OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[YRUSirius]

Saying 'fighter only' doesn't make sense when what we're talking about combatants dropping their guard for whatever reason in melee.

Though we are saying 'rogues only' is okay for sneak attack. It's the same thing. We could rationalize sneak attack for every class, even wizards, but we don't, because of balance reasons.

2E/3E/4E players and dms have been conditioned that some kind of Opportunity Attacks can be executed by every class. Of course it's hard to change your thinking, but it could be still viable and rationalized the same way as other specific rules for other classes (sneak attack/backstab).

I just see some kind of elegance in this siloing of special exceptions to the pretty easy understandable rules. Every class has some special exceptions, the fighter shouldn't be any different.

No one is arguing about why the fighter or rogue can't cast spells. We could also try to argue that the wizard or rogue shouldn't be able to execute attacks of opportunity because this is one domain of the trained fighter.

-YRUSirius

 

[Argyle King]

Though we are saying 'rogues only' is okay for sneak attack. It's the same thing. We could rationalize sneak attack for every class, even wizards, but we don't, because of balance reasons.

2E/3E/4E players and dms have been conditioned that some kind of Opportunity Attacks can be executed by every class. Of course it's hard to change your thinking, but it could be still viable and rationalized the same way as other specific rules for other classes (sneak attack/backstab).

I just see some kind of elegance in this siloing of special exceptions to the pretty easy understandable rules. Every class has some special exceptions, the fighter shouldn't be any different.

No one is arguing about why the fighter or rogue can't cast spells. We could also try to argue that the wizard or rogue shouldn't be able to execute attacks of opportunity because this is one domain of the trained fighter.

-YRUSirius

If I dip one level of fighter multiclass, do I gain the ability to make opportunity attacks?

 

[YRUSirius]

If I dip one level of fighter multiclass, do I gain the ability to make opportunity attacks?

Well, in MY version you wouldn't get this until level 3, because at level 3 you get your first feat from a theme and this opportunity attack class feature would be the first feat for the "Guardian/Knight" fighter theme. "Unfrontload" the classes and such.

In my version level 1 - 3 would be the newbie levels where the class features of the classes get spread out.

-YRUSirius

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

You've got a point about sneak attack, and I admit that it has always ever so slightly unsettled my thinking that the fighter was denied an ability to dish out mighty damage if they managed to catch someone unaware and deliver a vicious hack to the back of the neck, as example. To me, balance is not enough of a reason that the staple of the 'cloak & dagger' should be denied to everyone not a rogue. Yes the rogue should be best, if they try, but not if everyone else is excluded.

Of course I am in no way advocating a classless system.

But... The blogs out there are presenting an idea, that I like, that there are more open (although not universally so) subsystems that classes can access to a greater or lesser degree. In addition to class specific subsystems.

Melee combat with weapons is not the sole domain of the fighter. A lot of other classes have this as part of their definition. So whatever they call the 'using weapons in melee' subsystem, it makes sense that everyone can access it. I think the combat control that AoO represent belongs in this shared subsystem and not in a class specific subsystem.

I'm not married to the exact mechanics of AoO/OA or the parent rules imbedded in tactical maneuvers since BD&D onwards (maybe earlier - they have been around in D&D a very long time), but if you don't have them or you make them exclusive to fighters then you've got problems to solve.

 

[steeldragons]

For my 2 coppers, the AoO/OA would be part of an optional "enhanced combat" modules, possibly with things like weapon damage type, reach and weapon size/speed applied to initiative, etc.

If that is not the case, making it a "Fighter only" class trait makes a cartload of sense to me. Like sneak attacks apply to rogues and kill attacks to assassins. For all of the "what about my wimpy fighter" arguments, it seems, if specialization and/or weapon mastery (for multiple weapons or types of weapons) is not going to be built in, then giving this bone to the fighter class seems a more than fair trade off for all of the special/added abilities of the various warrior subclasses.

Clerics have spells and turning. Paladins have their smites and auras and whatever else gets thrown in the mix (noble steeds, spells, limited turning, etc). Rangers get their tracking and chosen prey and whatever else (though I do not want spells, they will probably be there...as will animal companions, though I also do not want to see those thrown in as a "gimme" built in to the class). Barbarians who are raging...are raging! They are not analyzing/noticing when they have an open shot, they're just trying to hit everything as hard as possible. The attitude that a "raging" barbarian has some modicum of control or reasonable mind about them REALLY needs to go and get back to the "berserker" archetype...not to mention their overall resistances, outdoor/survival skills, etc.

Fighters need love too. Giving them AoO as a standard ability/tactic does not strike me as unreasonable or unrealistic considering what all of the other fighter subclasses have at their disposal. Because a rogue or paladin is ALSO swinging a sword is not a good enough reason to automatically allow them to use this "special fighter ability" also. It's in the training and experience of the straight Fighter class to make this move/maneuver...be able to recognize and take the "opportunity."

--SD

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

If you make it fighter only, how do you deal with the situation where the barbarian guards a 10' wide corridor and the orc wants to run past them and attack the wizard.

Because if the barbarian can't exert some influence on the adjacent space around them the wizard is going to get attacked every time and is therefore going to need non-wizard AC & HPs.

 

[rjdafoe]

If you make it fighter only, how do you deal with the situation where the barbarian guards a 10' wide corridor and the orc wants to run past them and attack the wizard.

Because if the barbarian can't exert some influence on the adjacent space around them the wizard is going to get attacked every time and is therefore going to need non-wizard AC & HPs.

