OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[P1NBACK]

The consequences of trying to go around should be risky, but saying it's impossible doesn't make sense to me at all.

I never said it was impossible. You clearly didn't read my post. I said, normal movement past someone is impossible. In order to go past someone you're engaged with, you require a special maneuver, which makes perfect sense.

Have you ever played football? Have you ever tried to go past an offensive lineman? You can't just walk past them. And, an offensive lineman doesn't even have a shield or a sword...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I guess you didn't really read my post.

I was taking you at face value when you said there were no rules. I don't recall an Overrun or Knockdown rule in B/X.

I never said it was impossible. You clearly didn't read my post. I said, normal movement past someone is impossible. In order to go past someone you're engaged with, you require a special maneuver, which makes perfect sense.

Have you ever played football? Have you ever tried to go past an offensive lineman? You can't just walk past them. And, an offensive lineman doesn't even have a shield or a sword...

You said: "Notice there are no rules for moving PAST someone in combat? You cannot do it."

An offensive lineman is trained to stop people. He is specialized in stopping people. And, even then, people still do get past him.

Every combatant in the scenario you present is trained as an offensive lineman, yet it takes special training to be able to get past them? Or are Overrun and Knockdown maneuvers that anyone can attempt?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I never said it was impossible. You clearly didn't read my post. I said, normal movement past someone is impossible. In order to go past someone you're engaged with, you require a special maneuver, which makes perfect sense.

Have you ever played football? Have you ever tried to go past an offensive lineman? You can't just walk past them. And, an offensive lineman doesn't even have a shield or a sword...

What are the mechanics for the special maneuvers you describe? DM fiat?

 

[P1NBACK]

I was taking you at face value when you said there were no rules. I don't recall an Overrun or Knockdown rule in B/X.

You said: "Notice there are no rules for moving PAST someone in combat? You cannot do it."

An offensive lineman is trained to stop people. He is specialized in stopping people. And, even then, people still do get past him.

Every combatant in the scenario you present is trained as an offensive lineman, yet it takes special training to be able to get past them? Or are Overrun and Knockdown maneuvers that anyone can attempt?

Yes, Overrun and Knockdown are maneuvers anyone can attempt, albeit at a penalty to your attack roll.

I never said anything about using B/X wholesale. I said it's the best example of melee rules without AoO. We use the Adventurer Conqueror King System and it's basically B/X but with some special maneuvers that enhance the game.

No reason why 5E couldn't do something similar, taking inspiration from B/X or other games for ways to make melee workable without AoO.

We've been doing it for 50+ sessions in our game.

 

[P1NBACK]

What are the mechanics for the special maneuvers you describe? DM fiat?

Sigh. You guys are hilarious.

No. Actually, most of the maneuvers are a normal attack at -4 with proficiencies to reduce the penalty. The enemy gets a Saving Throw vs. Paralysis.

OVERRUN
If a combatant wants to move through an opponent without
stopping to fight him, this is an overrun. To overrun an
opponent, the combatant must succeed on a melee attack
throw with a -4 penalty. The opponent must then make a saving
throw versus Paralysis. If the combatant is significantly larger
than the opponent (an ogre or horse overrunning a man, for
instance) the opponent suffers a -4 penalty on his saving throw.
If successful, the opponent can choose to block the combatant,
but the combatant may deal damage against the opponent as if
he had struck him in melee. If the opponent fails on his saving
throw, or chooses not to block the combatant, the combatant
may move through the opponent and continue up to his
combat movement. A successful overrun does not count as a
combatant’s attack for the round, and a combatant may make
multiple overruns. For instance, a combatant could overrun 2
goblins and then attack the witch-doctor they were guarding.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

What about going around an enemy youre in melee with?

Also, that maneuver is significantly more convoluted than AoOs.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Standing in front of them?

As I said, I am aware that is not covering everything, but it does cover a great big chunk of "what happens/how things happen in melee" and then flavor/fluff to taste.

A fighter isn't even 5' wide. D&D corridors tend to be 10' wide. Wilderness environments have all the space you could want. Without AoOs or sticky combat, the smart move would be to brush by the fighter and splat the person able to fireball all of you. There's not even a penalty for doing so.

