-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
So, Attacks of Oppportunity?
- Thread starter Dordledum
- Start date
dammitbiscuit
First Post
Our group loved not having them. When in the open, they really enjoyed having a flexible battle space. It also encouraged giving more tactical consideration to how the PCs arranged themselves. To keep the wizard protected, they needed a defensive line with no holes so they would try to use hallways/doors as choke-points, use overturned tables, etc. In that regard, I enjoyed the increased creativity.
I can see some use for movement-limiting mechanics or abilities, but we really didn't miss AoOs at all.
Li Shenron
Legend
I think there better be no AoO rules in the core rules, but only in the tactical module.
My 2 cp:
- if AoOs are in the kernel rules, then the game will be full of character options and abilities which are exploits AoOs and cause problems, or are just negatively affected (remember Cleave with the bag of puppies?)
- there are many gamers who don't want a tactical combat but a simple one, and AoOs can be already a nuisance to remember, why do you want to force this to them?
Tactical-combats lovers will certainly get AoOs or possibly something better. Once the concept is moved to the tactical module, it can be designed much better even at a higher complexity cost because it will be used by those who actually like complexity in combat.
My 2 cp:
- if AoOs are in the kernel rules, then the game will be full of character options and abilities which are exploits AoOs and cause problems, or are just negatively affected (remember Cleave with the bag of puppies?)
- there are many gamers who don't want a tactical combat but a simple one, and AoOs can be already a nuisance to remember, why do you want to force this to them?
Tactical-combats lovers will certainly get AoOs or possibly something better. Once the concept is moved to the tactical module, it can be designed much better even at a higher complexity cost because it will be used by those who actually like complexity in combat.
I think the problems occur with players used to taking advantage of options on a battleboard, and who are playing the playtest on a battleboard. This is not currently *excluded* from core, and in fact seems to be assumed as OK, since the feedback form for stage 1 playtest asks if you are using a battleboard or not.
If you are used to tactical play on a board, and try to play the current core rules with DM and players taking full advantage of the options open to them for movement etc, then some interesting, but odd movement options crop up, such as monsters darting forward into good attack position, maybe past various "guardians", attacking target of choice then darting back to a better defensive position. It's a bit too mobile if played with full exploit of the rules (e.g. in the same style as you might with 4E).
I think it should be possible to say "I want to stop creature X moving past me", and have more options than forming a 10' shield wall. This *is* possible in core as it stands, using ad-libbed rulings (e.g. ready an action to interpose+attack, DM might rule that as opposed Dex to interpose and still grant the attack, but with disadvantage, if the opposed Dex fails). So I also think the current simplified situation will be fine for groups that don't try to optimise combat movement, or who play theatre-of-the-mind anyway.
If you are used to tactical play on a board, and try to play the current core rules with DM and players taking full advantage of the options open to them for movement etc, then some interesting, but odd movement options crop up, such as monsters darting forward into good attack position, maybe past various "guardians", attacking target of choice then darting back to a better defensive position. It's a bit too mobile if played with full exploit of the rules (e.g. in the same style as you might with 4E).
I think it should be possible to say "I want to stop creature X moving past me", and have more options than forming a 10' shield wall. This *is* possible in core as it stands, using ad-libbed rulings (e.g. ready an action to interpose+attack, DM might rule that as opposed Dex to interpose and still grant the attack, but with disadvantage, if the opposed Dex fails). So I also think the current simplified situation will be fine for groups that don't try to optimise combat movement, or who play theatre-of-the-mind anyway.
Yes, as in no attacks of opportunity just doesn't work.
I understand the thought that opportunity attacks slow down the game but actually, when you do damage during an opportunity attack that speeds up the game.
Nobody should ever step away from a dangerous opponent without provoking an opportunity attack.
You're not going to speed past a fighter without him or her taking a swing at you. If you really want to get to that wizard, you're going to have to pay some blood.
And we need opportunity attacks to make some of the popular feats still useful such as point blank firing and quick drawing of a ranged weapon.
Furthermore, Dodge Action could be so much more useful if you extended that to opportunity attacks and defending your allies with them.
I understand the thought that opportunity attacks slow down the game but actually, when you do damage during an opportunity attack that speeds up the game.
Nobody should ever step away from a dangerous opponent without provoking an opportunity attack.
You're not going to speed past a fighter without him or her taking a swing at you. If you really want to get to that wizard, you're going to have to pay some blood.
And we need opportunity attacks to make some of the popular feats still useful such as point blank firing and quick drawing of a ranged weapon.
