AoO change (reach and other mumbo jumbo)

[Sadrik]

This rule does away with the moving through threatened squares for the more logical- If you move in to hit me I might get to hit you first. No more weird the guy ran behind me so I got a pot shot on him even though I was engaged with another guy in front of me. Reach becomes just how far you can hit away from you and that is it. You run to attack me I attack you first. You run away from me I attack you.

The Engagement Rule

Engaging: If you attack a creature you threaten and have not previously engaged it, you are considered engaging it. While engaging, you may provoke an attack of opportunity*. Once completed you are now engaged with that creature. Note: if the type of attack you do causes an attack of opportunity (such as a grapple) you are still the one engaging even if they strike you first with an attack of opportunity.

Maintaining the Engagement: To stay engaged you must not move out of your opponents reach.

Disengage: If you disengage you provoke an attack of opportunity. You can take a withdraw action to prevent this attack of opportunity.

*The Engagement Attack of Opportunity

Creature Size: If the creature is larger than you, you provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are both the same size or it is smaller, no attack of opportunity is provoked. If you are mounted you use your mounts size as your base size.

Weapon Size: If you attack with a reach weapon you are considered one size larger than you are for determining this attack of opportunity. If you attack with a weapon that is two sizes smaller than your size you are considered one size smaller than you are for determining this attack of opportunity. If you attack with a natural weapon, a slam attack, have the improved unarmed strike feat or with a touch attack spell you are considered your actual size.

 

[Nadaka]

I don't like it.

situations arrise such as:
A,B are allies
X,Y are allies
AB,XY are enemies

A.
.B
.X
Y.

X is already fighting B
A charges in to attack Y, is it really different than if he charged in to attack B from Bs perspective? yes, it leaves A more open to attack. Your change makes him less open to attack.

Lets say that Y is a weak lil' wizard that will die in one hit and X is a tough beefy fighter (tank). X is trying to keep Y alive in a 10ft hallway. A & B can shift positions as so in your system without provoking a single AoO from X and making it impossible for X to do his job as a tank.

..
..
AX
YB

 

[ValhallaGH]

This rule does away with the moving through threatened squares for the more logical- If you move in to hit me I might get to hit you first. No more weird the guy ran behind me so I got a pot shot on him even though I was engaged with another guy in front of me. Reach becomes just how far you can hit away from you and that is it. You run to attack me I attack you first. You run away from me I attack you.

The Engagement Rule

Engaging: If you attack a creature you threaten and have not previously engaged it, you are considered engaging it. While engaging, you may provoke an attack of opportunity*. Once completed you are now engaged with that creature. Note: if the type of attack you do causes an attack of opportunity (such as a grapple) you are still the one engaging even if they strike you first with an attack of opportunity.

Maintaining the Engagement: To stay engaged you must not move out of your opponents reach.

Disengage: If you disengage you provoke an attack of opportunity. You can take a withdraw action to prevent this attack of opportunity.

*The Engagement Attack of Opportunity

Creature Size: If the creature is larger than you, you provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are both the same size or it is smaller, no attack of opportunity is provoked. If you are mounted you use your mounts size as your base size.

Weapon Size: If you attack with a reach weapon you are considered one size larger than you are for determining this attack of opportunity. If you attack with a weapon that is two sizes smaller than your size you are considered one size smaller than you are for determining this attack of opportunity. If you attack with a natural weapon, a slam attack, have the improved unarmed strike feat or with a touch attack spell you are considered your actual size.

I didn't realize that you hated melee types.

Huh....

Yeah, this makes the melee tanks, such as your 'typical' fighter with longsword and shield or barbarian with greataxe, completely useless at slowing down anything a size category or more larger than them.
It punishes the players for acting like the heroes D&D encourages them to be. "I charge the dragon." "The dragon bites off Sir Heimdal's head. What do the rest of you do?"

Assuming that you were aware of those repercussion and had approved them then this ruleset will work just fine.
If you were unaware of those repercussions or do not approve of them then you'll want to rethink this.

 

[Sadrik]

I don't like it.
Fair enough. I would like to say it is different than the standard rules. It does create new situations that I like better than the standard situations. Your examples highlight 1 of the advantages of this system.

Btw, I think the dots are 5' squares?

situations arrise such as:
A,B are allies
X,Y are allies
AB,XY are enemies

A.
.B
.X
Y.

X is already fighting B
A charges in to attack Y, is it really different than if he charged in to attack B from Bs perspective? yes, it leaves A more open to attack. Your change makes him less open to attack.

