(PF)Game with AoO's Removed

[Avalon2099]

I am playing in a game where the group/DM doesnt use/believe in AoO's at all, in so much that they have been removed entirely for the campaign.

My query is how does this change things? What becomes good? what becomes bad? Character? Combat?

Most obvious, I would think Melee combatants get shafted, minus the rogue. Any other observations?

Sorry its late, just trying to see what could happen.

[Rejusu]

So your DM likes making the weaker classes even weaker and the stronger classes even stronger? Further breaking what's already a pretty shaky balance? I mean it's bad enough that there's already such a divide between martial characters and spellcasters in 3.X D&D/PF already. Martial characters don't need nerfing even further by removing one of their tricks. It also makes casters stronger too as they can just cast their spells without impunity while standing next to the enemy.

Now it's not as if I believe the game has to be absolutely balanced (in fact I believe imbalance makes the game more fun) but there is a limit. Slap your DM/group silly until he reinstates AoO's. Failing that, play a caster. Or an archer.

Or better yet. Find a build that's ridiculously powerful but tempered by it's vulnerability to AoO's and use that. I'm sure someone has come up with one, failing that I'm sure the Playground could help you cook one up in order to teach your foolish DM a lesson about messing up the combat dynamics.

[Avalon2099]

So your DM likes making the weaker classes even weaker and the stronger classes even stronger? Further breaking what's already a pretty shaky balance? I mean it's bad enough that there's already such a divide between martial characters and spellcasters in 3.X D&D/PF already. Martial characters don't need nerfing even further by removing one of their tricks. It also makes casters stronger too as they can just cast their spells without impunity while standing next to the enemy.

Now it's not as if I believe the game has to be absolutely balanced (in fact I believe imbalance makes the game more fun) but there is a limit. Slap your DM/group silly until he reinstates AoO's. Failing that, play a caster. Or an archer.

Or better yet. Find a build that's ridiculously powerful but tempered by it's vulnerability to AoO's and use that. I'm sure someone has come up with one, failing that I'm sure the Playground could help you cook one up in order to teach your foolish DM a lesson about messing up the combat dynamics.

Very interesting, about on the wavelength of what I was thinking. I am hoping to see if theres a decent build to take advantage of no AoO's.

[Person_Man]

I agree with Rejusu. Although attacks of opportunity slow down the game and require an elaborate sub-set of rules to use, they give melee many useful tools. AoO are the most efficient way to generate additional attacks. AoO makes ranged builds move away and fight at a range. AoO adds "stickyness" to melee builds, giving weaker squishy builds a reason to stand behind them for protection. And they're integral to the use of many feats.

So I suggest keeping the rules as is.

If your DM doesn't like the complexity of AoO, consider this alternative house rule: Attacks of Opportunity are an Immediate Action (and thus you may only take one per turn). They are provoked only when you move out of a threatened square, or attempt to cast or manifest a psionic power within an enemy's threatened area. Movement based AoO may be avoided with Tumble or a 5 ft step. But there is no Concentration Skill. If an attack of opportunity succeeds, then the target's movement is prevented, and the spell or power fails.

[unundindur]

If doing this, then at least add a rule that say "spellcasters cannot cast spells while adjacent to an enemy" and remove 5 foot steps. Doing this will help a lot.

[Badgerish]

not 100% sure on this, but comments about the Pathfinder Beginner's Box say that AoOs are removed and you simply can't do most things that would prompt AoOs.

If you remove AoOs and don't change AoO-granting actions, then melee loses even more power.

[Avalon2099]

I agree with Rejusu. Although attacks of opportunity slow down the game and require an elaborate sub-set of rules to use, they give melee many useful tools. AoO are the most efficient way to generate additional attacks. AoO makes ranged builds move away and fight at a range. AoO adds "stickyness" to melee builds, giving weaker skwishy builds a reason to stand behind them for protection. And they're integral to the use of many feats.

So I suggest keeping the rules as is.