Furthermore, Dodge Action could be so much more useful if you extended that to opportunity attacks and defending your allies with them.
Gold Roger
First Post
I like there's no attacks of opportunity for everyone. Aside from bogging down gameplay and leading to static combat, I feel that the ability to control your space like that, stoping those who move past you and even noticing the runner slipping past you in the chaotic melee most D&D combats represent, are abilities not every character should have.
You should be able to move past the rogue, cleric or wizard even in a 10ft wide corridor, but the mid-level fighter should be able to hold a 25ft wide bridge by himself.
You should be able to move past the rogue, cleric or wizard even in a 10ft wide corridor, but the mid-level fighter should be able to hold a 25ft wide bridge by himself.
bouncyhead
Explorer
I think it really depends on the mind-set of the players. I can see how damage from AOOs can shorten a combat. Our group, however, tends to have two types of players:
A. Tactical Gonks, who understand the AOO rules intuitively and can make quick judgements re tactical advantage gained v exposure to attack/damage. They love tactical options and feats.
B. Tactical Schmucks, who, after 12 years, still don't intuitively grok movement, AOOs, reach etc. and sssllloooowwww the game down with re-worked movement/actions after an "Are you sure?" from the DM, or raised eyebrows, or player intervention etc.. They see AOOs (and other tactical elements, e.g. reach) as 'traps' to be avoided, not a set of factors to balance/exploit/enrich the game.
I would say we are about 50/50 and the time we lose from group B easily outweighs any time won through AOOs. We were discussing this the other day, and none of us could think of a single instance of a combat where there wasn't some form of AOO-driven discussion.
Just adjudging what does and doesn't provoke is a massive time-sink in itself. Spell-like ability? Supernatural ability? Drawing a weapon? Retrieving an item? You'd have thought after 12 years we would know them all. I know, let's look it up on that incredibly long list once again.
Lots of absolutes in there, but yes. That's why we need a tactical module. Ideally with a simple dial with a setting between between Gonk and Schmuck, to keep everyone happy and keep the game moving.
Neonchameleon
Legend
You don't actually need AoOs. What you need is something to stop people just walking past other people. If your movement stopped when you engaged someone that would work almost as well - it would just lower the risk calculation.
I don't like the 3.X AoO rules and would much rather replace them with the 4e OA rules - which are stripped down to the bare essentials. In short the 4e rules say "No running past enemies and no making ranged attacks in melee unless you want to suffer an AoO".
No need for the tactical schmucks to worry about whether drawing a weapon, quaffing a potion, or standing up from prone provokes an AoO. They don't. It's just walking past the enemy and shooting a bow or a ranged spell when someone is right in your face. These are clearly explainable as bad plans and even the tactical schmucks get that.
And the positioning OA rules are more than enough to keep the tactical gonks happy as long as the DM isn't a complete tactical schmuck. Especially when combined with 4e defenders where when you provoke a marked target they may get a free swing at you - but the fighter gets a free swing at them. Or with the Prime Shot rules where you get a bonus to hit for being nearest (or joint nearest) to the enemy if you're using a ranged attack - so walk up to them, prime shot, and if the enemy shoots you the fighter cuts them open.
I don't like the 3.X AoO rules and would much rather replace them with the 4e OA rules - which are stripped down to the bare essentials. In short the 4e rules say "No running past enemies and no making ranged attacks in melee unless you want to suffer an AoO".
No need for the tactical schmucks to worry about whether drawing a weapon, quaffing a potion, or standing up from prone provokes an AoO. They don't. It's just walking past the enemy and shooting a bow or a ranged spell when someone is right in your face. These are clearly explainable as bad plans and even the tactical schmucks get that.
And the positioning OA rules are more than enough to keep the tactical gonks happy as long as the DM isn't a complete tactical schmuck. Especially when combined with 4e defenders where when you provoke a marked target they may get a free swing at you - but the fighter gets a free swing at them. Or with the Prime Shot rules where you get a bonus to hit for being nearest (or joint nearest) to the enemy if you're using a ranged attack - so walk up to them, prime shot, and if the enemy shoots you the fighter cuts them open.
bouncyhead
Explorer
Yup -3x/PF are particularly fiddly. We played 4E for a while and I liked the simplified OAs. I understand that the PF Beginner Box has no AOO/OA rule, just some straightforward strictures on in-melee shooting and the like. We've tried a couple of home-spun variants in our games but it's quite difficult to unpick, especially with feat-dependencies.
BTW I should be clear that I am halfway between the two extremes myself. I guess that makes me a Schmonk.
