OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Wait, this is a strawman, but using "Elven Cleric" as a reason why a rule is bad because it's from a system that didn't have Elven Clerics is not a strawman? Wtf? At least this argument is rooted in reason.

I didn't use "Elven Cleric" as a reason why any rule was bad. I used it as an example of a restriction put in place by the rules without a good reason explaining it.

You then compared my example to a monstrosity example that no one would actually create. That's the strawman.

"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

You equated your fictional monstrosity with a race and class combination actually played by people in subsequent editions and that most people would consider reasonable.

And, why can't you play an Elven Cleric in any edition of D&D? Create an Elven Cleric class. The end.

You could do anything to any system ever made, so there are no problems with any of them. They are all equally perfect because you can do whatever you want to them. End Internet.

"Hey y'all we can stop arguing now! The internet is over!!!"

 

[Anguirus]

Much as I want something like OAs to be in the game adding to the consequences and pitfalls of combat, I think the OP is right in that this is more suited to an optional module. This isn't bad; lots of good rules are "modular" it sounds like. He's also right in that OAs slow down the game and upset newbies joining an existing group.

It also wouldn't be hard to have "if you use a ranged weapon in melee your opponent gets a free attack" as a specific standard rule, and OAs as the more general version of that rule that is optional. Essentially, OAs would be core (whether they are called that or not) but the DM controls what circumstances count as OA triggers.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have mixed feelings about AAOs. I do like the idea of them. There should be a penalty about going through an area where someone who has a melee weapon out and is not engaged.

I hate the whole five foot step get rid of things like that and it changes how mages cast. Most of the games I play in we have house ruled it out and believe me wizards are constantly trying to combat cast and often losing the spell.

I think being prone and trying to get to your feet unless you have some kind of maneuver that allows you to regain your footing other then the normal way which is using a hand to do so should be dangerous.

I like battlemats because is ends the old argument that always used to crop up of I was not in range of the spell or no I was much closer so I have no trouble getting to the wizard in one round.

 

[steeldragons]

Its simple. Moving past melee characters/monsters and taking risky actions in melee(spells, bows) should have consequences(like an AoO), but at the same time you should be allowed to take those consequences to do the actions(as opposed to the action being forbidden because you're in melee). This is an essential part of combat that there should be a rule for. While I'm not big on DM fiat, I'm not completely opposed to it having a place in the game, but it shouldn't substitute for rules in places where rules should be.

Ok. I can appreciate that. I don't diagree that you should be able to take risky actions in melee. I still see no reason why a "rule must be in core" to make that happen or dictate the consequences.

As for "where rules should be" just rings as so much Joan Crawford. In reality, you realize I hope, that what you are saying is simply "where I think [yes, and others] rules should be."

As for optional modules, I'm all for having both ways. I don't see why removing AoOs shouldn't be the optional one though.

Ahhh. I knew we'd be getting around to this at some point. Not meaning you, per se, casualoblivion, but sooner or later someone was going to say "put it in and you can take it out just as easily. Why should I have to add it in? You take it out!"

This, quite frankly, is bunk. Let's face it. It doesn't work in cooking and it doesn't work in D&D.

If "taking things away" were as easy as adding in (and I do believe they are) we'd still be using descending AC and THAC0. And gods know nobody wants that. Everything needs to be "add, add, add, more rules, more options, more complex."

IS it as easy to take out and add in? Yes, of course it is, in practice. We're all smart enough to do that, here.

But the simple fact is, once ANY "rule" is IN the basic simplest part of the game, it's IN and anyone wanting to take it out is going to get slandered for "badwrongunfun! The book says so!" And we're right back where we [the splintered D&D community] started.

Leaving everything bare bones and ADDING in what the game says "you can if you want", will not/can not receive such criticism.

"Simplest possible basic system with stuff you can add" NOT "Complex as I like it with stuff you can ignore."

Do AoO/OA add to combat? Do they make things better/more enjoyable for some players? Obviously. Yes.

CAN you play D&D combat without it? Obviously. Yes.

If you CAN do without, then there's no reason a rule needs to be there at the bottom floor. Build it on.

This goes for any/all elements of 5e, I hope. Take what I'm saying out of the context of combat...Alignment, let's say.

I like alignment. I use alignment. 9-pt. Always have. Always will.

I do not expect Alignment to be a part of the "basic simplest level of the game system/must be built in at character creation." Nor do I think it should be.

I expect to see an optional module saying "Hello and welcome to using Alignment in your 5e D&D game. This is what Alignment is/means. Here are the various optional ways you can incorporate it (3-pt, 9-pt., 5-pt.). Here's some ideas of how to utilize it in your stories/games (mandatory class restrictions, detection/protection spells/abilities, idunnowutelse). Use what you like."

