Anyone loveAoOs/OAs?

[vagabundo]

Not a huge fan of OAs. I might prefer a damaging Aura for anyone not shifting in it. Given to defenders for free and available a a talent (kill feats WotC DOIT!!)...

 

[BryonD]

As I said up thread, I absolutely love AoOs and leaving them out would be a big hurdle for getting me interested.

However, I certainly recognize the "square counting" issue. My solution to that is to simply not allow it. It is easy to count to 4, 6, or 8. And it is even easy to just look at a board and see the options in the available radius. It is very common for a player to just say "I want to go here" or "Can I get to <there> and <the thing they want to do>?"

Typical answers are:
Sure, no problem
Yeah, but you are going to get attacked if you do
You can get to THERE safely or THERE with an attack
You can get to THERE and <do X> or get to there this turn and wait until next turn to <do X>.

If an attack is called for and the player takes the action, then they get attacked. They know not to waste time counting squares not only because no one enjoys that but also because they know they are getting attacked if they make the move. period.
It may be that there is some special square counting path that makes it mechanically possible. But if you can't glance at the grid and see it without counting, then your character can't find it in the 1/2 seconds of thinking they have while dodging the angry orcs.

Now there are certainly infrequent occasions when a player will go "wait, what about this path?" And I'm open to being swayed if it is quick and easy and reasonable. But reasonable is key and square counting is out of the question. Again, I can count to 8 (even using 1/2/1/2) pretty much with a glance, so that isn't an issue.


The only serious exception is crazy fast characters. When a character gets a move of like 12 or 16 for whatever reason, the bug turns into a feature. At this point the character is clearly supernatural is some way and it does make sense for their awareness to exceed that of other around them. And taking *A FEW SECONDS* to optimize a path just comes off as Jackie Chan bouncing off of walls and desks to take some crazy path and it ADDS to the fun. And, IME, the same people who will growl at the cleric for counting at all one round earlier will cheer the monk for doing his thing. On those events that it IS fun and IS part of the way the story should work: Go with it and enjoy.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Perhaps, rather than damage or a free attack, escaping a foe (or moving past them) should cost movement?

 

[delericho]

In theory, I like AoOs. In practice, they seem to cause problems. Also, any and all actions that take place outside your own turn have the effect of slowing the game down - most especially when one reaction in turn triggers another reaction, which in turn...

I would be inclined to keep AoOs in the game, but make them a power (or feat, or whatever) that must be learnt; not something that any character can do. I would also purge a lot of the other reactions and out-of-turn effects from the game, and add a strict rule that "a reaction cannot trigger another reaction".

I also support calls for removing gridded-combat and exact movement/positioning issues, at least from the default game. As with many things, it is much easier to add it in later than it is to strip it out.

 

[Aldarc]

As I said up thread, I absolutely love AoOs and leaving them out would be a big hurdle for getting me interested.

However, I certainly recognize the "square counting" issue. My solution to that is to simply not allow it. It is easy to count to 4, 6, or 8. And it is even easy to just look at a board and see the options in the available radius. It is very common for a player to just say "I want to go here" or "Can I get to <there> and <the thing they want to do>?"

And you already lost me there.

 

[BryonD]

And you already lost me there.

I respect that.

But

I love my minis. But I would also say that roughly 10-20% of combats are still played without them simply because we do whatever flows with the game at that minute. And whether you are playing with or without minis, running past an orc (A) rationally should give the orc a chance to hit you and (B) is boring and the opposite of heroic if there is no danger in doing it.

So even if you don't use minis AT ALL, the *spirit* of what I said should still translate into a good resolution mechanic.

 

[Aldarc]

I respect that.

But

I love my minis. But I would also say that roughly 10-20% of combats are still played without them simply because we do whatever flows with the game at that minute. And whether you are playing with or without minis, running past an orc (A) rationally should give the orc a chance to hit you and (B) is boring and the opposite of heroic if there is no danger in doing it.

So even if you don't use minis AT ALL, the *spirit* of what I said should still translate into a good resolution mechanic.

To quote Mearls on 5E:

"The new edition is being conceived of as a modular, flexible system, easily customized to individual preferences. Just like a player makes his character, the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset. He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.”

If 5E delivers what it promises here, then we may both get our preferences.

 

[IronWolf]

In that respect, OAs do a good job. However, are they the best mechanic for the job? Could the next system come up with an even better one?

Good point. I like AoO's because of the control/consequence factor. If another mechanic did the same thing in an elegant way, then it might get my attention.

 

[Randomthoughts]

Perhaps, rather than damage or a free attack, escaping a foe (or moving past them) should cost movement?

This, plus adding AoO as a class feature or feat for fighters and other defenders, would make a nice default option.

 

[kitsune9]

I use them in my game. I never mind them.