I suppose its a playstyle thing, but if there are combatants in front of the mage, I never let the enemies just waltz around them to take a swing at the wizard.

That is playstyle. Mages are seriously high priority targets in pre-4e (and still high priority in 4e). The threat of being fireballed is huge - and the wizard has far, far worse they can do than fireball.

If they have missile weapons and want to try to shoot passed the melee folks, that fine. But they can't just race by the fighter for the wizard instead...there's 3 dimensions of armored fury to get by first.

Parry, engage blades, step past, and charge the wizard. Not that hard if you have a 10' corridor and a couple of you.

Always liked them, but to be honest I don't think I've seen that many in use. It seems most monsters are tactical GENIUSES apparently. Most of the AoOs I've seen have come up from either drinking potions, casting, or special combat actions. Rarely movement, as most people seem to adopt the pawn 5' approach to combat.

Actually, IME, the tactical geniusses are the ones likely to provoke. Especially in 4e with provoking enabling the defenders. Not provoking is doing the obvious thing and you need a reason to provoke.

Has no one played B/X? Seriously. It has the best rules for melee.

Once you're engaged in melee, you cannot "flee" unless you state defensive movement (which needs to be stated prior to initiative) and requires you to move backward, away from the enemy you were engaged with.

If you choose defensive movement, you can do a "withdrawal" or "retreat".

Those rules work without invoking DM fiat. However I consider them fundamentally disempowering. It reduces the fighter to a large sack of hit points, pounding away mano-a-mano with another large sack of hit points until either one retreats or one falls.

Withdrawal just means you move backward slowly and can attack if they follow you.

Notice there are no rules for moving PAST someone in combat? You cannot do it. So, no need for AoO. To go past someone, you have to move wide around them, avoiding them altogether.

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.

 

[Minigiant]

How about something simple?

Difficult terrain/Movement Penalties

If you move near an enemy who is not engaged, you must stop.

If you move past the weapon range of an enemy than engaged, the area around the enemy counts as difficult terrain (double movement).

Special

The area around an engaged fighter or an engaged character with the Guardian theme counts as very difficult terrain (triple movement cost) or hazardous terrain if both (quaduple movement cost).

The Favored enemies of an engaged ranger must stop when walking around the ranger's area.

An enemy marked by a paladin's divine sanction must when walking by him even if the paladin is engaged.

 

[steeldragons]

As I said before, I don't consider DM fiat to be a good substitute for what AoO/OA mechanically provides.

Ok. *shrug* You don't want DM fiat. I don't have any issue with it. But I don't think saying "Here's an optional module you may incorporate into your play as desired" is advocating DM fiat.

I suppose then, as counter, you could say that "I don't consider AoO/OA something that needs to be mechanically provided for." (? Wait. Think that fails my grammar skill check. haha. "needs to be provided for mechanically"?)

Either way, I do not consider AoO/OA as being something that falls under the "simplest mode of play" framework for 5e's proposed modular/ everyone gets what they want/unification edition and, as such, is more than welcome and easily incorporated as an optional addition to the mode of play you would like to engage in...just as much as it can easily be my option not to use it in my game.

Even pre-grid days it was obvious that a human-sized person could not effectively block a 10-foot wide standard D&D hallway.

True.

The Fighter trying to protect the "squishies" is a corner case?! You just said upthread that the foes are gunning for the Wizard, it would make sense that the front-liner would commonly try to protect him. That's the opposite of a corner case.

Well, no. Obviously that would not be a corner case. Maybe I was unclear.

We could say, ok scenario 1: 1 fighter with a wizard behind him in a 10' standard corridor. 2 orcs coming down the corridor...2 or maybe 3 goblins, 3 or maybe 4 kobolds. At least 1 orc or goblin, maybe 2 goblins or 2 of the 3 kobolds are engaged by the fighter. The remaining orc, goblin, 1 or 2 kobolds can move passed them and potentially attack the wizard.

OR, I could say, in my games, kobolds are sneaky little climbing buggers very at home in tight spaces and easily pounce up on the side wall of the corridor and scramble on their clawed feet, at least for the 10 feet, to get passed the fighter, and they ALL can attack the wizard. Can the fighter take a swing or two at them as they go by? Sure why not. Do I need an AoO rule to tell me, as the DM, this "makes sense"? No.

