Don't let the sword hit you on the way out!

[WHW4]

Someone xp Jimlock for me? I am popping some popcorn as we speak.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm interested in the defense of the rule. Do you think it's more realistic to have the AoO coming into a threatened square or retreating from it?

I think that there is some merit to both.

Retreating is harder than either advancing or defending. Given the turn based discontinious nature of the game, the simulation of this is easiest done by controlling how you may disengauge. Note that you may take a disengauge action to negate the attack of opportunity and you may under the official rules at least move back with a 5' step, so the existing rules only penalize movement which does not seem to involve either attack or defense.

It's possible to take a feat where by those that enter your threat zone while taking the charge action draw an AoO. This forces the target to engage more carefully. Likewise, reach weapons simulate the advantage of a weapon with longer reach. But there is also some subtlety in the rules because you don't want to close with the target in such a way that you are subject to counter charging. That is to say, if you can't double move and attack, if you advance then the target CAN double move and attack you. In this way, you draw an attack by advancing on the enemy. Mechanically it is very difficult than what the OP suggests, but in terms of attacks exchanged it is quite similar.

Of course, this doesn't need to be perfectly realistic. But...

If I'm fighting Mike Tyson, I think it would be hard to even approach him and begin the combat. But, if I were already in the combat, it seems a bit easier to retreat and put distance between us.

Have you ever done much fencing? That first step back is easy and a good and perhaps essential defensive measure. If however you take that second or third step back, you've yielded the initiative to your opponent and your defense gets progressively harder until you do something to threaten your foe enough to get them back on their heals and allowing you to step up. Going backward is just harder in many ways than going forwards.

If the d20 rules allowed for an AoO as someone ENTERS a threatened space, then fighters would dance around each other, just out of melee range, looking for that particular hole in the foe's defenses in which to strike.

My assumption is that this is exactly what is happening within the abstract 6 seconds (or 30 seconds depending on your system) of combat in a round. This is not a one blow/one parry per turn system. This assumes quite a bit happens in a round. Fighters are dancing around and probing each others defences in D&D. But often as not untrained fighters do that because they think it looks cool, or because they are nervous or afraid. It's not really an essential aspect of a fight except in the movies. Two Navy Seals certainly DON'T fight like that. Boxers sometimes do that depending on their style, usually because one of them is not as physically strong as the other and can't afford to get in the clinch for fear of being worn out. Instead, they are trying to wear out the opposing boxer who is often heavier by forcing him to move. But I don't think you should mistake a dodge, a defensive stance, or combat expertise in action for the idea that the fighters are 10' away from each other waiting for the other to close to punching range. No, the fighters are like 5' away from each other, dancing in and out of punching distance neither drawing an AoO from the other but rather engaging in what must be seen as their regular attack reutines.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I want the rules to incentivize engaging in melee, not sitting off at a distance waiting. I approve the rule for provoking when leaving threatening spaces.

I've gone further and taken the Trailblazer rule on this, instead of provoking when leaving a threatened square, an AoO is provoked when leaving an opponent's threatened entire area. I like the change in play that it makes it easier for allies to move around the battlefield to flank and aid attack/defense.

 

[Water Bob]

When discussing a game, I find it important for there to be good mechanics. Realism is added on later.

Whether a game mechanic is "good" is often a matter of taste. If a game suggested throwing higher d6 dice for combat, one player may laud it as an easy-to-use system and a firm foundation for which the entire game rests.

Another player would smirk at it and find throwing higher d6 dice as totally unacceptible and unrealistic.

It's also a playability issue... provoking an AoO when entering a threatened square would discourage anybody from initiating melee combat...

That's actually what attracts me to it. That, and it seems to me to be more realistic.

But, I'm glad to see the discussion to the contrary.

If you retreat with your back to your enemy you can't see what he is doing and can't react to it.

Thanks for bringing that up. I wasn't picturing exiting melee as a quick turn tail and run. I was thinking more of a defensive out.

But, I guess we have rules for that. So, maybe that's why the rule exists--because moving at full move away from your foe is basically turning tail and running--with your back to the enemy.

i just wanted to drop in and say how i love watching a "Dandu vs WB" thing going on...

He gets a kick out of trying to provoke me. But, no AoO's coming from this way. I'm pretty hard to provoke. I don't let these types of things get to me. Life's too short. Besides, I don't respect him. He doesn't want to add to the converstaion in any meaningful way. He'd rather act as a troll and ask inane questions.

PS: AoOs are fine as they are IMO.

Not saying they aren't. Just questioning the rule.

 

[Dandu]

He gets a kick out of trying to provoke me. But, no AoO's coming from this way. I'm pretty hard to provoke. I don't let these types of things get to me. Life's too short. Besides, I don't respect him. He doesn't want to add to the converstaion in any meaningful way. He'd rather act as a troll and ask inane questions.

The Buddha sees the Buddha nature in others.

 

[Water Bob]

I want the rules to incentivize engaging in melee, not sitting off at a distance waiting.

But that thinking is somewhat incorrect.

Since a flat-footed character cannot take an Attack of Opportunity, having an AoO when entering a threatened space would encourage quick jaunts to engage the enemy.

You certainly wouldn't want to do it on round two when you had to face an AoO in order to engage. You'd want to win nish and engage quickly.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

But that thinking is somewhat incorrect.

It is not incorrect in the least for my games. I want my players to want to engage with foes on rounds other than the very first round. I want them to want to engage with foes even when luck fails and they lose initiative.

Since a flat-footed character cannot take an Attack of Opportunity, having an AoO when entering a threatened space would encourage quick jaunts to engage the enemy.

But flat-footed characters and foes with Combat Reflexes . . .

Still, the encouragement you seem to be advocating is not much more than encouraging hope for luck at initiative rolls. I'd rather have the incentive always there regardless of fickle dice.

 

[anest1s]

Is this a measure to punish combat?

So, why wouldn't every fighter take combat reflexes and just wait for the opponents to attack, while the rest of the party throws arrows and spells against the enemy?

And even if it works as intended, the PCs have to attack more often than they have to retreat, while for some one-time npc its quite the opposite usually...which means that suddenly aoo's are against them. And after they win the encounter, the opponent can just run away.

Other than that some interesting tactics would come to play...for example at first round stand 10 ft away from the opponent fighter...he will either spend a turn doing 5 ft or will grand you an aoo...or will have to move around you, wasting movement

 

[Water Bob]

Is this a measure to punish combat?

It's a measure to discuss the worthiness of a rule.

Other than that some interesting tactics would come to play...for example at first round stand 10 ft away from the opponent fighter...he will either spend a turn doing 5 ft or will grand you an aoo...or will have to move around you, wasting movement

Agree that the fights would not be as efficient, but that's what's attractive about it. Instead of straight on, knockdown dragouts, fights become much more tactical and realistic.

Instead of two fighters breaking off in different directions to fight different foes, the combat becomes more realistic in that two fighters would work in tandem to take down enemies.

I think that's kind neat.

 

[Water Bob]

What if we keep the AoO for leaving combat as it is, but add an AoO for enterting combat?