Level Up (A5E) Changes to movement and AoOs

[tetrasodium]

I think it would actually slow down the game and make it more static. Especially since, unlike 4e, 5e just doesn't have a strong 'forced movement' (shove is limited by size for exemple) and 'bonus movement' system in place. I think, rather than adjust AoO themselves, you should adjust the Melee classes so their AoO are simply better.

I've mentionned this before but:

Mage Slayer, Polearm Mastery and Sentinel all give your characters more trigger to your AoO, depending on the type of situation you want to specialize in.

I think that's something that could be integrated into the Fighter class, for exemple. Basically, customizing your AoO rules to fit your character. And add some of these to various monsters to make them more dynamic. That way, when you enter battle, you don't always know what the critters are capable of! You need to do a little prodding, maybe give the Fighter an ability that lets them analyze fighting styles to determine that stuff?

And melee characters could get extra AoO that don't use up their reaction. Maybe base it around Extra Attack? Every Extra Attack you get grants you 1 free AoO per round.

Feats in 5e being so much more valuable & rare than back when the tactical grid combat system was still in tact works against your case to bring up how feats can bring back some of it. It was still possible to build towards the "interesting build" niches you note, you were just good at it in ways that made you terrifying in your niche rather than merely capable. The problem with all the needlessly missing pieces is more the impact that it has on the tactical grid combat...

Spoiler: for example

View attachment 125472

• The fact that the two example bodyguard types can be completely ignored in order to stomp the bbeg at the altar massively simplifies the encounter & dramatically raises the bar for what it takes to put some space between PCs & a baddie to force them to deal with the bbeg's minions washing out the story because anything shy of a huge group or a narrow corridor can be ignored at little to no risk.
• being able to reach into your pack to dig out & drink a potion as one action rather than two & have it no longer provokes an AoO means that there is dramatically less risk of over extending or waiting till the last possible chance before pulling the rip cord rather than pulling it because it's obviously going to be tight & maybe too tight or just being a little more careful about pulling a lerooyyy jenkins or just admitting "Yea I'm level 8 and those are only ten skeletons but I shouldn't risk getting trapped behind them & cut off from my allies"
• removing the AoO for reloading a crossbow devalues lesser weapons like the sling to the point of being nearly pointless
• so on & so forth.

The old AoO system served a purpose& really was not nearly as difficult to remember as you make it out to be in some of your posts. Did it slow down a fight & force pcs to deal with minions first rather than thoughtlessly zergrush every encounter?... yes absolutely & that was the point, there were even spells abilities & feats that made you exempt from some/all of them. If you don't feel like that level of strategy is fitting for your game it's trivial to say "we are going to ignore the AoO rules except for this one for this encounter/session/campaign" but not at all easy needing to fight the system in order to build a whole new one after it got left on the cutting room floor in a mad quest chasing simplicity for the sake of simplicity where anything but the most "simple" is badwrongfun.

 

[Stalker0]

Agree mostly;

1. Moving more than 5 ft whithin a threaten area. Cannot be done in difficult terrain. DC 15 acrobatic for half speed without AoO, DC 20 for full speed without AoO. +5 DC in difficult terrain.

2. Standing up from prone, mounting, dismounting. DC 15 acrobatic to negate AoO.

3. Some object interaction. DM's rule. depending how complicated.

4. Spellcasting. Having shield equiped and being proficient negates AoO.

5. Ranged/thrown attacks. Having shield equiped and being proficient negates AoO.

Just noting, that considering all the specifications noted here, this is as many as 11 things to keep track of....and that's not including what object interactions provoke and which ones don't.

Number 1 is also very specifically a change in 5e that I would not change back. Its clear the designers wanted the game to be much more mobile than previous games, so they wanted to encourage people moving in and around enemies.

 

[Undrave]

Feats in 5e being so much more valuable & rare than back when the tactical grid combat system was still in tact works against your case to bring up how feats can bring back some of it. It was still possible to build towards the "interesting build" niches you note, you were just good at it in ways that made you terrifying in your niche rather than merely capable. The problem with all the needlessly missing pieces is more the impact that it has on the tactical grid combat...

That's why I advocate putting some of these as additional class features and not just feats.

The fact that the two example bodyguard types can be completely ignored in order to stomp the bbeg at the altar massively simplifies the encounter & dramatically raises the bar for what it takes to put some space between PCs & a baddie to force them to deal with the bbeg's minions washing out the story because anything shy of a huge group or a narrow corridor can be ignored at little to no risk.

That feels more like a weakness in the monster design themselves (also, if Marking was still a thing it'd be harder to ignore the bodyguards) more than anything else.

