So, Attacks of Oppportunity?

[Li Shenron]

I definitely want some kind of mechanics that say

• casting in melee is a bad idea
• using ranged weapons in melee is a bad idea
• running past the fighter to get to the wizard is a bad idea
• you're likely to get hit if you panic and run
• doing something complicated in the middle of combat other than fighting is dangerous

Exactly how those rules work doesn't matter much to me, as long as they're simple and effective.

Thank you to bring back the other issues in the thread, I was a bit confused that now everyone seemed to be talking only about AoOs for movement...

Those above are different things that in 3ed were all handled with AoOs. Can they still be in the game without AoOs?

Casting in melee: how about just requiring a Concentration check or lose the action?
Using ranged weapons in melee: 5e suggests disadvantage
Doing something complicated in the middle of combat: maybe again Concentration check or lose the action?

Then I'm sorry but still convinced that AoOs for moving are too complicated to handle. AoOs are already more complicated than the core rules of 5e can take, if they want to stay true to their original purpose of catering to casual gamers too and as many different gaming styles as possible, because from AoOs stem many problems like interrupting someone's turn, tracking who has already taken his AoO, giving alternatives to avoid AoOs (hence introducing move movement rules like 5ft step or shifting), etc. So even if made the simplest possible, AoOs for movement can only be optional rules, tactical module or not, and the core game needs to still work without using them.

Withdrawing from combat is different tho, it can be handled without a general rule for AoOs vs movement. I has much less problems because typically you withdraw only once, at the end of the combat, and you don't need to track your movement exactly. And in fact I think right now WotC is thinking about adding a penalty for withdrawing, but not a general rule of penalties for movement in combat.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The main purpose of AoOs seems to be to restrict movement/fleeing:

If you were subject to a melee attack since your last action, you are considered engaged in melee with the attacker. To move away from an enemy you are engaged in melee, you either must spend an action to disengage safely, or give any enemy enaged with you in melee the opportunity to make one melee attack as reaction.

I don't think AoOs for stuff like firing or casting into melee are required. I think there is a natural incentive for every ranged character to try to avoid melee and no need to force them into avoiding it. Ranged attacks are a perk on their own, there is no strict need to devalue the perk by forcing them to leave melee. And all the other stuff 3E handled with AoOs - most of it is not that relevant and only serves to raise complexity without any big advantage.

Mustrum "Hey, I am late to the party" Ridcully

 

[Incenjucar]

If ranged weapons have no drawbacks, why would you use a melee weapon?

 

[vagabundo]

Then I'm sorry but still convinced that AoOs for moving are too complicated to handle. AoOs are already more complicated than the core rules of 5e can take, if they want to stay true to their original purpose of catering to casual gamers too and as many different gaming styles as possible, because from AoOs stem many problems like interrupting someone's turn, tracking who has already taken his AoO, giving alternatives to avoid AoOs (hence introducing move movement rules like 5ft step or shifting), etc. So even if made the simplest possible, AoOs for movement can only be optional rules, tactical module or not, and the core game needs to still work without using them..

Maybe: no movement through threatened space. It could be a fighter only ability, maybe a feat for other classes. I still think the game needs something for trying to move past a melee combatant.

I've no problem with dropping AOO's and using other mechanics for the basic/core game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If ranged weapons have no drawbacks, why would you use a melee weapon?

I am just saying the drawback doesn't need to be enforced by something like AoOs. Maybe ranged weapons generally deal less damage? Or harder to get advantage on?

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

If ranged attacks have no restrictions when used in melee, then everyone would always use longbows (or the equivalent max. damage/max. range weapon), even fighters. How much of a restriction in damage for ranged attacks would compensate for their significantly greater utility over melee? 1d10 vs. 1d4? You'd have to reduce the damage to be almost comically unrealistic (sorry I know this is game reality), or raise melee damage so daggers do 2d6 damage vs. 1d6 for a cross-bow.

If you want simplicity, you may have to put in absolute restrictions. Contested restrictions, such as concentration checks are an option (using INT/CON/WIS), but such checks cannot scale, or you end up with auto-successes and such restrictions cease to be.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

I think there is a natural incentive for every ranged character to try to avoid melee and no need to force them into avoiding it.

I find you hypothesis interesting, but unfortunately, if you give a munchkin an inch, she'll take a parsec. One cannot rely on "natural incentives", I do not have faith in such measures.

 

[Li Shenron]

If ranged weapons have no drawbacks, why would you use a melee weapon?

I agree but that's already taken care by the playtest rules: disadvantage when using a ranged weapon in melee. I don't remember what is the equivalent penalty but it was quite significant, something like -5.

The difference between disadvantage and provoking an AoO is the difference between being ineffective and being punished. I can see that each approach has its own appeal in the game.

Anyway if 5e goes with the first, then the same principle can be applied to the other cases as well:

- if the dangerous action within a threatened area requires a roll (ranged attacks, using certain skills), you get disadvantage
- if the dangerous action within a threatened area doesn't require a roll, and has a yes/no effect (casting a spell, drinking a potion), you need a Concentration check or fail to complete the action
- if the dangerous action within a threatened area doesn't require a roll, and has a numeric effect (moving a certain distance), the effect is e.g. halved, so it would be double movement cost to rush past the guard or manouver around

In some way, this a different rules philosophy, because instead of telling you "if you do this you drop your guard", it instead assumes your characters are doing their best at defense, at the cost of failing/weakening their other action.

The good part IMHO of the suggestions above, is that they only use existing rules.

 

[Rhenny]

I could see granting an AoO against a foe who casts a spell or uses a ranged weapon in a threatened area. That's easy.

I'm still not sure if moving out of a threatened square should provoke an AoO, or if there should be some other mechanic. I have mixed feelings about AoO or movement restrictions, or checks to see if creatures can disengage.

 

[slobo777]

Actually, although it brings up spectre of more interrupts, I have yet another suggestion. Based on the premise that turn-based movement sometimes throws up oddities because 30' in some contexts is a long way for someone to move before you get to do *something* about it.

As well as being able to hold your main action for a reaction, you can hold your move for a reaction move. This can be used to close on or block an enemy trying to avoid or get past you, or can be used to run away from an enemy trying to close on you.

Some restrictions should apply. Perhaps you can only reaction move in addition to a normal reaction (i.e. you can hold your main action and your move, but not just your move).

This is pretty straightforward, gets rid of one of the annoyances of turn-based movement, and only adds a little to the basic rules. Resolution can be left vague in the core, but with suggestions (e.g. if you choose to close on an enemy also charging towards you, the two of you should meet in the middle somewhere). It allows a character to block another single character effectively, and believably. It doesn't conflict with other options such as types of AoO.