OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Looking at Overrun makes me glad to have rules as simple as the AoO rules. I've posted why I find the B/X lack of ability to have good footwork disempowering. ACK is offering a patch that feels very kludgy to me. But your initial quote was "Has no one played B/X? Seriously. It has the best rules for melee."

Apparently it doesn't. If it had the best rules for melee you'd be using them and not the ACK ones. The ones that put a needed patch into a system that is very limiting.

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.

I don't want to move through an opponent. I want to move past him (or her). Much easier. It's not a withdraw because I'm going forward. It's not an overrun because I'm taking advantage of the width of the corridor - 5' man (if not less) and 10' corridor.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The main purpose of AoO/OA mechanics is to discourage certain behavior without totally prohibiting it. There are some other, secondary benefits, but those are niche enough we can overlook them or go after them in other ways. That discouraged behavior is primarily trying to get past melee combatants or doing things that would tend to let your guard down, such as fumbling for a potion. So any mechanic that accomplishes that main purpose can be a good substitute for AoO/OA.

We had a long discussion about an alternate "engagement" system several weeks ago, but that was touching a lot more than OAs. About the simplest version I can think of, short of DM fiat, is that you do an "opportunity cost" mechanic, instead of attack interrupts. For example, take 4E OA provokes, but every time you provoke, instead of this causing an attack, you take a -2 (or -3 or -4 or whatever works to discourage it enough) penalty to all attacks and defenses until the start of your next turn. (Fighters and other such front-line characters probably have a way to make this penalty worse, at least as an option.)

The "DM Fiat" guideline version of that, is to not have the penalty stack or be tied to direct and explicit provokes, but to simply have the DM say by default, "No, you can't run by that guy with the sword. You can't fish a potion out during melee." Then the guidelines to the DM is that if someone says they really need to take the chance, you let them do it, but slap a flat -4 or -5, one time penalty on all their attacks and defenses until they get another round. You can, "Sort of ignore the guy with the greatsword trying to take your head off if it is important enough, but no, you can't completely do so. " And then if someone insists, let them avoid the penalty, but provoke a coup de grace attempt by everyone within reach.

Most of the time, that isn't worth it, so people won't do it. Giving everyone a boost on their next shot at you is probably going to up the damage cost more than AoO/OAs do now, in most cases--and it also has more uncertainity to it. But if you really need to pop that illithid druid before he gets his spell off, it might be worth the risk.

 

[Dausuul]

I hate opportunity attacks and want them to die. My reasons:

• They discourage mobility in combat. Combat gets very stagnant when people with powerful OAs are involved. Both 3E and 4E had to kludge in the five-foot step (shift in 4E) in order to let people move at all.
• They are a major disincentive to fleeing when the fight turns against you. When the PCs get in over their heads, as is apt to happen on occasion if the entire game world is not carefully scaled to their level, I want "Run away! Run away!" to be an option. OAs make that significantly tougher, especially for the front-line melee types... and it's those front-line melee types who are already most at risk.
• Out-of-turn actions slow combat down significantly, especially when you have a larger group and/or people who don't know the rules very well.
• In my experience, newbies are forever getting confused about what does and does not provoke.

From what I'm seeing, people have two main reasons to want to keep them around:

1. They give the fighter a way to protect the squishies.
2. They discourage the use of spells and ranged attacks in melee.

#1 can be addressed in a much more focused way, without changing the whole combat dynamic. Just allow combatants to use a move action to "guard" another creature. This imposes a penalty on attacks which target the guarded creature, because the guard is using her move action to get in the way.

I disregard #2 because it doesn't work. Except in very tight quarters or against foes with reach, the ranged combatant can just shift or 5-foot step, then unload spells or ranged attacks without a care in the world. (And that's before we even get into defensive casting in 3E.) Cyclical initiative killed spell disruption in D&D; that's just how it is.

 

[Neonchameleon]

How about something simple?

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.

I don't think that's any simpler than OAs as long as you know what a Melee Basic Attack is. And I think "Must stop" isn't as neat as "Should stop or take a free swing".

