instantaneous free actions that take no time, do not provoke AOOs themselves from other opponents, and cost absolutely nothing in anyway - but this is silly, IMHO, even if one interpretation of the rules says that's exactly what AOOs are like. "Free" actions, indeed. What nonsense. To fix the problem, I don't even think I'm altering the rules so much as interpreting "full round actions" properly and showing how one may not take AOOs during them, but either way, I prefer a touch more realism than "free" attacks.
A few "fixes" or "house rules" that I employ would include the following:
AOOs are NOT free actions, but almost free actions. They are "interrupt" actions. They are not even swift actions, or immediate actions, as these categories imply something else, but they are not totally free actions, either. AOOs should take some time, and some full round actions, like run, may be thereafter precluded that round, though others like full attacks would only be precluded if one already took more than a 5-foot step. Thus, an AOO and a full attack would be permissible, along with a 5-foot step, but no further.
In fact, to make it more realistic, one might even optionally insist anyone taking an AOO lowers one's initiative count by one or two places thereafter. To add a little random element, maybe even 1d6 counts lower. If this drops them below 1, take that number and add it to 20, plus their Dex MOD, plus any other initiative modifier - (such as from the improved initiative feat) - and start again the higher initiative count next round, but do NOT act on that last round.
EXAMPLE: If one's initiative count was 1 and their opponent provoked an AOO, they take it right then, as an interrupt action, but when count 1 arrives, they do not act. A roll 1d6 this time yields a 5. Old count - 1d6 = 1-5 = -4. -4 would be the new initiative count, but we push this into the next round instead. If their Dex Mod = +2 and they have the improved initiative feat for +4, then their new initiative count would be (-4)+20+2+4 = 22. Their new count is at 22 for the next round and all subsequent rounds they act on 22 unless or until something causes their count to change again. No, they are not getting an extra turn - they are just kind of delaying the action or refocusing since taking the AOO takes at least a count of 1, and perhaps as much as a count of 6. Of course, this is just an optional change, as all such rules are guidelines, but you might wish to adopt it or give it a try.
The normal rules as to what threatens a square are still applicable, but when something provokes an AOO, it is unrealistic to assume one can always take advantage of this lapse of defense. The higher skilled a combatant one is, the more likely they can take these advantages of an opponent's mistakes or lowering of one's guard, so the higher one's BAB, the more likely this can happen.
As such, when one normally gets to take an AOO under standard rules, I find, for those who wish to try to take an AOO, it's better to have them roll a reflex saving throw at DC 10. The role is 1d20 + one's BAB + Dex Mod. If they succeed, they may take this AOO as normal. If running that round at 4x their rate is absolutely vital, they may wish to forego this AOO and not even bother to make the reflex save roll.
The feat, Combat Reflexes, works slightly differently, then. One may skip the reflex save vs. a DC 10 and just take 1 AOO, should one be provoked, of course. However, if they wish to roll, and they succeed, they may take more AOOs , just as that feat allowed before, but if they roll a 1, since 1 always fails, they may take NO AOOs that round for such a provocation.
Since taking an AOO should realistically provoke an AOO from yet another adjacent opponent, if there are any there, this can get really messy if multiple opponents are all threatening the same square, or each other's squares. Therefore, to simplify things while maintaining realism, instead of setting up a messy chain reaction of AOOs, we do the following:
One simply cannot make an AOO unless they are willing open up their own guard. To account for this, it is simply ruled when taking an AOO that other adjacent opponents get a NOTE: The reason why certain actions provoke AOOs, but only for adjacent melee attacks and not others, is probably because one needs to be in such close proximity to even see these very minor openings to even try to attempt to take advantage of them.
Usually this penalty/bonus won't matter since most AOOs often happen in one-on-one situations; that is, only two combatants are adjacent to one another, and the one who provokes an AOO cannot usually return a melee attack. An exception would be a touch attack or unarmed attack, of course, but they still do not get the More Rule Changes.