The old AoO system served a purpose& really was not nearly as difficult to remember as you make it out to be in some of your posts. Did it slow down a fight & force pcs to deal with minions first rather than thoughtlessly zergrush every encounter?... yes absolutely & that was the point,

We had a WHOLE thread about how ranged combat was way superior to melee combat in 5e. If being in combat is bogged down by all these restrictions to what you can or can't do, it'll be even LESS desirable than it is now. Too many punishment for being in melee with result in ranged combat becoming the preferred method of engagement. Take a long range weapon and keep kiting! Doesn't matter if they have cover, as long as you don't get bogged down by those darn AoO. Too many punishment for doing cool naughty word in melee will result in boring fighters doing boring things all the time because they have to 'hold the line' and can't afford to move back a few feets (also, disengage run into the action economy, further limiting your ammount of 'cool naughty word' you can do). Being able to use potions while in melee is there so you don't need to constantly rely on having a caster to keep you up. What is you Fighter going to do? Spend a turn to disengage, move away, then HOPE the enemy doesn't close the distance so they can chug a potion with their standard action next turn?

I get that you want the tactical aspects back, but if you overload the system with restrictions combat will slow down and apparently people don't like long combat... or did you miss the huge 4e edition war and how that aspect keeps coming up? And 4e still only had movement trigger AoO normally, unless there was some maring involved.

You might say it worked out in 3.x, but I disagree. Especially since 3.x had superior casters being able to just end encounter faster anyway. In a system with such dominant caster, it made sense that all casting triggered AoO.

That said, I do not oppose the idea that attacking at range in melee might provoke AoO, but it either provokes or make you attack at disadvantage, not both at the same time.

 

[tetrasodium]

@Undrave you make a good case for why ranged combat should probably be going back to range increments that put them much closer to the action so they can't just ignore the tactical stuff & include the tools that melee types needed to keep the risky prickly action away... but not for failing to include the tactical component. If you don't like having tactical grid rules in your game you can simply tell your players they won't be used or beg your gm not to use them, the same can not be done if the rules are not written into the system.

Just noting, that considering all the specifications noted here, this is as many as 11 things to keep track of....and that's not including what object interactions provoke and which ones don't.

Number 1 is also very specifically a change in 5e that I would not change back. Its clear the designers wanted the game to be much more mobile than previous games, so they wanted to encourage people moving in and around enemies.

I count five, it seems like you are splitting hairs trying to pretend something simple is complicated in order to argue a weak position. Do you think that mounting & dismounting are so different that they need to be remembered separate rather than just mounting or dismounting even though phb198 lists the rule for both as a single sentence*? Object interactions should be a pretty straightforward "Yea it probably provokes" rather than 5e's pointless "Here are twenty one bullet point items on phb190 you can do without using an action that don't provoke an AoO even though some of them used to take multiple actions and provoke multiple AoOs so tell your gm it's badwrongfun if they dare try to put meaningful AoOs back in because we carelessly cut it so hard it causes problems elsewhere".

As to number 1 specifically that is one of the areas where the 5e team inexcusably screwed up rather than just adding an optional rule to ignore it that worked. It's extremely obvious how badly slapdash the removal of the badwrongfun AoO supported tactical grid stuff from 5e was once you start looking because you have nonsense like the rare handy haversack that is worse than the uncommon bag of holding after simply stripping the AoO related function from it & not changing anything along with the dmg including multiple rules spanning a significant chunk of dmg 251/252 that fail at even pretending to fill the missing structure.



.* "Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed"

 

[Stalker0]

I count five, it seems like you are splitting hairs trying to pretend something simple is complicated in order to argue a weak position. Do you think that mounting & dismounting are so different that they need to be remembered separate rather than just mounting or dismounting even though phb198 lists the rule for both as a single sentence*?

If mounting provoked an OA and dismounting didn't, then yes they would absolutely by different things, and I guarantee you people would mess up the rules on them here and there, because its easy to forget. But lets dig back into that list shall we.

1. Moving more than 5 ft whithin a threaten area. Cannot be done in difficult terrain. DC 15 acrobatic for half speed without AoO, DC 20 for full speed without AoO. +5 DC in difficult terrain.

--So movement within a threatened area, okay that's straight forward. But adding in a difficult terrain check, yep that will be a seperate thing. Ok so there is now an acrobatics check to negate...that's a new DC to memorize. Oh sorry, there are 3 of them, as there is one for full speed and for one for difficult terrain.

2. Standing up from prone, mounting, dismounting. DC 15 acrobatic to negate AoO.
--In this content mounting and dismounting are fine as one, standing up from prone is another. The acrobatic is another, though the fact that its the same DC as number 1 helps to make it easier to use.

3. Some object interaction. DM's rule. depending how complicated.
--To me I would just leave this out and let DMS decide if it provokes.

4. Spellcasting. Having shield equiped and being proficient negates AoO.
--So spellcasting provokes....except in this one special circumstances, so that's a couple more.