If your DM doesn't like the complexity of AoO, consider this alternative house rule: Attacks of Opportunity are an Immediate Action (and thus you may only take one per turn). They are provoked only when you move out of a threatened square, or attempt to cast or manifest a psionic power within an enemy's threatened area. Movement based AoO may be avoided with Tymble or a 5 ft step. But there is no Concentration Skill. If an attack of opportunity succeeds, then the target's movement is prevented, and the spell or power fails.

Sadly, I've had these arguments with the DM/players before, they will not budge on the issue. They simply do not believe that a character/NPC/Monster can take an extra attack, they feel attacks should only be made on the individuals turn and ONLY on the turn.

[unundindur]

Sadly, I've had these arguments with the DM/players before, they will not budge on the issue. They simply do not believe that a character/NPC/Monster can take an extra attack, they feel attacks should only be made on the individuals turn and ONLY on the turn.

Ok... Have they ever played at higher levels? I have heard the same line of argumentation, but it usually comes from people who have only experienced the lower levels, or who have never seen optimized mages.

In the E6 system this could work, though I would still never recommend it :)

[Rejusu]

If your DM doesn't like the complexity of AoO, consider this alternative house rule: Attacks of Opportunity are an Immediate Action (and thus you may only take one per turn). They are provoked only when you move out of a threatened square, or attempt to cast or manifest a psionic power within an enemy's threatened area. Movement based AoO may be avoided with Tymble or a 5 ft step. But there is no Concentration Skill. If an attack of opportunity succeeds, then the target's movement is prevented, and the spell or power fails.

This messes with the action economy though. Remember that immediate actions and swift actions share the same limit, you can only take one of them per round. Any martial character that relies on swift actions will still get messed up by this.


Sadly, I've had these arguments with the DM/players before, they will not budge on the issue. They simply do not believe that a character/NPC/Monster can take an extra attack, they feel attacks should only be made on the individuals turn and ONLY on the turn.

Then you definitely need to prove to them why they're wrong. I'm sure if you asked the Playground it could come up with something capable of putting them in their place. Unfortunately I'm kind of drawing a blank right now on what kind of character would benefit most from not being subject to AoO's. Other than a caster of course.

[Zombimode]

This messes with the action economy though. Remember that immediate actions and swift actions share the same limit, you can only take one of them per round. Any martial character that relies on swift actions will still get messed up by this.

Huh. Looks like my group did it wrong the whole time, as we treated AoOs like immediate actions. Well, you always learn :)

[nightwyrm]

If doing this, then at least add a rule that say "spellcasters cannot cast spells while adjacent to an enemy" and remove 5 foot steps. Doing this will help a lot.

Without AoOs, couldn't the caster just walk away and then cast his spell...without AoOs, there's no need for 5' steps.

[unundindur]

Without AoOs, couldn't the caster just walk away and then cast his spell...without AoOs, there's no need for 5' steps.

Good point, make all spellcasting full-round actions :)

[Rejusu]

Huh. Looks like my group did it wrong the whole time, as we treated AoOs like immediate actions. Well, you always learn :)

As in you treated them as if you couldn't have an immediate action and an AoO or that you only get one of each a round? Then yeah that's not how it works under RAW/RAI. AoO's are a bit weird in that they're not an action (at least not one of the defined action types) and you don't take any actions while making them. You make a single melee attack, which means you can only do a melee attack and not anything that would require any sort of action (though I think you can still take an immediate action prior to making an AoO) as those can only be done on your turn. You can however use any special attack that may be made as a melee attack such as trip or disarm.

This means that you can trip someone and then attack them as an AoO with Improved Trip (since it states you get an attack as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip) but you can't attack them and trigger the effect of Knock-down. Because Knock-down gives you a trip as a free action when you do 10 or more damage with an attack you can't use it as part of an AoO because you can't take free actions when it's not your turn.

Under normal circumstances though a standard character can do the following every round:
1 Full-round action
OR
2 Move actions
OR
1 Move action AND 1 Standard action

AND in addition to the above:
1 Attack of Opportunity

Swift/Immediates are a bit weird in the sense that you can actually use more than one of them a round. Basically you have a limit of 1 but it refreshes at the end of your turn as opposed to the end of the round. Which means you can use a swift action during your turn and then use an immediate action that same round after your turn has ended. However if you do that you can't use a swift OR immediate action until after your next turn.

