AoO and "circling"

[slobo777]

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.

Against a single opponent, this in fact should be easy to achieve (where 5E rules make it hard by default, and require some DM/player fudging). I'd say any width up to ~25' should be blockable, given roughly even speeds, and a 15' starting distance. Not even 4E's generous allocation of an AoO slot versus each enemy can help with that, though.

Against more than one opponent, well it starts to depend on lots of things - the relative powers of the combatants, how mindful those rushing past are that they might be the "unlucky one" that takes a fatal blow so that the group could get past, and whether that kind of scene even counts as fantasy combat in the eyes of the players.

 

[jadrax]

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).

If it is just one guy, then yes you should.

I am not 100% convinced solid rules for that situation are needed, but it would not upset me to see some.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We may also want to talk about what a hit does or might do to the action that lowered the others' guard.

Does a hit stop movement?
Does it disrupt spell casting?
Does it disrupt thrown or missile attacks?
Perhaps it means another roll like concentration checks?

Whatever you decide, it should be simple to adjudicate. Basically:
1) This is a simple list of things that provoke with fast-to-understand rules when they apply.
2) This is a simple list of things that happen in each case.
If an ability check can enable you to still take the action, then it should be that way in each case.

Close attacks provoke also, IIRC, but that's not the point. You give examples for my point of view:

While this may not be your point: No, close attacks don't provoke in 4E.

 

[slobo777]

If it is just one guy, then yes you should.

I am not 100% convinced solid rules for that situation are needed, but it would not upset me to see some.

I think the one guy scenario is the example that lets you extend.

What if the fighter was really good? A whirlwind of steel lashing out at anyone that approached - could he hold off two or even three assailants?

Is there space for that kind of character in 5E (i.e. is it worth supporting it, and how best to keep the rules simple?)

 

[MarkB]

The playtest rules do provide a possible alternative to Opportunity Attacks: Characters who make ranged attacks whilst adjacent to an opponent suffer Disadvantage on their attacks.

The same sort of penalty could apply to characters who move too much in melee - either they suffer Disadvantage on their next attack, or they grant Advantage to their opponent. I'd tend to go with the latter.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

On the other hand, I find this a supremely easy way to learn rules. I learn how all the individual wheels work, and I find out how they interact through experience. I don't need to remember all the stuff about how they interact, because they just do. I find this makes the system a lot easier to remember than piling up a slew of case law around a fluffy and imprecise guideline. Maybe this is a fundamental difference in the way humans think? That might explain the deep divide I see between those who want a clear system that is complete within itself, and those who want freedom for the GM to make "rulings not rules"?

I guess I'm not in the same boat as you, but we're rowing in a smilar direction.

Systematic rule systems are indeed cool and easy to remember (great in theory). I just see the danger that - to elaborate on your interacting wheels example - one can introduce more and more wheels into the gearbox, so that it gets more and more complicated to evaluate the machine without missing any of the wheels (less so in praxis), but I freely admit that missing single elements will have no greater effect than the fuzziness of a GM's decisions with laxer rules.

My personal experiences may be responsible for my stance: in hindsight I've spent to much time waiting for my players to agonizingly make sure that they have taken all - and I mean all - bonuses and effects and magic items and and and into account before rolling their die. Again, it's not the rules engine I've lost some enthusiasm for, it's the amount of data thrown in to be processed.

 

[jadrax]

I think the one guy scenario is the example that lets you extend.

What if the fighter was really good? A whirlwind of steel lashing out at anyone that approached - could he hold off two or even three assailants?

Is there space for that kind of character in 5E (i.e. is it worth supporting it, and how best to keep the rules simple?)

To me, that is probably an intimidate check because your not actually in the way, your just making it look like you are. Maybe even Bluff.

If you were using a really long weapon, or dare I say a spiked chain, maybe do it differently, probably depending upon description.

So in the core rules, its already supported by Rulings. The Tactical Rules may well have something more mechanical.

 

[Skyscraper]

To the OP's question, I think a new mechanic should be tried out in D&Dn instead of OAs. This mechanic is too burdensome.

So my answer is neither yes or no, since I don't like for creatures to be able to move around freely; but I think control zones should somehow be part of the game. And not only for melee, for ranged attackers too.

For example, I think that someone with a loaded bow or crossbow should be able to fire at someone moving up to him, no matter who's turn it is to play. (I.e. a default ready action of some sort.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I sort of feel like, in a TotM situation, circling for position should be some sort of maneuver for an advantage of some kind. To me that would make a lot more sense in that context than trying to adjudicate it via AoO.

Currently, you can spend an action to try to gain advantage, thereby making it more likely you'll hit.

Not spending an action, OTOH, and just attacking lets you make 1 attack roll. You'll also get to make one attack roll next round. That's two attack rolls. The exact same chance of hitting at least once as using an action to gain advantage, then attacking on the next round. But, it also gives you a chance of hitting /twice/. As it stands, using an action to gain advantage is a losing proposition - unless you do a lot of extra damage for having advantage. Even then, it's much better to find some other way of getting advantage.

A 'circling move,' as movement, that has a /chance/ of giving you advantage for your action on that same turn would be a real improvement.

 

[Oni]

Currently, you can spend an action to try to gain advantage, thereby making it more likely you'll hit.

Not spending an action, OTOH, and just attacking lets you make 1 attack roll. You'll also get to make one attack roll next round. That's two attack rolls. The exact same chance of hitting at least once as using an action to gain advantage, then attacking on the next round. But, it also gives you a chance of hitting /twice/. As it stands, using an action to gain advantage is a losing proposition - unless you do a lot of extra damage for having advantage. Even then, it's much better to find some other way of getting advantage.

A 'circling move,' as movement, that has a /chance/ of giving you advantage for your action on that same turn would be a real improvement.

1) I didn't mean to "gain Advantage", meant to "gain an advantage" i.e. I wasn't talking about a particular mechanic.

2) I don't see anything that says it cost an entire action to do something to gain advantage.

If a player says they want to circle and faint their opponent to attack an opening, I'll just ask for an ability check, as part of their action. If they pass great they outwitted their opponent and gain Advantage on their attack this round if they fail by very much I'll either give them Disadvantage for the bungled attempt or Advantage to their opponent for having their move read.

If they want to impose some status condition, that I would ask for an entire action for, but those are typically more extreme than simple Advantage or Disadvantage.

I sort of feel like you're looking for a problem where their isn't one.