5. Ranged/thrown attacks. Having shield equiped and being proficient negates AoO.
--And a couple more here.


So yeah its a long list...and honestly mostly needless imo. Leave movement fluid, leave object interaction fluid, let people get on and off a horse fluidly. I think the ranged and spellcating make sense because we are trying to apply some extra limits on those actions...but why is any of the rest really necessary?

 

[Horwath]

but why is any of the rest really necessary?

Because if someone locks you in melee, any action except melee attack vs. them should cost you something to perform it.

 

[Stalker0]

Because if someone locks you in melee, any action except melee attack vs. them should cost you something to perform it.

This is where I, and I would argue 5e itself, would disagree. The game is meant to be more fluid and heroic, people can just "do things" without as many penalties as they did in 3e and 5e.

 

[tetrasodium]

If mounting provoked an OA and dismounting didn't, then yes they would absolutely by different things, and I guarantee you people would mess up the rules on them here and there, because its easy to forget. But lets dig back into that list shall we.

1. Moving more than 5 ft whithin a threaten area. Cannot be done in difficult terrain. DC 15 acrobatic for half speed without AoO, DC 20 for full speed without AoO. +5 DC in difficult terrain.

--So movement within a threatened area, okay that's straight forward. But adding in a difficult terrain check, yep that will be a seperate thing. Ok so there is now an acrobatics check to negate...that's a new DC to memorize. Oh sorry, there are 3 of them, as there is one for full speed and for one for difficult terrain.

2. Standing up from prone, mounting, dismounting. DC 15 acrobatic to negate AoO.
--In this content mounting and dismounting are fine as one, standing up from prone is another. The acrobatic is another, though the fact that its the same DC as number 1 helps to make it easier to use.

3. Some object interaction. DM's rule. depending how complicated.
--To me I would just leave this out and let DMS decide if it provokes.

4. Spellcasting. Having shield equiped and being proficient negates AoO.
--So spellcasting provokes....except in this one special circumstances, so that's a couple more.

5. Ranged/thrown attacks. Having shield equiped and being proficient negates AoO.
--And a couple more here.


So yeah its a long list...and honestly mostly needless imo. Leave movement fluid, leave object interaction fluid, let people get on and off a horse fluidly. I think the ranged and spellcating make sense because we are trying to apply some extra limits on those actions...but why is any of the rest really necessary?

Any list you can count with the fingers on one hand is far from a "long list." With twelve classes each with their own abilities & nine races each with their own class archetypes & racial subtypes you must be completely overwhelmed before even getting to the fact that there are weapons that deal different damage dice at different ranges with different damage types...

To answer your question, yes because if someone locks you in melee[or you are reckless enough to carelessly dive into that melee], pretty much any action except melee attack vs. them should cost you something to perform it. With your "just do things" comment, clearly your objection is to the simple presence of rules, not being able to cast wish as a first level fighter must really chafe your style of just declaring victory instead of needing to grind through all the mind numing character building & adventuring.

 

[Stalker0]

With your "just do things" comment, clearly your objection is to the simple presence of rules, not being able to cast wish as a first level fighter must really chafe your style of just declaring victory instead of needing to grind through all the mind numing character building & adventuring.

There is certainly no reason for such harsh language, we are debating a concept, and in debates we argue. They aren't personal, simply an exchange.

Now personally, I'm a crunchy guy, I don't shy away from rules heavy games. However, recently I have played in a Pathfinder 1e game, with some newer players who are not big math people. It has opened my eyes to the difficulty some people have of dealing with modifiers and options. I have watched players struggle with the rules of full round attacks, modifiers such as bardic music, miss chances, and don't get me started on the extra attack from haste. For some people....a little, is a lot.

If we look at the bones of 5e, it was designed as a system to simplify rules in favor of DM arbitration, and combat wise to allow a flexibility of movement that was not seen in 3e or 4e's system. 5e's movement system is very freeing, the sheer fact that I can on my turn, move 5 ft, make an attack, move 10 more feet, making another attack, and then move 15 feet and open a door .... opens up a wide range of options in a round. Pathfinder (and 3e's) system for all its benefits, is much more rigid, and I think somewhat to its downfall.

Now Levelup is adding in more crunch, so new rules are expected. That doesn't mean we open up the floodgates. There are some additions and adjustments we can make to the OA ruleset that would have a lot of value... and I think that's worth doing. But I don't think going back to the 3e list of OAs is warranted or needed.

Its easy to add a lot of rules... the elegance of design is getting a lot of value out of a little complexity. So what OA rules can we add that will really improve the game...without adding a whole list of new ones.

 

[Horwath]

This is where I, and I would argue 5e itself, would disagree. The game is meant to be more fluid and heroic, people can just "do things" without as many penalties as they did in 3e and 5e.

we got "spring attack" and "shoot on the run" feats from 3E for free in 5E.

That alone is a HUGE boost to mobility. It should not come with no risk at all.