AoO and "circling"

[Texicles]

Since we don't yet have rules for Attacks of Opportunity, and this forum is a popular place for a little "wishlisting," I'm going to mention something that's always bothered me about AoO and see what others think.

I think AoO's are good for the purpose of preventing PCs/NPCs from waltzing through a defensive line to club a Wizard at their liesure. This also extends to sorts of actions, like disengaging from melee range.

Where AoO's rub me the wrong way is when you provoke them by leaving one threatened square for another square threatened by the same... er, threatener.

As much as I like the tactical combat, the idea that, circling around my opponent, I just kinda lower my weapon and take a look around, has always irked me. This problem gets compounded in my mind, when the "Opportunity Attacker" is in melee range with at least one ally of the "Opportunity Attackee."

 

[FinalSonicX]

I've always played it where you never incur an AOO from movement as long as you moved 5 ft. or less. Works incredibly well.

 

[Tovec]

Answer: No.

But not either of the No's you described. Unless the enemy makes an action to stop you, you can move around them freely. These actions to stop you can be countered but they aren't a given, so having an ally in melee isn't going to do it.

Also, for this I'm only talking about moving with the 8 squares around a (medium) creature. NOT talking about moving off those 8 squares such as fleeing or repositioning away from the enemy's reach.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

It's a classic image. In 3e, it's the 5' step. In 4e, it's the move action to shift 1. In 5e, they can just run circles around eachother because there's no AoO.

I know 5e wants to stay all TotM-friendly. But even the core TotM rules need to account for classic bits like circling or edging past foes cautiously vs running past them recklessly vs barreling through them - not to mention trying to keep enemies from edging or running past you to murder the people you're trying to protect. I'm sorry, they're just too commonplace for "describe your improvised action to the DM and he'll make something up." If every DM who ever runs the game is going to have to make up a rule for the same thing the first time there's a fight, it's not improvising, it's a missing rule.

 

[MarkB]

Moving cautiously around your enemy is what the five-foot-step, or 4e's Shift, is for. It's only when you move too far in one action that you're considered to be paying more attention to moving than to opponents.

Personally, it would rub me up the wrong way if you could move freely around an armed opponent to the full extent of your speed without penalty. The idea that you can be facing off against someone in a melee and just casually stroll behind their back without them trying to stop you doesn't seem right.

You could argue for half-speed maybe, and a special acrobatic ability like Tumble is reasonable enough, but for general purposes I think the Shift action does a decent job of representing the rate of movement you could reasonably achieve against an opponent whilst still keeping your own guard up.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

While I appreciate opportunity actions in general, the codified versions of 3e and 4e, with lots of exceptions and special rules elements to modify it, are too much of a hassle.

The simpler idea of having a comrade in melee range switching off OAs sounds good. That's a rule of thumb which gives the GM the possibility for rulings based on the situation without prompting the players to agonize over every step their characters take.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am ok with 3ed rules, but I prefer no AoO for moving.

 

[slobo777]

I'm wondering if 5E might include an option, available to all characters, to "Switch on AoO" for a turn, by expending some resource, or perhaps as an alternative to fighting defensively.

Characters who are supposed to be good at it, could get better deal on the trade, and better results from a hit, such as costing the enemy some movement.

. . . but by making AoOs off by default, we should still see a speed increase from simplicity, and still allow it to happen when it matters, and/or for the players that care.

 

[Balesir]

While I appreciate opportunity actions in general, the codified versions of 3e and 4e, with lots of exceptions and special rules elements to modify it, are too much of a hassle.

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.

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. 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".

 

[howandwhy99]

Yes and No.
Yes, you can take actions in melee that lower your guard and give opponents the option for an immediate attack.
No, these are not Reactions (unless one was set for this specifically as one's Action). The limit of actions / round is maintained.
If your opponent already swung at you this round, you may want to duck back or move around them.