What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

User avatar
Shayd3000
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:18 am

What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

Postby Shayd3000 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:27 am

I have searched through this forum to better understand attack of opportunity, and I have observed quite a range of responses. I have not seen the designers or authors weigh in on what their intent was for this rule. I am wondering if the confusion stems from the translation, or perhaps the same issues exist in the German version?

So, from a literal reading of the material, it appears to me that an attack of opportunity occurs in the following circumstances:
  • Fail Body Control Roll when picking up an item while in close combat range
  • Fail a Body Control roll while standing up from prone
  • Fail a disengagement role
  • Move into close combat and do not engage
  • Fail certain maneuver checks as specified in the individual maneuvers

Now, I admit maybe I missed some other cases, but that is all I have found for now. So, lets call the above case Rules As Written (RAW).
The above means basically, that only those four conditions trigger an Attack of Opportunity (AoO).

I have also seen it interpreted by players that basically anything you do that is not an engagement activity (attack or defend) in close combat can trigger an AoO. In other words, they seem to be interpreting "move" in close combat as any activity. And, in fact, in game parlance, many view a "move" as an activity in a game round, so that makes sense. So I view this second approach as:

Any activity done in close combat range that is not an attack or defense triggers an AoO if a Body Control Check is failed.

Let's call this CASE 2 if we need a term for it. I can see the validity of this claim as well, except for when I review some rules, I would expect the cases to be called out. For example, Long Actions. No where does it mention in the Long Action rules that if done in Close Combat range an AoO is triggered. Now, I admit, that is possibly because it is assumed. Especially because in the example of the interrupt case given, the interrupting attack is a ranged attack. Meaning, the authors did not use a melee example because in their minds it would be ludicrous to do so. However, the penalty for defending in a long action is already pretty steep - if you choose to defend, you may have to start over.

So, not to belabor it too much, I really come down to - aside from everyone's individual interpretations, have the designers ever come out and clearly stated their design intent around this OR is this rule more clearly stated in the German language version?

Debates on this could go around for ever, due to the flexibility of the meaning of the words. Plus, I will have to deal with players also "What do you mean a one action reload just triggered an AoO?" Or better yet, spell-casters that have combat spells that take 2 or more actions to cast. It doesn't say anywhere that they trigger an AoO, but CASE 2 would clearly have that happen, and it makes sense too.

So, have the designers ever weighed in on this?

Thank you again,

George
Last edited by Shayd3000 on Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bosper
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 am

Re: What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

Postby Bosper » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:55 pm

The german core rulebook says "moves through the attack distance of a new foe without engaging" thats pretty clear. "sich ihm stellen" as engage is not bound to any game term and can also be understood as "somehow dealing with him". So if you get close and cast, thats ok, if you get close and do a fancy clever trick with your skills that you just made up, thats also ok.

Reload would be quite useless though, since you cant shoot when engaged in melee combat. (some weapons are an exception i think) But you would be defenseless in melee range which doesnt provoke AoO but just hits you without the penalty an AoO has.

TL;DR As long as your characters concentration/focus is on the foe when you get close, you are engaged (congratulations)

User avatar
Shayd3000
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:18 am

Re: What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

Postby Shayd3000 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:13 pm

Thank you - that is very helpful!

Dany40
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:32 am

Re: What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

Postby Dany40 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:35 am

Bosper wrote:The german core rulebook says "moves through the attack distance of a new foe without engaging" thats pretty clear. "sich ihm stellen" as engage is not bound to any game term and can also be understood as "somehow dealing with him". So if you get close and cast, thats ok, if you get close and do a fancy clever trick with your skills that you just made up, thats also ok.

Reload would be quite useless though, since you cant shoot when engaged in melee combat. (some weapons are an exception i think) But you would be defenseless in melee range which doesnt provoke AoO but just hits you without the penalty an AoO has.

TL;DR As long as your characters concentration/focus is on the foe when you get close, you are engaged (congratulations)


When the character is facing a large monster like a kraken with his very long tentacles .... how do you handle it? what distance of engagement for the kraken ? when a character is coming to the kraken to attack it do you consider that the kraken can make an AoO ?

User avatar
Bosper
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 am

Re: What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

Postby Bosper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:06 am

Dany40 wrote:
Bosper wrote:The german core rulebook says "moves through the attack distance of a new foe without engaging" thats pretty clear. "sich ihm stellen" as engage is not bound to any game term and can also be understood as "somehow dealing with him". So if you get close and cast, thats ok, if you get close and do a fancy clever trick with your skills that you just made up, thats also ok.

Reload would be quite useless though, since you cant shoot when engaged in melee combat. (some weapons are an exception i think) But you would be defenseless in melee range which doesnt provoke AoO but just hits you without the penalty an AoO has.

TL;DR As long as your characters concentration/focus is on the foe when you get close, you are engaged (congratulations)


When the character is facing a large monster like a kraken with his very long tentacles .... how do you handle it? what distance of engagement for the kraken ? when a character is coming to the kraken to attack it do you consider that the kraken can make an AoO ?


No the advantage of reach is already included in the penalty the attacker gets when attacking someone with a long or extreme reach weapon (the latter havent been introduced in english yet i think). The attacker has a penalty because he has to be careful. Which results in a higher chance of failure. Everything else would give you two penalties for the same circumstance. (if a creature has several attacks with different reach categories, just assume the highest . So if bite is close and tentacle is long. you can just assume that the danger of the tentacles is there. even if
it just used bite)

Dany40
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:32 am

Re: What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

Postby Dany40 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:13 pm

Thanks a lot !!

This is the way I view it... thanks for the confirmation !!

Dany40
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:32 am

Re: What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

Postby Dany40 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:44 pm

Where can I find the extreme reach weapon rules ?

User avatar
Bosper
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 am

Re: What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

Postby Bosper » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:09 am

Dany40 wrote:Where can I find the extreme reach weapon rules ?

Armory 2. They are used for certain polearms like the pike. Its just an addtional range so another -2 on attack

Dany40
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:32 am

Re: What is the designers/authors intent behind attack of opportunity?

Postby Dany40 » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:25 am

Ok thanks !!


Return to “Rules Questions (TDE)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests