The logic of OAs

RangerWickett · May 26, 2010

I'm fighting Bob. We both have swords. We're engaged in a deadly dance of death. Every six seconds, I manage one effective attack against Bob.

Then Tim runs past me. I am able to thwack him with my sword without in any way detracting from my duel with Bob.

Joe, Dan, and Ricky also run past me, and I get to thwack them too. Four effective attacks, against people I'm not paying much attention to, in the span of a few seconds.

I realize there's a chandelier over Bob's head, and I want to cut the rope holding it up. That requires a standard action.

I think I want to make my next character a physicist, so I can argue relativity. Now, every time I move, I perceive the rest of the world as moving, so I can make a free attack against any creature or inanimate object I move past.

bagger245 · May 26, 2010

I thought you only get one OA once per round?

KarinsDad · May 26, 2010

bagger245 said:
I thought you only get one OA once per round?

One OA per opponent turn. 5 opponents = max 5 OAs per round.

DogBackward · May 26, 2010

Think of it this way: if Bob, Tim, Joe and the rest are all fighting you, then they've each got their attention on you. You can only give your full attention to one enemy: this doesn't mean you can't keep a weather eye on the other four.

So, you devote your energy to fighting Bob, and you're doing pretty well. If you tried to attack Tim right now, you'd miss for two reasons: you can't dedicate your entire focus to him right now since you're already doing that with Bob, and also because Tim is dedicating his entire focus to you. You can make as many side-attacks as you want, you just won't hit with any of them since you can't put your full attention behind them. In fact, that's part of the assumption of a threatened square: you're constantly attacking all enemies around you, but only the one you actually roll against is the one you're giving your full attention to, so it's the only attack that has a chance to hit.

However, if Tim decides to move away from you, he's got to break his focus on you to focus on where he's gonna move. This gives you a chance to actually land one of those side-attacks you've been sending his way every few seconds, because he's not entirely dedicated to blocking your attacks anymore, at least for the moment.

Aulirophile · May 26, 2010

Game often sacrifice reality for fun.

Think that sums it up.

Though as an actual fencer who has faced multiple opponents, you're never not paying attention to the other guys. You'd lose.

mmaranda · May 26, 2010

I like to think of it this way: I'm Fighting monster1. We feint we parry but we don't have weapons locked the whole time. If during one of those rests between clashes somebody else walks past me I might as well take the attack.

Black Knight Irios · May 26, 2010

DogBackward said:
Think of it this way: if Bob, Tim, Joe and the rest are all fighting you, then they've each got their attention on you. You can only give your full attention to one enemy: this doesn't mean you can't keep a weather eye on the other four.

So, you devote your energy to fighting Bob, and you're doing pretty well. If you tried to attack Tim right now, you'd miss for two reasons: you can't dedicate your entire focus to him right now since you're already doing that with Bob, and also because Tim is dedicating his entire focus to you. You can make as many side-attacks as you want, you just won't hit with any of them since you can't put your full attention behind them. In fact, that's part of the assumption of a threatened square: you're constantly attacking all enemies around you, but only the one you actually roll against is the one you're giving your full attention to, so it's the only attack that has a chance to hit.

However, if Tim decides to move away from you, he's got to break his focus on you to focus on where he's gonna move. This gives you a chance to actually land one of those side-attacks you've been sending his way every few seconds, because he's not entirely dedicated to blocking your attacks anymore, at least for the moment.

I like your explanation. But I didn't need one to begin with. We will see how others think about it and to what extent they agree.

FreeTheSlaves · May 26, 2010

The real issue was this in 2E (and correct me if I'm wrong, 1E too)

Fighter, Cleric & Thief were the frontline in a battle with a Troll and Orcs. On the Troll's initiative there was a gap in the frontline so it moved through with impunity and tore apart the Wizard. Been there, done that. Not so fun after the first time.

It's all about having a zone-of-control mechanic. OA is one such solution.

AbdulAlhazred · May 26, 2010

RangerWickett said:
I'm fighting Bob. We both have swords. We're engaged in a deadly dance of death. Every six seconds, I manage one effective attack against Bob.

Then Tim runs past me. I am able to thwack him with my sword without in any way detracting from my duel with Bob.

Joe, Dan, and Ricky also run past me, and I get to thwack them too. Four effective attacks, against people I'm not paying much attention to, in the span of a few seconds.

I realize there's a chandelier over Bob's head, and I want to cut the rope holding it up. That requires a standard action.

I think I want to make my next character a physicist, so I can argue relativity. Now, every time I move, I perceive the rest of the world as moving, so I can make a free attack against any creature or inanimate object I move past.

Your example situation is rather a corner case of course. It would be pretty rare to be OAing enemy after enemy. Still, the whole point is that a guy who's moving past you or is retreating is not exactly cautiously engaging you and you DO control the area around you, you can strike into it effectively. Also remember that the attacks you make with an OA are usually far less lethal than your standard action attacks.

Also remember that the DM could always have 5 monsters use the Ready Action trick to all rush past you in a group.

Basically what the rules allow for is a character to stand in a 10-15' wide space and CONTROL it, nobody can just walk by him without facing some chance of being hit. The result seems pretty realistic, the enemy has to push you back or neutralize you or organize a serious bum rush in order to get past without consequences. The dramatic effect is pretty much what you want.

Jdvn1 · May 26, 2010

KarinsDad said:
One OA per opponent turn. 5 opponents = max 5 OAs per round.

One per combatant's turn.

So, I think:
If, on your ally's turn, an enemy does something that provokes (if something gets triggered), you can take another OA.

5 opponents, 5 PCs (counting you) = max 10 OAs per round.