Touch attacks should NOT count as armed attacks as they do under standard rules. Most spell casters usually have enough sense to cast such spells while not adjacent to an opponent, and thus not get an AOO on them for casting in such close proximity. Then they move up to the enemy to try to hit them, but there is no good reason that I can discern why these attacks should count as armed attacks and be exempt from the AOO rules, and if the caster tries to roll to hit the opponent's touch AC, this WILL provoke an AOO (unless the caster has the improved unarmed strike feat, of course).
However, it will also be assumed if the opponent succeeds at their AOO on this touch attack caster, the touch attack automatically succeeds in hitting that opponent.
EXAMPLE: Suppose Bob is a spell caster, and he casts a touch attack, and then advances on Al and tries to hit Al's touch AC (which is usually worse than Al's full AC since many armors and shields do not count vs. touch attacks). Normally, Bob has to roll to hit Al's touch AC. However, when Bob makes this attempt, he first provokes an AOO. If Al takes an AOO on Bob - as is his right (and assuming he made his reflex save throw to take this AOO) - and he rolls high enough to hit Bob's AC, then he hits Bob. However, this means that Bob no longer has to roll to hit Al, since Al hit him, and thus the touch attack also succeeded, just as if Bob had rolled high enough to hit Al's touch AC. Bob doesn't need to roll to hit then. This is true even if Bob dies or falls unconscious, as these would be simultaneous strikes. Still, if Al missed his AOO, or decided not to even try to make an AOO, Bob would get to roll to hit, as normal.
These above considerations make touch attacks worse in some ways, but better in others. GMs might wish to also rule these touch attacks are obvious in some manner, such as causing the spell caster's hands to glow in an eerie and threatening fashion, and thus alerting most opponents as to the potentially deadly nature of the caster's touch. This might warn them to not attempt to take AOOs on them, even though they're entitled to do so, and thus this might explain why AOOs were normally not available - it was just considered too stupid to take an AOO on such a person, since it would be like deliberately running onto your opponent's weapon. Still, if one is foolhardy, or just doesn't mind this, the AOO would be an option, just as it is vs. any unarmed attack.
NOTE: Normal melee attacks vs. a spell caster armed with a ready touch attack charge may still hit and NOT count as a successful touch. Only successful AOOs are so considered, since this involves lowering one's guard to get in close and make a quick hit. Normal attacks maintain sufficient distance so a return touch attack is not automatically assumed successful, and such spell casters still need to roll to hit should they wish to continue to make that attempt.
Other changes include the following:
Getting ammunition is NOT a free action, either, but a move equivalent action, and one that can be freely combined with a move action, provided one has at least a BAB of And while we're here, it's unrealistic to saddle one with an automatic Of course, if one wanted to "error" on the side of caution and ensure they did not hit their friend, then they can take the However, circumstances sometime suggest throwing caution to the wind is the right move - we don't need some artificial rule imposing this caution on our characters. Thus, if one wishes, they can shoot into melee with a friendly in it and NOT take the One problem with missile weapons is that if one doesn't hit the intended target, they often could hit something else (including other foes or friendlies, and certainly something, like a wall, perhaps, or a tree, or the field beyond). Alas, since there are practically always more useless things to hit than meaningful things, it is a simplification, but we'll assume once you miss your intended target, you miss everything else of consequence, too. The only exception would be when your friend and your foe are engaged in hand-to-hand combat, usually within 5 feet of one another, and you risk that shot and opt to take NO penalty.
As before, anyone with the Precise Shot feat can take such shots and suffer no penalty, and if they miss their opponent, they miss their friend, as well.
Many more move equivalent actions would be very similar to drawing one's weapon inasmuch as they become easily combined with a move action. Taking out a scroll, for example, is like drawing a weapon (if your BAB is NOTE: A scroll's writing doesn't just disappear when it's read and used, so much as it blackens, chars, and ruins the paper or parchment it was on, and thus that section of the scroll is useless and cannot be reused (for a magic scroll, anyway, though it may have other, lesser uses). This makes having a full 7 spells on each scroll difficult to maintain since you simply cannot rewrite that spell in that place. More often than not, each scroll will contain one or two spells, and so only 2 to 4 such spells on scrolls will be so handy and so quick during combat, unless one had warning and also retrieved a particular scroll just prior to combat.