If you are engaged with the guy in front of you and someone charges past you within your reach but does not in any way try to harm you. They should be able to do that imo. I always thought it was weird that big creatures got this strange nonsensical pot shot for some creature moving more than five feet near them.

Take a huge cloud giant with a spiked chain. If someone moves 15' away from the cloud giant for 10' it gets a free attack against them? Sure it makes sense to us because we know that is how the game works and we have been playing it that way for so long. we can explain it away in some abstract fashion but it doesnt make sense. I think the game rules could be simpler and make more logical sense.

AoO's should only occur in these situations:
1. engaging or disengaging a creature (my rule)
2. performing a special maneuver (grapple, bull rush, unarmed strike etc.) without the appropriate "improved" feat.
3. letting down your guard (cast a spell, search for an item etc)

But simply moving in the area that a creature can reach to hit with their weapon should not draw an attack of opportunity.

Lets say that Y is a weak lil' wizard that will die in one hit and X is a tough beefy fighter (tank). X is trying to keep Y alive in a 10ft hallway. A & B can shift positions as so in your system without provoking a single AoO from X and making it impossible for X to do his job as a tank.

..
..
AX
YB

I fail to see how this would be any different in standard AoO rules. Are you talking about 5' steps?

 

[Sadrik]

I didn't realize that you hated melee types.

I dont hate melee types! Well... Maybe I... I wont go there...

If anything my system boosts size... see below.

Yeah, this makes the melee tanks, such as your 'typical' fighter with longsword and shield or barbarian with greataxe, completely useless at slowing down anything a size category or more larger than them.

Well normally remember they dont get AoOs against larger creatures anyway because larger creatures have more reach anyway. They shouldnt engage a size medium guy right up close.
Example: a ogre and a human fighter. The ogre charges the fighter and strikes him at his maximum reach (a 5' square between them) so right now the ogre is engaged with the fighter but the fighter is not engaged with the ogre. The ogre hits him. Then the fighter takes a 5' step in to engage the ogre (so his weapon can reach to hit the ogre). The ogre gets an AoO to strike the fighter for the fighter engaging the ogre who is larger than the fighter.

It punishes the players for acting like the heroes D&D encourages them to be. "I charge the dragon." "The dragon bites off Sir Heimdal's head. What do the rest of you do?"

This does not change? The dragon would get AoOs against Sir Heimdal anyway (assuming the dragon was size large or bigger). Also if a single AoO could kill Sir Heimdal with one hit it was a failed proposition in the first place!

Assuming that you were aware of those repercussion and had approved them then this ruleset will work just fine.
If you were unaware of those repercussions or do not approve of them then you'll want to rethink this.

I think I have figured out most of the altercations with the rules of this. I never have used this in a game. Because the way reach and moving through spaces is so ingrained. Even in me! So the one time I was going to try it, I didnt because when the first fight happened I kept reverting to the old rules inadvertly.

 

[Nadaka]

In that second case A and B both moved 10 ft through threatened squares and attacked Y without provoking AoO (by your rules). The point I am trying to make is that your rules reduce melee types to "HULK SMASH!" instead of being able to affect the tactical flow of combat and perform thier ultimate role in a party (to keep the support and artillery alive long enough to do thier jobs).

Your rules work just fine for one on one combat, no doubt there. But D&D isn't a one on one combat game. It is a group effort, this is where your rules fall apart. I completely disagree with your idea that movement should not provoke. How else do you expect a tank to do thier job? how are they supposed to block enemies from reaching thier more frail (but still needed) allies?

From a logical perspective, look at it this way: Everyone that isn't flatfooted has enough reserved attention to make one attack given the oportunity. However everyone normally focuses on preventing the oportunity from arrising. Turning your back or running past a melee oponent is something that does open this oportunity and the attack is allowed.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I dont hate melee types! Well... Maybe I... I wont go there...

This is why I like you, Sadrik. You're wise enough to avoid arguments that you're weak on.

If anything my system boosts size... see below.

Which was my point. 90% of size advantage goes to the monsters, not the PCs. This means that no PC can engage a larger creature in melee combat without provoking an AoO. Your example ogre could run on top of your example fighter and the ogre would get two attacks out of it. One when he stopped on the other side of the fighter and swung at him and an AoO when the human fighter foolishly attempted to take advantage of being trampled by trying to stab the ogre in the groin.

