Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - House rules
    Canonfire Forum Index -> The Backalley
    House rules
    Author Message
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 19, 2004
    Posts: 147
    From: Edmonton, Canada

    Send private message
    Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:29 pm  
    House rules

    Is this were we can whine about game mechanics? Can we talk about attacks of opportunity? An enemy walks through your treat zone only it is is behind you. You can still have an AOO. Your in combat and the same thing happens You have an AOO. This seems nuts to me. So as a house rule attack of oppotunity to your rear are at -8. If you are in combat and you make an AOO to the rear (at -8) then your opponent(s) can have one on you minus your combat reflex bonus if you took the feat. I AM NOT SURE I like all the attacks of opportunity rules.
    _________________
    "Its a dangerous business going out your front door." JRR Tolkien
    Unless you are a Greyhawk Heretic.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 13, 2002
    Posts: 1077
    From: Orlane, Gran March

    Send private message
    Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:23 am  
    AOO

    Have you seen the 3.5 revisions?
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 19, 2004
    Posts: 147
    From: Edmonton, Canada

    Send private message
    Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:23 pm  

    If you talking about the Unearthed Arcana, yes. It is what gave me the idea to add more penaties to rear attacks of oppurtunity. Some of the make sense others are unbalancing I think anyway.
    _________________
    "Its a dangerous business going out your front door." JRR Tolkien
    Unless you are a Greyhawk Heretic.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 13, 2002
    Posts: 1077
    From: Orlane, Gran March

    Send private message
    Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:39 pm  
    AOO

    I find that AOO get out of hand when we stick to the grid systme too strictly. Therefore, I overule it fairly often. ALso, flanking is overused by my group. I rule that an attacker can ignore those to his rear, and defend as normal, allowing the rear attacker +4, but the front attacker +0.

    I am told that 3.5 revamps the entire AOO system from 3.0
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 19, 2004
    Posts: 147
    From: Edmonton, Canada

    Send private message
    Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:45 pm  

    I like the ignoring the rear attacker. 3.5 does revamp the rules some but not as much as you would think.
    _________________
    "Its a dangerous business going out your front door." JRR Tolkien
    Unless you are a Greyhawk Heretic.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 18, 2004
    Posts: 218


    Send private message
    Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:02 am  
    For what it's worth

    FWIW, I am starting to have a problem with AoO's also.

    I'm not sure what the fix is, or even what my specific issue is. I just know that too many times, a critical combat has been ended prematurely by an AoO. I'm still a bit new to the 3.5 ruleset, so I'm not confident in my judgements. Yet.

    The flanking thing may work (which raises the ugly face of facings). Another option is to give a penalty to AoO's dependent on the situation. I.E: no penalty for someone fleeing (Fear spell, etc), -2 for attacking someone just passing by, -4 for someone passing through your threatened area to attack you (Longpears, etc), etc.

    Telas
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 487
    From: Cooke City, MT, USA

    Send private message
    Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:11 am  

    Now, I play Basic D&D, but I have run 3e (as well as D20 Modern) and find that my age old house rule for attacks of opportunity still works fine, though you'll have to keep an eye out for magic or feats that rely on the canon 3e rules for AoOs, and deal with them on a case by case basis.

    Anyway, here's my house rule, in 22 words:

    Anytime you willingly disengage from melee combat with a foe, for any reason, your enemy is entitled to an Attack of Opportunity.

    Now, a couple minor clarifications, but it's pretty obvious as is.

    Fighting withdrawal is not considered disengaging for this purpose, but there is no gaurantee that your enemy won't follow you and refuse to acknowledge your withdrawl from combat. In other words, if he wants he can take a move/attack option to counter your move/defend action and keep on fighting you.

    Being knocked down, or knocked back from an attack does not count as willing disengagement, and your opponent does not get an AoO on you. Fleeing combat, turning to attack another foe, stopping to cast a spell (on anyone, including yourself, such as when healing, except your foe), and other such actions do invoke the AoO.

    And btw, I give no bonuses to hit on an AoO, except that the target is not entitled to his Dex bonus for armor class. It's a simple extra attack, at regular THAC0/BAB, with no bonus to damage. Missile weapons may never be used in an AoO, period. A thrown weapon attack is allowed, if, and only if the weapon being thrown is the one that was being used in melee combat prior to the action that invoked the AoO.
    _________________
    What would Raxivort do?<br />
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 24, 2005
    Posts: 25
    From: Naples, Florida

    Send private message
    Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:47 pm  

    chatdemon wrote:


    Anyway, here's my house rule, in 22 words:

    Anytime you willingly disengage from melee combat with a foe, for any reason, your enemy is entitled to an Attack of Opportunity.


    I thought this was the official rule for it Shocked

    I guess I'll have to do some reading, while the DM isn't looking Laughing
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Dec 07, 2003
    Posts: 176


    Send private message
    Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:07 pm  
    Atttacks of Opportunity

    AoO's and flanking work the way they do because 3E and 3.5 do not have facing. That's the option UA(3.5) added. I haven't had a problem with them and they existed in AD&D, too. The AD&D DMG provided for a two-handed swordsman to strike before a knife fighter who was closing, but also provided for that knife fighter to make two attacks for every one of the swordsman. But whatever.

    And willingly ignoring the armed guy behind you to attack the one in front? I think that would take Will save, at least, to override basic survival instincts.
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> The Backalley All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.85 Seconds