Or, I could say (as most parties did) that in the 10' corridor, the frontline is the human fighter and the dwarf fighter beside him. Neither orc nor any goblin or kobold can get passed both of them (each fighting side-by-side taking up 5' of corridor). The wizard is safe other than the possibility of missile fire if the attackers are so equipped.

We could go on and on and on with "what if this or that." What if it's a 15 corridor, what then? What if it's bugbears instead of orcs or smaller creatures? What if the mage is actually in the third row, behind shorter party members he can cast over?

That's the sort of thing I meant by "corner cases"/individual scenarios that a "rule" of AoO or OA (or anything else for that matter) cannot possibly hope to cover in their entirety.

There is a modicum of, not "DM fiat" though I suppose it would be considered by some, but a modicum of "common sense" that the framework of the game must allow for, imho, moreso than "rules for X".
What works in this attack/corridor may or may not work in the next. Having a module that tells me I must allow AoO in any/all situations of X works for some...doesn't necessarily work or "make sense" for others.

So, again, my hopes are for an optional module pertaining to all sorts of levels of complexity for melee, that can be applied as you and I and thecasualoblivion and that guy playing down the street can all get what we want from it.

How can anyone, or rather why would they want to, argue against "everyone gets what they want"? How is, to borrow from JamesonCourage, "everyone can play what they like" a bad thing?

If I come to play with your (and I don't mean you, specifically, Vyvyan, but you know, "someone else's") group, I can accept the game with whatever modules added as your group plays it...or not. And you/they are free to do the same coming to my table. No harm. No foul. Just fun for all.

Why can't they? Without passing attacks or opportunity attacks nothing stops them from doing so. Unless you totally disconnect the rules from the reality of the world any mass swarming creature, like orcs, goblins, kobolds are going to figure this out.

And if a DM doesn't force their monsters to stop at the first creature they meet like you do, then the player of the Fighter feels like his role as protector is useless.

There's no reason this needs be so. The fighter can turn around? Attack the next wave and hope for the best for the mage? Change weapons/tactics? Everyone can run away? If the fighter is alone, as in the above scenario and he stops one orc and the other goes by, the fighter's doing his job as best he can...no reason to feel "useless."

Or, maybe he's stepping into the middle of the 10' space and hoping both will attack him...which, "making sense" they both very well might (orcs loving their slaughter and all). When you're not playing "on a grid" there's no reason you have to be in "this 5' square or that, but can't possibly be in between."

True. But commonly occurring scenarios shouldn't be left for the individual DM to decide whether his creatures will play nice and not just move past the impotent Fighter.

And there would be an optional addition to your game that you could make sure the DM doesn't have to do that. Other groups/DMs who have stipulated "this is how we're going to make things work" and/or who trust/like their DMs to make fair consistent rulings or whatever reason they want, really, don't have to use that module.

I can see your point in this regard even if I don't agree with you.

Cool. Thank you. I totally respect that. And I can see what you're saying you want...and am not denying, nor hoping/wanting 5e will, deny you of it. I'm just saying it's not something that, for the style of play I and mine would like to play in 5e, must be in the core/basic/simplest level of framework of play.

--SD

 

[P1NBACK]

What about going around an enemy youre in melee with?

Also, that maneuver is significantly more convoluted than AoOs.

Um. Don't get into melee with them in the first place? Just go around them?

How is it convoluted? It's an attack at -4 and a saving throw. I'm confused. Takes us all of about 10 seconds to resolve.

"I want to overrun him to get past him to the goblin wizard."
"Ok, roll attack at -4."
"16! hit!"
"Ok, lemme make a save. Ah, he passed his save. You don't get past him, but you can deal damage."
"Ok, got a 6 + 3 for strength and my fighter bonus. 9 total."

Or,

"I want to overrun him to get past him to the goblin wizard."
"Ok, roll attack at -4."
"16! hit!"
"Ok, lemme make a save. Ah, he fails his save. You get past him."
"Great, I'll attack the goblin wizard..."

And, it's a maneuver that occurs on someone's turn, in the span of their attack action.

AoO is only simple if you consider the actual mechanics. At the table, when using them to in the heat of combat, things get really complex interrupting turns and whatnot.