It should be noted that often the idea of a move, then spell or attack, OR attack or spell and then move, often suggests one must stop to make an attack or cast a spell, and this isn't always the case. These are just rough guidelines. One might cast while moving at half one's normal rate, or perhaps shoot a readied arrow or sling a ready bullet or bolt. Each round you can effectively move your movement rate and do a standard action as well, but it's often wrong to think you do one THEN the other so much as most actions are more fluid and continuous and combined and not so discrete or choppy or static.
Getting one's spell components also become move equivalent actions, but can be freely combined with a move, and a caster might even easily have a couple different spell components ready as they enter combat, and thus could move and then cast, or cast and then move, or perhaps even cast a spell while moving. It all amounts to the same distances moved and the same time taken. After that, many tiny pockets in a caster's robe (or some such) would contain these components, and it's easy enough to retrieve the desired ones WHILE moving in a combined move action. But this means after the first spell or two in a combat, most arcane casters probably will have to move first and cast later, and not the other way around.
NOTE: It's not a requirement, naturally, to cast a spell or fire a missile each combat round, and anytime one didn't, they'd certainly have time to get a missile or some material components ready for a subsequent round, and would again be able to cast or shoot and THEN move, or vice versa, the next round. It's just normally, getting such things out should not be free actions, though they can easily be combined with a move. GMs should always use common sense in all things, of course. If the proposed combined action sounds reasonable, allow it, but if you have your doubts, confer with the other players, and if the GM still isn't convinced, it's probably best for the GM to rely on their own sensibilities. These were the very sensibilities that created their entire world, after all.
Alas, once 3e began listing such details and putting them in tables and giving each step a name, it became virtually impossible to do anything that wasn't explicitly covered in those tables. For example, opening a door, going though the door, closing the door, and then baring the door. How much time does that really take? If intimately familiar with the door's barring or locking mechanism, one could open it, move through it, close it, then bar or lock it, in a single round, or a full round action (maybe even less time). In actual practice, it takes me less than 3 seconds to do this (half of a round's 6 seconds). But according to the rules one can probably open it and go through it and that's about it.
Fortunately, this is also about right, but that's for a door one isn't familiar with. Where's the handle? Where's the locking mechanism or which way does the bar swing to latch it? How does it work? If you don't know already, you have to take time to look. But if you do already know, you could "combine" actions, just as one might move AND draw a sword, but only if they had Thus, if one were familiar with the door, they could open it and move through it in a combined action, and then they could close it and latch it in another combined action. That would take just one full round's action. It might almost seem unfair it will take an invader twice as long to operate the doors as a "native," particularly since the way a lot of games are played, PCs tend to be invaders more often than defenders, but this is fair. Such rules do not really favor NPCs over PCs so much as they favor one type of action or circumstance over another. PCs might, for example, be the ones on familiar ground, and it would only be fair if invading NPCs had to take twice as long to manipulate unfamiliar doors then.
GMs are "allowed" to make such rulings, of course, for their own worlds, but it would have been nicer if the system gave more detailed examples to begin with. Unfortunately, nearly every rule could use an example or two, but that would double or triple the size of the book, as well as the price. Yet, with the Internet, they might offer more examples in the SRD environment. Maybe they do - I just can't find them. Oh well. The point is, the more examples they give, the more likely something one wishes to try will resemble one of the examples, and thus, the more likely a ruling will seem less capricious or arbitrary by the GM.
Now, maybe most GMs who read this will say, "Duh, I've been doing all that for years," or maybe they'll disagree with me and say, "No way, the rules don't say that," or they may feel they already make sense the way they interpreted them, which might be very different than I how I interpret them. Whatever. I just wanted to mention a few of the problems I had with those rules, and how I resolved those issues. If this works for you, great, but if not, that's fine too. I might even change my mind later, given enough compelling feedback, but so far, no, I think my take on matters is about right, and quite playable.
If you'd like to comment on any of this, I certainly hope you will write and let me know what you think, and more importantly, why you think that way. Unlike earlier editions of Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praises, Critiques, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, or Submissions).
© February of 2006 |