[PersonMan]

They simply do not believe that a character/NPC/Monster can take an extra attack, they feel attacks should only be made on the individuals turn and ONLY on the turn.

Maybe make a rule that, for every AOO provoked, the monster/NPC/whatever can make an extra attack on their turn against that target, or get a bonus to hit against them (something like +2/AOO provoked, maybe).

[Doug Lampert]

Without AoOs, couldn't the caster just walk away and then cast his spell...without AoOs, there's no need for 5' steps.

If you disallow actions that would provoke (which is the only sane way to remove AoO) then the mage can't walk away, that would provoke.

He needs to 5' step or withdraw. And withdraw is a full round action in PF.

[Jack Zander]

If you disallow actions that would provoke (which is the only sane way to remove AoO) then the mage can't walk away, that would provoke.

He needs to 5' step or withdraw. And withdraw is a full round action in PF.

But they removed ALL AoOs.

Just play a mage that benefits from casting in combat. Maybe focus on some of those really nasty touch spells that mages are often wary to use.

[FMArthur]

Maybe you should ask them how they think a bodyguard can possibly be of any use to anyone under this system. It's bad enough that Tumble ranks can invalidate the defender's job already, but just having everyone doing it by default brings even more absurd scenarios into place. Any ordinary orc can just stroll right on past a retinue of guards and punch out the 1HD princess.

[Person_Man]

Sadly, I've had these arguments with the DM/players before, they will not budge on the issue. They simply do not believe that a character/NPC/Monster can take an extra attack, they feel attacks should only be made on the individuals turn and ONLY on the turn.

I've actually seen this once before in another gaming group that started on board games and computer games before taking up D&D. In their defense, everything is much cleaner, quicker, and easier to follow if everybody just takes their turn and only their turn. But attacks of opportunity (and Immediate Actions) add a new level of strategic depth to a game. And as such, removing them essentially makes half of the classes in the a lot weaker.

But knowing this, there are a few ways you can abuse it. If there's no AoO, then there's no reason you shouldn't throw yourself into the middle of combat and run around as needed. In particular, the Paimon vestige (Binder 3 with a feat, or Binder 5 without): Gives you Whirlwind Attack and Dance of Death (Every enemy you move past gets hit once).

You can also just play a caster or some other non-melee build that doesn't rely on AoO in any way.

[Rejusu]

Maybe you should ask them how they think a bodyguard can possibly be of any use to anyone under this system. It's bad enough that Tumble ranks can invalidate the defender's job already, but just having everyone doing it by default brings even more absurd scenarios into place. Any ordinary orc can just stroll right on past a retinue of guards and punch out the 1HD princess.

They could form a wall I guess. But it is ridiculous. Really I'm finding it tough to think of any build that benefits from the removal of AoO's that isn't a caster. Yeah melee can perform special attacks without provoking that they'd normally need a feat for. But the problem is they're not really saving on feats because the feats that remove the provocation are either strong enough to be worth taking in their own right (Improved Trip) or are prerequisites for other feats they'd want to take (Improved Bullrush -> Shocktrooper).

I think the best thing to do would be to make a touch attacking caster. Really what's needed is something powerful enough to show up the rest of the party and nail down the point of how messing with AoO's messes up the combat dynamics of the game.

Yeah 3.5/PF's combat dynamics aren't perfect, but by just chopping stuff out with no regard for the knock on effects makes things a lot worse.

[PrismCat21]

This is just one of the many reasons I prefer to DM for my group. Our usual DM doesn't like to use a lot of the rules for the game, I doubt he's even read the DMG all the way through. We never use AoO's when he DM's, when I first started playing, most of the rest of the group didn't even know what they were. I taught myself how to play the game and then had to teach the 'experienced' players. My first character was a Ranger that I turned into a Swift Hunter (Ranger/Scout) as soon as I found that option. He quickly outshone everyone else in the group, and I could no longer play him. :confused: The DM also decided that off-hand attacks could be used as part of a standard attack. I literally ran circles around our enemies adjacent to them the whole time.

