AoO and "circling"

[howandwhy99]

We may also want to talk about what a hit does or might do to the action that lowered the others' guard.

Does a hit stop movement?
Does it disrupt spell casting?
Does it disrupt thrown or missile attacks?
Perhaps it means another roll like concentration checks?

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Curious - I find 4e's rules very, very simple and intuitive. You trigger an OA if you move (not shift) out of a threatened square or make a ranged attack while in a threatened square. That's it - I don't think I've forgotten anything.

Close attacks provoke also, IIRC, but that's not the point. You give examples for my point of view:

Of course, other rules sometimes interact with that. Some conditions make you unable to make an OA. If you are under a fighter's mark making an OA may be at a penalty and may attract retribution from the fighter.

Other elements modify your AC vs. OAs, and I'm sure there's more than one magic items which enters the picture, too.

None of these things change the basic fact of an OA being triggered, however. And the fighter's mark strikes me as covering the "ally adjacent to the enemy" case far more elegantly than a vague "you get an OA for moving past except when your ally is already next to the attacker (even if they moved/are moving?) and where it's unclear make something up".

To be clear: I'm using OAs in my game and think of them as a fitting part for 4e's tactical combat system. They do work, indeed, but the possible interaction of other modular elements - you gave conditions and a class feature - is something which works better in theory than in practice, IMHO.

For my next game I'd prefer a simple GM decision instead of precise rules elaborated on by several parameters. "See if you can whack the orc as it turns away" beats "The orc tries to shift away, but your fighter class feature let's you whack him anyway, but due to a special power his AC is increased by 4."

 

[jadrax]

Two combatants cautiously circle eachother, looking for an advantage...

Yes.

In fact, if you want combats to be more realistic, the one thing that should provoke an Attack of Opportunity is standing in the same place.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

My current OA opinion (it varies):

Are you in melee?

YES:
- You can position yourself as you like, provided you stay in melee of your opponent
- You can move away, provoking an OA
- You can forfeit your action and move away, avoiding an OA
- Making a ranged attack provokes an OA (including ranged spells)

NO:
- You can only enter melee with an opponent not already in melee if you do so directly (nearest square basically)
- You can enter melee with an opponent already in melee wherever you like (for flanking purposes - this may not matter)
- You can enter melee and leave again, provoking an OA
- You can forfeit your action to enter and then leave melee

 

[slobo777]

Close attacks provoke also, IIRC,

In 4E, they do not. Area attacks do, however.

But as you said, it's not central to your point.

 

[Obryn]

Curious - I find 4e's rules very, very simple and intuitive. You trigger an OA if you move (not shift) out of a threatened square or make a ranged attack while in a threatened square. That's it - I don't think I've forgotten anything.

It's (1) move without shifting or teleporting; and (2) make a ranged or area attack.

Close attacks provoke also, IIRC

Nope, those never do.

-O

 

[Minigiant]

Withdraw: When moving away from an enemy in melee or attempting to move past through the range of an enemy's melee weapon, it costs an additional 5' of movement for every 5' moved as you actively defend yourself from attacks. If you do not pay this movement cost, you instead make your next action at an disadvantage as you are rattled while dodge opportunist assaults.

Opportunity Attack Module: If you neither take the disadvantage to your next action nor pay the additional movement cost, any enemy you threaten may make an opportunity attack against you as an reaction.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Withdraw: When moving away from an enemy in males or attempting to move past through the range of an enemy's melee weapon

They're.. doing something someone's Grandma wouldn't approve of in combat? Emphasis mine

 

[the Jester]

No.

Let's throw opportunity attacks under the wheels and let them spin out for a while.

 

[Balesir]

Close attacks provoke also, IIRC, but that's not the point.

As others have said, we're both wrong (it's area attacks, not close attacks, that are the other case) - but that's peripheral, really.

Other elements modify your AC vs. OAs, and I'm sure there's more than one magic items which enters the picture, too.

Sure, but that applies to any attack, surely? If you object to it, that's fine, but it's not really an objection to OAs.

To be clear: I'm using OAs in my game and think of them as a fitting part for 4e's tactical combat system. They do work, indeed, but the possible interaction of other modular elements - you gave conditions and a class feature - is something which works better in theory than in practice, IMHO.

On the other hand, I find this a supremely easy way to learn rules. I learn how all the individual wheels work, and I find out how they interact through experience. I don't need to remember all the stuff about how they interact, because they just do. I find this makes the system a lot easier to remember than piling up a slew of case law around a fluffy and imprecise guideline. Maybe this is a fundamental difference in the way humans think? That might explain the deep divide I see between those who want a clear system that is complete within itself, and those who want freedom for the GM to make "rulings not rules"?

No.

Let's throw opportunity attacks under the wheels and let them spin out for a while.

I'm not at all sure I know what this really means (ditch them? see how they flow when moving fast?), but without them you need something to stop rather crazy combat mobility. Being given a "free attack" if an enemy moves away without spending an action is just an OA dressed up in a fashionable outfit, but what else do you suggest?