Anyone loveAoOs/OAs?

[enrious]

1 of my players complains atleast once a month about Opp attacks in both 4e and 3e for atleast 10 years now. I have a problem with what I call the combat dance.

Example: If a player has a move of 8, and is with a straight line 3 away from who they want to attack, but they use all 8 sqs to avoid op atts I cringe everytime.

Now having said that everyone hated (even me and the player in quastion) when we removed them. We had everyone moveing around and no one was happy.

Was it Clark Peterson who said he cringed whenever a player picked up a mini and tapped a path using squares?

I'm the same way and yet, for some campaigns (like my upcoming Samurai game) I'm on board with them.

But not necessarily for all campaigns.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would ditch them, along with grid-based minis combat, in its entirety.

I've heard whispers that the "basic level" playtest D&D might be exactly that: a cinematic, minis-less system. And I am pumped.

I wouldn't say they're inappropriate for all games, but, generally speaking, I personally play D&D for the greater context of the adventure, and, while combats are an important part of my games, they are not significant enough to bother eating up time with double the rolls. There are other ways to make reach and polearms interesting, IMO.

I don't use grids or miniatures but I use AoOs; they're not necesarily tied together.

That said, I agree that I'd like the default to be grid-free combat with options to expand the tactical movement minigame for those who like it.

 

[Stalker0]

From a mechanical standpoint, OAs perform the function of allowing a person to control an area. It means that moving past someone and performing certain actions have consequences.

In that respect, OAs do a good job. However, are they the best mechanic for the job? Could the next system come up with an even better one?

 

[enrious]

From a mechanical standpoint, OAs perform the function of allowing a person to control an area. It means that moving past someone and performing certain actions have consequences.

In that respect, OAs do a good job. However, are they the best mechanic for the job? Could the next system come up with an even better one?

They, along with the Ready action, strike me as an adaptation of the "Overwatch" mechanic from many board/miniature games.

 

[Mengu]

From a mechanical standpoint, OAs perform the function of allowing a person to control an area. It means that moving past someone and performing certain actions have consequences.

In that respect, OAs do a good job. However, are they the best mechanic for the job? Could the next system come up with an even better one?

This is what I'm pondering as well. Perhaps ability to make opportunity attacks could be a trait of some sort, much like marking, given to defender and soldier types (or their equivalents, I'm not really fond of PC roles, but that's another discussion).

 

[Iosue]

Opportunity attacks have existed since B/X at least, since a full retreat from melee gives the opponent a free attack. As a DM, I don't mind them as long as I don't have to memorize a long list of triggers.

I enjoyed playing an Artful Dodger rogue in 4e, and deliberately taking the straight path through OAs because that was the character -- jumping weaving, and dodging through enemy attacks to get where he wanted to be. So, I didn't really have a problem with them as a player.

Then I played the Essentials Knight. And I LOVE the OAs provided by Battle Guardian. If nothing else, I hope they bring that along to the next edition.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't mind them in an extremely limited form and-or in particular circumstances only (e.g. when a foe turns and flees, as noted one post up). Otherwise they just get in the way, both of smooth play and of movement within combat.

Lanefan

 

[Dice4Hire]

I would get rid of them mostly. I do not think they add enough to the game.

That said, defenders need something like them to help them do their job. But it should be specific to that kind of class.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I like AOOS for reach weapons, but not movement. I love them in theory, but in practice, you have players counting every square to make sure they never suffer an AOO or taking ranks in tumble so they never apply. If smart players can do it, so can monsters. So AOOS may as well not exist. My solution was to ditch AOOS and use the old reach trumps initiative from 1e.

 

[Hassassin]

Yes and no, for reasons already mentioned. If they were simpler and faster to handle, they would be great.