It's due mainly to his crappy rules and catering to what his girlfriend wanted (able to cast bonus spells due to casting stat, before able to cast spells of that level for instance... :smallmad:), but skirmish was amazing with no AoO's :smalltongue:

[Doug Lampert]

If you disallow actions that would provoke (which is the only sane way to remove AoO) then the mage can't walk away, that would provoke.

He needs to 5' step or withdraw. And withdraw is a full round action in PF.
But they removed ALL AoOs.

Just play a mage that benefits from casting in combat. Maybe focus on some of those really nasty touch spells that mages are often wary to use.

What part of "disallow actions that would provoke" allows ANY casting in combat? Casting provokes. Therefore, if you forbid provoking activities then you forbid casting in combat.

Every group I've ever heard of that seriously suggested "no AoO" also simply forbid all provoking activities, they might treat this as 20 different house rules rather than a unified thing. But the DM simply says "you can't do that" to things like moving past someone or casting or shooting while in melee.

[maysarahs]

The petulant child in me wishes your game was 3.5 so you could build an abrupt jaunt wizard, and wander around combat, mooning foes, dropping to the ground, standing up (I imagine some kind of crazy dance), picking up items, rummaging around in your backpack, drinking potions (or nonmagical drinks) lighting torches and then quietly placing them on the ground with a pat of affection on your turn, and NEVER GETTING HIT on theirs.

The adult in me however wonders what reasoning your group (OP) uses for getting rid of AoO. If it is a fluff reason, then I'd argue that they represent an opportunistic jab at someone doing something reckless/unguarded, if you tilted your head back to get those last drops of a potion, heck yeah you are certainly inviting me to smack you. If it is from a mechanics standpoint for simplifying turns, then I certainly can't argue that getting rid of the checking and remembering whether an action provokes process won't make the game faster. But as mentioned by our more qualified peers, it creates more balance issues than it solves.

[Bovine Colonel]

What sourcebooks are available to you?

[Arbane]

The one melee build I could possibly see benefiting from this would be someone focusing on combat manuvers. You'd need one less feat to avoid AoOs.

[Jack Zander]

What part of "disallow actions that would provoke" allows ANY casting in combat? Casting provokes. Therefore, if you forbid provoking activities then you forbid casting in combat.

Ah sorry, I misread that then.

AoOs aren't even that difficult to understand. Each character gets 1 each round, pretty easy to keep track of. Things that provoke are: Moving out of a threatened square, casting a spell, making a ranged attack, performing a combat maneuver. Sure, other things provoke too, but these four are the main ones that help balance combat, and if you don't want to look up the rules on the others (picking up a dropped weapon) let the DM call it until you can look up the rules later.

[Acanous]

Barbarians in PF get absolutely neutered here.
Going the Trample tree, you'll lose your AOs on things you trample, which cuts down how many attacks you get and lowers your damage. Come and Get Me is useless instead of one of the best powers to have. The Rage power that grants an extra AO is completely useless instead of just sub-optimal.

Most combat maneuvers are useless. Tripping and Bull Rushing do little to nothing now.

Wizards get to play with all their cheese a lot sooner and more often, not having to worry about enemies getting close.

[Rejusu]

The one melee build I could possibly see benefiting from this would be someone focusing on combat manuvers. You'd need one less feat to avoid AoOs.

By combat manoeuvres do you mean ToB manoeuvres or special attacks? Because I've already mentioned it doesn't really help remove the feat cost on the latter. You still need Improved Trip for the free attack, Improved Bull Rush for Shock Trooper, and Improved Sunder for Combat brute. Problem is all the feats which stop special attacks provoking AoO's are either desirable in their own right (like Improved Trip) or prerequisites for other feats that make those special attacks worth using.

I guess if you were playing a game with no AoO's you could argue that you shouldn't have to take a neutered feat for the later feats. But you'd be arguing with a DM who removes AoO's, so I can't see that going anywhere.