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

If you can do that the fighter can't protect the wizard.

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.

And an OA is a basic attack. Less convoluted than an attack at -4 with a saving throw and a conditional modifier.

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.

"Don't do something stupid in combat." The OA rules - moving the wrong place provokes, using something long ranged in melee provokes. These aren't that complex and normally devolve to the B/X situations of not doing those things without a damn good reason. B/X says "You can't." 4e says "You can - but you'll probably get hurt." Nine times out of ten at the very least this amounts to the same thing. The action isn't taken. But 4e leaves the option as allowed.

AoOs are more complex. Standing from prone, drinking potions, initiating grab or trip, charging a foe with ridiculously long arms...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

I'm not attached to the AoO itself so much as I believe there should be mechanics for moving past enemies you're engaged with and performing ranged actions in spells in melee. If AoOs are to be removed, they must be replaced with something more than DM fiat.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think that's any simpler than OAs as long as you know what a Melee Basic Attack is. And I think "Must stop" isn't as neat as "Should stop or take a free swing".

I don't see how it is not simpler.

If you try to move past someone who isn't busy, they get in your way.

If you a trying to move passed someone who is busy, they cannot completely stop you, so you are just slowed down.

The fighter jumps in front of the first charging orc.
The second one just gets a hard bump from the now busy orc and is slowed down a bit. This orc ends his movement ra few feet in front of wizard.
The third orc is more roguish and uses Tumble to ignore the ruckus of the fighter and the first orc and clobbers the wizard.

 

[billd91]

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).

(emphasis mine)

But with the blocker maneuvering, and particularly with circling, how does this actually block the foe trying to get to the wizard? I can see the blocker moving to engage a lone opponent trying to maneuver around and locking him down in combat with some kind of zone of control. But I would also expect him to continually try to interpose himself between the opponent and the protected wizard. Circling, in particular, would seem to be counterproductive since, once the opponent is between the blocker and the wizard, the opponent can disengage and pursue the wizard. The blocker moving out to engage one would also seem to pin the blocker down as well, preventing him from blocking others trying to gain access to the wizard.

Shouldn't there also be room for the rock placed in the stream style of blocking, where the fighter stands his ground lashing out around him at multiple opponents trying to get past, possibly channeling them into other danger zones from other block-friendly PCs?

 

[billd91]

And an OA is a basic attack. Less convoluted than an attack at -4 with a saving throw and a conditional modifier.

But a basic attack might not be very valuable when trying to protect the wizard and stop opponents from getting around the blocker. I think that's one of the complaints leveled about the fighter in 3e and how well (or poorly from the perspective of those making the argument) he actually performs as a blocker. Without some kind of additional benefit, does an OA actually do enough?

For some builds of 4e fighters, a successful OA stops the opponents move action (though he can immediately start back up if he has another suitable action left). In PF, some feats can stop the opponent from moving as well. Even 3e leaves some opportunity for taking special attacks like trips as OA. Once you add some additional effect for the blocker, is the OA really that much simpler than the B/X rules for overrun?

 

[Ratskinner]

I am used to them from the get go. I started with ADnD 2nd edition nearly 20 years ago and the always were a part of combat:

1) running away from combat
2) casting or using a ranged attack in melee
3) passing by someone who defends a hall

those were and are still the usual cases where attack of opportunity matter.
Of course it is much ore codified now. But those things can easily be tracked without any battelemap

A short list of situational triggers that operates without a battlemap is the best way to do it, IMHO. I never found the 3e way of doing AoOs to be a big deal for me.

However, it seems to goad players into convoluted movements just to avoid them. I don't know why, maybe there's some kind of psychological impact to the words "Attack of Opportunity" or "Threatened Area" that there isn't to "He'll get a free swing." The same players regularly "provoke" free swings when we play by the simple rules. Even the players that like 3e AoOs!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

But that's not the only part in the melee/magic balance. How does the Fighter stop the "average-intelligence foe" from just ignoring him and moving around him to whack the Wizard?

The close to melee action helps. He can either take his attacks on the guy he's engaged with, or move to engage, but not attack, the wizard.