The situation is, the barbarian is not good at guarding. He is an untrained fighter that lets his emotions control his combat. The party should use the resources they have properly and effectively. The game should not be designed around all decisions that a party are going to make.

I am not really sure how that anyone is going to stop someone from going past them if they want to anyways. If the creature has decided to take the attack, what is going to stop a typical OA from making the that happen? The AO is a purely gamist attrib that makes the DM think twice about what to do. As a DM, I rarely let the possibility of an AO decide what my creatures do.

 

[Argyle King]

What if you could take a feat to access OAs? The fighter could just be assumed to be given the feat as a bonus feat.

...in a manner similar to how characters can opt into Ritual Casting in 4th Edition, but the Wizard gets it for free.

 

[SoldierBlue]

But they should not be core...

I started this thread, way back, when there was still snow on the trees...

My concern when I started it was as follows:

1) That WotC had made the rule as simple to understand as possible ("leave a threatened square and you draw an attack of opportunity/do something that detracts from your own defence, and draw an attack of opportunity"), but that it was somehow still a major sticking point, and therefore deterrent, to occasional and new players, and that even experienced players still seemed to screw it up.

2) That, more than any other mechanic, it obligated play on the mat. Several of you have countered, suggesting you have played without a mat, still employing OAs/AoOs. I don't dispute this, but I would suggest my argument is still legitimate - more than any other single mechanic, it pushes towards playing on a mat. There are those that will disagree with me.

In summary, there have been several outstanding ideas presented in this thread to deal with this issue. Remember - those of you who argued for keeping OAs/AoOs have, in some ways, my support - I personally like 'em. They make things like reach, movement, and tactical decision-making matter in a way that previous editions that did not contain explicit OAs/AoOs (all editions had implicit OAs, or they were at least suggested in the 1e DMG/PH - I just finished reading them again).

The ideas presented in the thread
1) recognized the problem in the same way I do, and
2) provided excellent fixes, can perhaps be summarized as follows (apologies in advance to those whose ideas I misphrase or mischaracterize):

1) Make 'em optional, just like they were in the 2e Combat and Tactics.

2) Make 'em a feat.

3) Make 'em a fighter-only option.

4) Or, as highly-respected writer Mouseferatu (sp?) suggested, make any PC/monster stop when they move through a threatened square, unless they choose the full-move/double move action.

There are ideas here that I am missing - but the ones above provide the best list that still respects brevity.

Option #2 has merit, but it may dissuade those who are shooting for a shorter feat list (and there are several such posters on this site). Option #3 may as well, but ironically, elsewhere we have (and I mean the collective "we", as the ENWorld community) suggested we want the fighter to remain something of the "gateway" PC for new players, and it is new players who, in my experience, as most put-off by OAs/AoOs.

Both Options #2 and #3 fail to address what I have experienced as the biggest problem for new and occasional players - it isn't when they as PCs get to inflict and OA/AoO, but understanding when they draw an OA/AoO from a monster. I cannot state this strongly enough - it happens several times a night with a new and occasional player - they get angry and frustrated when they can't seem to intuitively understand why they are drawing an attack of opportunity as they try move around the battlefield.

It is this frustration - which I personally think is great enough to push occasional/new players away from the game (I've personally seem it happen twice now) - which I most want to address.

Option #4 holds great promise - I can see those occasional/new players getting frustrated when I tell them have to stop when they move through a threatened square as part of a standard action, but not nearly as much as when I have to tell them they've drawn an OA/AoO. I'm curious how this would play out in a playtest...

Option #1 - I gotta say, that a 5e Combat and Tactics may provide the best solution. I remember when we introduced the original C &T into our 2e game in the mid-90s - we were all experienced players who were looking for greater detail and granularity in our games. Had a wife/girlfriend/buddy who didn't play often come into our game, we would have quickly put it aside an gone back to a simpler game, with no great loss to PC effectiveness (well, maybe a bit...), because OAs/AoO were not hard-wired into the system through feats or in-combat movement.

As for me, I'm GMing a new campaign this summer for Pathfinder - AoOs are baked into the game (reach, Combat Reflexes, spell-casting, etc, all require AoO - to yank it out would endanger the game, I think....). Interestingly, part of the reason we're starting a new campaign is because we lost occasional players from our last campaign...

But when I get my 5e playtest later this month, I'm looking forward to/hoping to GM a game that does NOT require AoOs. Also, I'm thinking of DMing a 1e "one-shot" - "When a Star Falls" - and I'm curious to see how it will roll without AoOs.

What's the worse that could happen? A few goblins get past the front-rank fighters to threaten the magic-user in the back? The elf ranger only gets to fire off one arrow before he is beset by the oncoming horde? Maybe that's what should be happening anyway....

As always, I remain impressed by the intelligence, wit, and thoughtfulness of the posters to this thread and the ENWorld community writ large.

Play what you want, Gamer Nation!

 

[Kunimatyu]

Option #2 has merit, but it may dissuade those who are shooting for a shorter feat list (and there are several such posters on this site). Option #3 may as well, but ironically, elsewhere we have (and I mean the collective "we", as the ENWorld community) suggested we want the fighter to remain something of the "gateway" PC for new players, and it is new players who, in my experience, as most put-off by OAs/AoOs.

Both Options #2 and #3 fail to address what I have experienced as the biggest problem for new and occasional players - it isn't when they as PCs get to inflict and OA/AoO, but understanding when they draw an OA/AoO from a monster.

Making AoOs fighter-specific also means taking them away from most monsters by default.

As you said, the issue is not when players get free attacks on monsters, it's when monsters get free attacks on PCs. With that in mind, I think #3 is the best option.