[Diversion]Funny note, this also means that a halfling or gnome would never want to go into melee with a human. The human would out-reach him and get an AoO even though they both have the same reach. Even if the human charged the halfling, the halfling (that is well within halfling knife range) would still provoke an AoO when he attacked the human that first time.[/Diversion]

This means that no one, ever, would become a melee guy against things bigger than him. Ever. If that's what you wanted ("Uh oh, a dragon, everyone use ranged weapons. Even Clutzy Joe.") then you suceeded. If that's not what you wanted then you need to start over again.

 

[Sadrik]

In that second case A and B both moved 10 ft through threatened squares and attacked Y without provoking AoO (by your rules). The point I am trying to make is that your rules reduce melee types to "HULK SMASH!" instead of being able to affect the tactical flow of combat and perform thier ultimate role in a party (to keep the support and artillery alive long enough to do thier jobs).

I fail to see the correlation between getting 1 AoO as being able to affect the tactical flow of combat and perform their ultimate role in a party. It is a subtle change that really only changes one thing --> the ability to walk through an area someone can reach with their weapon without drawing an attack. That is replaced with if you move in to attack me I may get an attack of opportunity.

Your rules work just fine for one on one combat, no doubt there. But D&D isn't a one on one combat game. It is a group effort, this is where your rules fall apart. I completely disagree with your idea that movement should not provoke. How else do you expect a tank to do thier job? how are they supposed to block enemies from reaching thier more frail (but still needed) allies?

I dont think this is merely a one on one rule. This is expansive like the current AoO rules. Dont you think that moving around big rings of squares is really odd and very gamey just so you can avoid an AoO? I do.

I am not sure you guys are catching is that this AoO rule set can be applied without the use of a battle map. Granted having one will make things simpler but it would not be required.

From a logical perspective, look at it this way: Everyone that isn't flatfooted has enough reserved attention to make one attack given the oportunity. However everyone normally focuses on preventing the oportunity from arrising. Turning your back or running past a melee oponent is something that does open this oportunity and the attack is allowed.

Logic cannot apply to rules of a game using a grid. You can only approximate it. Is having people attack people that walk by them very interesting or cool? Whoever translated the AoO rules from combat and tactics for 3ed thought it was.

Since we are on perspectives: why cant the rogue moving through the reached area of a fighter use enough coordination to automatically not get struck by the half assed swing of the engaged fighter throws at him who is fighting a mindflayer.

 

[Sadrik]

Which was my point. 90% of size advantage goes to the monsters, not the PCs.

Yes but this is the case with the standard AoO rules anyway so I dont see a distinction here.

This means that no PC can engage a larger creature in melee combat without provoking an AoO.

This is how the standard AoO rules work as well...

Your example ogre could run on top of your example fighter and the ogre would get two attacks out of it. One when he stopped on the other side of the fighter and swung at him and an AoO when the human fighter foolishly attempted to take advantage of being trampled by trying to stab the ogre in the groin.

This is interesting. It pays to be big in this case. As I have the rules written this would work. Does making an AoO count as engaging? This is one area I need to pan out all of the possible ramifications. Should making an AoO count as engaging?

I do have this blurb:
Note: if the type of attack you do causes an attack of opportunity (such as a grapple) you are still the one engaging even if they strike you first with an attack of opportunity.

For instance another similar but different situation an enlarged wizard stands next to an enemy fighter but neither are engaged. He searches his bag for a wand drawing an AoO. The enemy fighter makes the attack are they now engaged or was that just a freebie? Because if it forced angagement the enlarged wizard would get an AoO on the enemy fighter.

This means that no one, ever, would become a melee guy against things bigger than him. Ever. If that's what you wanted ("Uh oh, a dragon, everyone use ranged weapons. Even Clutzy Joe.") then you suceeded. If that's not what you wanted then you need to start over again.

I think big creatures could use more tactical edge that just a 1 pop shot 15 feet away.

[Diversion]Funny note, this also means that a halfling or gnome would never want to go into melee with a human. The human would out-reach him and get an AoO even though they both have the same reach. Even if the human charged the halfling, the halfling (that is well within halfling knife range) would still provoke an AoO when he attacked the human that first time.[/Diversion]

LOL, I do hate gnomes and halflings though!

 

[ValhallaGH]

Have you seen this before? It may be exactly the sort of thing you were trying to accomplish (which is still unclear even at this stage).