So, Attacks of Oppportunity?

[jadrax]

Backing away CAREFULLY is how you get safely away. In 4E, that's a shift. In 3E, that's a 5-foot step. If you just bolt from a melee at normal speed you'll get clocked.

I agree with this, but it does highlight a failure in the rules in that is imposable to withdraw from combat safely in D&D. Which is not actually true in real life at all.

Getting a 'free chop' on people withdrawing disorderly because they have failed a moral check I can totally understand, but just moving out of combat at speed should not present such an opening.

 

[Incenjucar]

I agree with this, but it does highlight a failure in the rules in that is imposable to withdraw from combat safely in D&D. Which is not actually true in real life at all.

Getting a 'free chop' on people withdrawing disorderly because they have failed a moral check I can totally understand, but just moving out of combat at speed should not present such an opening.

Withdrawing from combat safely is just shift+move or 5 ft. step + move. It's not FREE, if that's what you mean. You have to expend a resource to gain a benefit. That's how combat works in the real world, too, if you're fighting anyone or anything with a decent fighting instinct.

 

[jadrax]

Withdrawing from combat safely is just shift+move or 5 ft. step + move. It's not FREE, if that's what you mean. You have to expend a resource to gain a benefit. That's how combat works in the real world, too, if you're fighting anyone or anything with a decent fighting instinct.

The problem here is, unless you move further than your opponent can, you have not withdrawn. Just ending your turn away from your opponent on a board is not actually modelling a real life withdrawal unless they do not follow you.

In 3.x terms, if you could take a 5 foot step and then move *in the same round* it would work better, but you can't take a 5 foot step in a round where you use any other kind of movement.

 

[Incenjucar]

The problem here is, unless you move further than your opponent can, you have not withdrawn. Just ending your turn away from your opponent on a board is not actually modelling a real life withdrawal unless they do not follow you.

In 3.x terms, if you could take a 5 foot step and then move *in the same round* it would work better, but you can't take a 5 foot step in a round where you use any other kind of movement.

But... in real life... someone can follow you. And you CAN shift and move in the same round in 4E. Can't recall 3E and not the right hour for research.

 

[jadrax]

But... in real life... someone can follow you.

Yes, but they are not actually following you. Everything is happening at once, there was never an actual gap between you because you both moved the exact same amount of distance over the same six seconds. All that is happening is the combat is moving from one place to another place. This happens constantly in sword fights, as part of the fight itself.

Withdrawing would be something like a 5 foot step and then running away. Which you cannot model in 3.x - Now, 4th edition may be different, I haven't really played it enough to know.

 

[Teataine]

This is the simplest possible rule I can come up with that would make melee "stickier" and not fiddle with the rules as they are right now, and doesn't slow things down by adding additional actions or reactions or whatever:

Disengaging from melee (moving out of an area threatened by an enemy's melee weapon) halves your movement. If you use the Dodge action, you can move at your normal speed.

So if you have a [Goblin][ ][ ][ ][Fighter][ ][ ][ ][Wizard]. The goblin is either stopped by the Fighter, as he has to deflect and fend as he tries to move past or he runs past, but he can't attack the wizard instantly. If the fighter has an attack readied, that makes him a very dangerous person to try and get past.

If the Goblin is already in melee with the fighter, and tries to run, then he either makes a fighting retreat, moving half his speed, or tries to run, but is giving up its attack.

Heck, I think I'd start using this in my regular 3.x game if AoOs weren't so ingrained in the system.

 

[ren1999]

Attacks of Opportunity need to follow the basic principles of football. You're not going to take down the quarterback without getting through the offensive line.

I will give up Attacks of Opportunity if a character or monster is halted by an opponent that is adjacent to him in the opponent's view and that opponent can attack.

There is also a military tactical rule that would be violated if Attacks of Opportunity were scratched. The enemy is always at a disadvantage when retreating.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Getting out of melee safely is based on one simple principle: You have to move out of melee faster than your opponents will follow. Achieving that is what gets more complicated.

You can get out by surprise--you are already away before the opponents react. You can move faster than they can--either by being outright faster (difficult to count on) or discouraging pursuit somewhat. You can fake your way out--creating the illusion that your retreat is a trap, for example.

All of that goes double for trying to get by someone instead of away from them.

Requiring a Dodge attempt, or an Attack attempt against the person you are trying to bypass, is not a bad way to model that, in 5E terms.

 

[Campbell]

Attacks of Opportunity need to follow the basic principles of football. You're not going to take down the quarterback without getting through the offensive line.

I will give up Attacks of Opportunity if a character or monster is halted by an opponent that is adjacent to him in the opponent's view and that opponent can attack.

There is also a military tactical rule that would be violated if Attacks of Opportunity were scratched. The enemy is always at a disadvantage when retreating.

The front line already has the only tool they need to effectively defend - their action. Having some experience playing both offensive and defensive line back in my high school days I know that blocking assignments exist for a reason. You cannot usually block more than one defensive player at a time. When the fighter chooses to make an attack against an enemy he is spending his time going on the offensive. He shouldn't get to defend for free.

The reason why retreating usually doesn't work out is partially because you expose your back and can't parry/use a shield, but it's mostly due to ranged weaponry and the fact that by the time retreat is ordered you are almost always up against a motivated superior force.

Lot's of games work just fine without the equivalent of OAs. A small sample -

• RuneQuest/Legend
• Exalted
• FantasyCraft
• True 20
• Savage Worlds

 

[Incenjucar]

Lot's of games work just fine without the equivalent of OAs. A small sample -

• RuneQuest/Legend
• Exalted
• FantasyCraft
• True 20
• Savage Worlds

Savage Worlds has OAs. Look for "Withdrawing From Close Combat." Page 76 in the Deluxe Edition book.

--
[MENTION=7175]jadrax[/MENTION] There are limits inherent to the system. That said, there's certainly room for a battlemind-like movement burst in pursuit of a withdrawing target, perhaps as a feat. Also, in 4E, shifting (the 5 ft step) is a move action, and you can sacrifice your Standard (attack etc) option for a second move action, allowing you to shift+move in the same round.