[Chained Birds]

By combat manoeuvres do you mean ToB manoeuvres or special attacks? Because I've already mentioned it doesn't really help remove the feat cost on the latter. You still need Improved Trip for the free attack, Improved Bull Rush for Shock Trooper, and Improved Sunder for Combat brute. Problem is all the feats which stop special attacks provoking AoO's are either desirable in their own right (like Improved Trip) or prerequisites for other feats that make those special attacks worth using.

I guess if you were playing a game with no AoO's you could argue that you shouldn't have to take a neutered feat for the later feats. But you'd be arguing with a DM who removes AoO's, so I can't see that going anywhere.

Look at the title: "(PF)".

Pathfinder's Trip, Bullrush, etc. are known as Combat Maneuvers.

[Gnaeus]

In theory, I agree with Rejusu. Removing them hurts only people who don't need to be hurt.

In practice, it probably doesn't matter. Acrobatics is usually maxed. Casters max casting stats and don't want to stand in melee anyway. There are lots of cheap ways to avoid aoos, especially if 3.5 material is allowed. They just don't happen very often in my experience.

[Rejusu]

Look at the title: "(PF)".

Pathfinder's Trip, Bullrush, etc. are known as Combat Maneuvers.

I'm not as familiar with PF as I am with 3.5 so I didn't know they'd renamed them.


In theory, I agree with Rejusu. Removing them hurts only people who don't need to be hurt.

In practice, it probably doesn't matter. Acrobatics is usually maxed. Casters max casting stats and don't want to stand in melee anyway. There are lots of cheap ways to avoid aoos, especially if 3.5 material is allowed. They just don't happen very often in my experience.

Not everything you're going to run into is going to be able to avoid AoO's though. And part of using AoO's as part of a combat build isn't relying on the enemy to provoke them but rather forcing them to either provoke or suck. This is what trippers specialise in, trip them up and force them to crawl around with a -4 penalty to melee AC and an inability to use ranged weapons, spend a full round action withdrawing, or stand up/try and move away normally and provoke an AoO.

Or you bull rush them past your team mates.

[Gnaeus]

Not everything you're going to run into is going to be able to avoid AoO's though. And part of using AoO's as part of a combat build isn't relying on the enemy to provoke them but rather forcing them to either provoke or suck. This is what trippers specialise in, trip them up and force them to crawl around with a -4 penalty to melee AC and an inability to use ranged weapons, spend a full round action withdrawing, or stand up/try and move away normally and provoke an AoO.

Or you bull rush them past your team mates.

Yeah, it helps a few builds. As you say, I wouldn't play a chain tripper without AOOs.

But for characters not specced for AOOs, it probably won't matter.

[Rejusu]

Yeah, it helps a few builds. As you say, I wouldn't play a chain tripper without AOOs.

But for characters not specced for AOOs, it probably won't matter.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. It means that even non-AoO specced melee can't punish an enemy for attempting to move away from them. There's nothing to stop enemies just ignoring the melee attackers during their turn. Sure it might benefit uberchargers if the enemy is moving away each round, but all the enemy would have to do is stand behind something to disrupt their pathing.

But it'd screw with most other melee fighters. Without AoO's to worry about the enemy can just put distance between them and the melee character each round. If they're not specced for charging (ie they don't have pounce) they'll never get to full attack because they'll have to use their actions to charge/move and close the distance each round.

Yeah they can still move away and deny melee fighters their full attack each round when AoO's aren't removed but the price they pay for that is giving the fighter another attack against them.

Plus it still serves to make casters needlessly stronger. Probably not significantly so, but it's still rather needless.

[Gnaeus]

But it'd screw with most other melee fighters. Without AoO's to worry about the enemy can just put distance between them and the melee character each round. If they're not specced for charging (ie they don't have pounce) they'll never get to full attack because they'll have to use their actions to charge/move and close the distance each round.

My point is, there are so many ways to evade AOOs and some of them are so cheap (especially in 3.P) that it is pretty simple to do that already.


Plus it still serves to make casters needlessly stronger. Probably not significantly so, but it's still rather needless.

I agreed with that in first post. It doesn't help. I just don't think it will actually impact most games as much as you suggest.