AoO and "circling"

[level1gamer]

As I posted elsewhere, I like the ability to stop one person from running past you. I also dislike that the rules let you be absorbed in dueling one person, then freely smack someone else who happens to run behind you.

So, what if we just had a rule like, "If a hostile creature enters a space adjacent to you, and it is the only enemy adjacent to you, you can choose to stop its movement."

Basically, you can run up to someone and attack. And if you're fighting and you want to run away, you can do that too. And if one of your buddies is distracting an enemy, you can run past without concern. But if the enemy isn't currently engaged with anyone else, you can't run past it unless it lets you.

I like this. It is simple and seems to fit the pared down 5E aesthetic. It accomplishes the goal of allowing players to block movement without being too fiddly. As you said, it feels a little more "realistic" in that you can't whack someone behind you while you fighting someone else.

 

[slobo777]

For fencing, found this: Martial Arts Fencing Action Sports Stock Footage and Film Production

 

[the Jester]

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?

Ditch them. I'm okay with the "free attack if someone disengages without an action" idea; I'm aware that this is an OA is a fashionable outfit (ha! -love that image), but it is simple and easy to remember. There is no need for a column of rules about it.

I actually vastly prefer reverting to "rulings, not rules" on this one- empower the dm to decide when you can get a free attack because someone grants an opening (a better way of looking at it, I think, than "dropping your guard"). Tactical modules can make specific rules for those that want them, and a sidebar can discuss the playstyle implications of the "free movement" system in the current version of the playtest.

My attitude basically boils down to, "We did without OAs for decades. They slow the game down, sometimes significantly. Do they bring more to the table than the slower gameplay takes away?" And after considerable thought, I don't think they do.

 

[jadrax]

And I disagree that fencing and boxing is the best we can do - study some of the videos among these liks and think how they would play out:

The problem with these videos is they are not actually competing, so there ignoring openings and indeed leaving deliberate openings. The guy in the first video wearing red is particularly static, he stands around for seconds waiting for his opponent to actually hit him, rather than moving.

At least with sport you have two people actually trying to strike one another at every opportunity.

They are pretty cool to watch however, and the stuff on shield fighting in the second I thought was really interesting.

 

[GSHamster]

Complexity does not come out of nowhere. We got AoOs and shifts, etc. because they were an attempt to model this kind of behavior. But those extra rules came with cost, of increased time per turn.

5e is moving backwards. It gains the time back, and is a much faster and fluid game. But the cost is that you lose all the simulated behaviors that AoO/shifts give you.

Everything is a cost/benefit tradeoff. WotC is hoping that they can evade it by choosing one cost/benefit ratio in the base game, and then providing a module that shifts the cost/benefit ratio in a different direction.

We will see how well this plan works.

 

[jadrax]

For fencing, found this: Martial Arts Fencing Action Sports Stock Footage and Film Production

I cant believe you found a video of people fencing while standing on what appears to be a 5 foot grid! Truly A bow before your mighty google-fu!

I think it definitely reinforces your point that they are pretty much within a square of each other at all times, and don't actually move about that much on that scale. there are one or two where they get flashy and move 3 or 4 squares, but its not constant.

I still think it also reinforces my point that they don't seem to get anything resembling an Attack of Opportunity when an opponent moves away however (although I would argue it proves you should get one if your opponent tries to leap past you like a loon).

 

[slobo777]

It should be 24' by 24', but they do vary.

And you do have a point in that 5 foot squares are ridiculously huge, but I think that actually reinforces my point that disengaging from combat is no where near the herculean task some people seem to think it is.

I agree, but that's not my angle on AoOs (or whatever should replace them for simplicity).

My angle is I want to be able to have my character block enemies from doing stuff, either from time-to-time, or even as a major part of his/her abilities. I want that both as a PC, and as a DM. The "stuff" might be moving through some area, or attacking one of my allies.

Narratively, that is no more complex than me saying "I try to stop the enemy get past me". In the 5E system so far, I have very little rules support for this, except by passively setting it up in terrain. But in my games at least, I expect it to be quite a common event to pop up in play.

 

[jadrax]

Narratively, that is no more complex than me saying "I try to stop the enemy get past me". In the 5E system so far, I have very little rules support for this, except by passively setting it up in terrain. But in my games at least, I expect it to be quite a common event to pop up in play.

Currently you can completely make a 5ft wide passage impassable, or a 10ft passage to the point where opponents have to squeeze past a reduced speed. Two people can complete block a 10ft passage. If you hold action you can strike (or possibly even grapple) one of the people trying to get past. You could also try Intimidate to basically make sure the opponent decides to stay out of your reach.

I am not really convinced that someone should be able to completely block a 10ft passage on their own. Although when rules for longer weapons come out we might see something on that front.

If you want to block access to the wizard without using terrain or other people at all, its not really easy to visualise how you would be able to realistically do it even with AoO. Although I think you may still be able to act as cover?

 

[slobo777]

If you want to block access to the wizard without using terrain or other people at all, its not really easy to visualise how you would be able to realistically do it even with AoO. Although I think you may still be able to act as cover?

If the scenario is you, the wizard (or perhaps helpless rescuee), and one bad guy, then absolutely you should be able to interpose and prevent the monster attacking your ally. In fact in that scenario with the rules as-is, I'd simply eschew turn-based movement or thinking in terms of grid altogether - probably just resolve movement phase as an opposed roll (probably with advantage to the defender).

 

[howandwhy99]

Basically, you can run up to someone and attack. And if you're fighting and you want to run away, you can do that too. And if one of your buddies is distracting an enemy, you can run past without concern. But if the enemy isn't currently engaged with anyone else, you can't run past it unless it lets you.

This lends interesting capabilities to the two weapon fighting option (I don't use feats, so this would be standard). Now having two weapons means you can face two opponents without giving up ground or losing your threatened reachable area. A third could still get past, but larger numbers should have some advantage, no?
Oh yeah. Marilith