Now, I'm all for the DMG saying (and PHB for that matter to shut up the rules' lawyers from the get go) "All of this is guidelines. Alter any part of it as you see fit." BUT, I imagine a whooooole buncha people would not like that.

And again, saying "its in the book but I'm taking it out" will naturally meet with signiiiiificantly more resistance than "it's in the book as optional and I'm adding it in."

......think I got off topic there someplace.
B'anyway...uhhh, yeah. There ya go. Glad we can agree to have both options for AoO.
--SD

 

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=22953]SteelDragon[/MENTION], My view on a lot of these type of issues is that there is a subtle design and development difference between these approaches:

1. Opportunity Attacks are not in the system. As an option, you can add them.
2. Opportunity Attacks are in the system. As an option, you can drop them.
3. Opportunity Attacks are in the system. As an option, you can ramp them up or down in importance, including ramping them down to effectively "never comes up in play, can safely ignore it."

My opinion is that if someone truly wants to satisfy as many people as possible, the third option is always superior. For some things, OAs among them, you might very well set the default position to "never comes up in play, can safely ignore it."

But saying that things can be "added" or "removed" seldom works out as well as people tend to expect.

And lest someone pick up on my reference to "dials" and take it overly literally, the exact means can include "on/off switches" and other mechanical means. I'm still saying it is better to have OAs in, but turned "off" by default, than to not have them in, but something you can add by module.

A crude example would be having an OA system, complete with provokes, and one of the options for what provokes an OA is "nothing".

 

[Steely_Dan]

All I feel about them after playing 3rd/4th Ed for many years, is that they so rarely come up (especially with tactically savvy players/DM), they're not really worth it (maybe one every 4 or 5 combats or something).

 

[Steely_Dan]

As for ranged attacks drawing OA when made adjacent to an enemy, in Basic D&D you simply couldn't make a ranged attack when within 5 feet (adjacent/in melee) of an enemy, nice and elegant.

 

[Gryph]

<snip>
And this illustrates nicely why I find it disempowering unless there is an entire shieldwall involved (and I've seldom had an entire squad of minions working with me in D&D even if it was common in OD&D). In OD&D as a fighter you needed to square up to the enemy and trade blows, Marquess of Queensbury Style for literally minutes at a time (but my issues with long turn lengths being disempowering are another matter entirely).

You've taken footwork away from my fighter. You've taken minor shield barges. You've taken circling. Hell, one on one with sword and shield vs sword and shield when I was a reenactment fighter I could get through to the archer much of the time, covered from the swordsman by my own shield. (Passing shield to shield is safer than sword to sword but even sword to sword I can engage their blade with my own to buy time much more easily than either of us can hit).

And it's far easier to pass a swordsman if I have sword and shield than to pass an offensive lineman. The lineman doesn't have to defend himself against my sword. He can effectively go on an all out attack to stop me. And he is - in American Football he doesn't need to worry about keeping himself alive. If I'm armed and trying to get past someone armed, he knows he'll take my sword to his guts (or worse) if he comes in the way a lineman does.

Your last paragraph is a good illo of why I don't like OAs. If there is any room to maneuver at all, then it is not difficult for one trained fighter to get past another, if that's all they are trying to do. Binding weapons, throw a creditable feint and you're past. The OA rule assumption that if you move more than 5' around a combatant and you have ceased to take them in to account to the point where they get a free attack is just silly.

The other reason I want to do away with them is entirely gamist. I want off turn actions to be extraordinarily rare. I disliked the emergent effects on combat pace that the plethora of opportunity and immediate actions had in 4e.

As abstract as so much is in D&D combat, I place no real value on fiddly little simulation bits anymore.

 

[Libramarian]

That could also be extended to intricate combat maneuvers, by the way, not merely restricted to magic. If you do the big stuff, it takes at least two standards to do it.

Yech, I don't want "intricate combat maneuvers" that take multiple rounds to complete.

What the heck would that be.

It's a bloody medieval brawl not capoeira breakdance fighting.



(no but seriously)

 

[Mattachine]

As for ranged attacks drawing OA when made adjacent to an enemy, in Basic D&D you simply couldn't make a ranged attack when within 5 feet (adjacent/in melee) of an enemy, nice and elegant.

That's mighty unsatisfying to myself and many others. Remember the 1e rule for wizards wearing armor? They couldn't.

"What if my wizard puts on full plate?"
"He can't."
"Huh? Why not?"
"He just can't--doesn't work."

I remember having that discussion back in the day, when I was 12 or 13.

Ah, right, don't forget that D&D is marketed to kids that age, too.



Anyway, I am all for simplicity. The 4e OA rules are very simple--only feats and class features have made them complex.

I can see OAs being part of an optional mod, though--call it the tactical mod. Second edition did that, right?