Attack of Opportunity -- does it deserve to survive to v.4?

[Storm Raven]

In 4E that I would write, a meat shield would be holding his action (or some of them anyway) to attack anybody who tried to get at the magic user though his threatened area (not sure if I'd keep 5' squares or not) rather than acting willy nilly and expecting some free actions to cover what he is supposed to be doing.

Which would make combat an awful bore for the fighter, or ridiculously dangerous for "back line" characters. Basically, your proposal would make it entirely impossible to feasibly play anything other than a fighter-type (since most people aren't going to want to spend their combat time sitting around doing not much of anything).

Your proposal looks like it would drive every group to either (1) have their fighters sit around holding their actions to protect the other characters, and doing nothing proactive, or (2) be composed entirely of fighters and fighter types.

Which, in my opinion, would make the game quite dull. Yay! You've made D&D less interesting!

 

[Storm Raven]

In a very real sense, it is if the choice is the binary "either/or."

Which is exactly what painandgreed seems to be proposing.

 

[fusangite]

Whether it entails getting rid of AoOs or not, I think what I want out of a 4E combat system is one that can run either narratively or with miniatures. While a lot of people get a charge out of miniatures gaming, I don't.

In part, the reason for this is that I do not have a highly developed capacity for geometric abstraction. I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy but there is just no way I can GM a combat in 3.x without a battle grid. And, of course, because of questions of balance, simply eliminating attacks of opportunity just doesn't cut it.

If designers can find a way to do combat without minis and keep AoOs, more power to them. I just can't personally conceive of how they could do such a thing.

 

[fusangite]

I don't get the hostility vs. AoOs. They are really quite simple and learned by even semi-experienced gamers pretty quickly. I refuse to believe that my gaming group is THAT much smarter than the typical gamer, although they would like to think so.

There are lots of ways to be smart. Geometric logic is one way. Many of the best GMs I know, including me, are not especially bright in that particular way.

Much greater realism at the cost of very simple mechanics. What's to hate?

If you want realism, there are way easier ways to give the game that feel. Try killing cumulative hit points, bringing hit locations for damage, making armour work as DR instead of modifying to-hit probabilities, etc.

 

[painandgreed]

Which is exactly what painandgreed seems to be proposing.

Not really the way I see it. Either way, the fighter must be in the same position tactically to act as a meat sheild. The difference is the number of actions. Given the case of a fighter protecting a mage versus two orcs, one already in a threatened square and one not. With AoO, he would get his attack against the one already threatened and another if the other orc tried to enter into melee with the mage. In the system I'd be writing, he'd hold his action, attack the orc that tried to run by if he did (while the orc had a Dex penalty), and if not attack the threatened orc at the end of the round. If he had multiple actions, he'd be able to attack the threatened orc as well as reserve an action for the other orc if he tried to run by. This would probably require some changes to possible actions as well as initiative, but if getting rid of AoO as extra actions, the way it integrated with the rest of the game would have to be looked at.

I'm not even saying that this is a better way. I am saying that if I could come up with an better system, it would have Dex penalties instead of free attacks. Ideally, given time to playtest, I think it could be done.

The entire initiative system is something that I'd much rather spend time looking at. We've been looking for something that seems realistic without being cumbersome every since 1E, but it seems very hard to do. I think the best one I've liked so far was house ruled in 1E, and consisted of the one minute turns being broken up into the ten segments and then going by impulse, using weapon speeds and casting times to determine exactly what people were doing when. Worked well for people that were used to the system and made it possible to determine where anybody was and what they were doing at any given moment, but did require some record keeping.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

painandgreed,

I am certainly willing to listen to interesting new ideas. But I fear the average player does not have the stomach for complexity that I do.

There is a narrative advantage to "I run up and smash that Orc with my greataxe! (And as long as I put my miniature in a location between the spellcasters and the enemy I am being a reasonable team player.)" that alternatives are likely to lack.

"I hang out over there looking for someone to attack my friend" just does not quite stir the blood.

 

[Storm Raven]

Not really the way I see it. Either way, the fighter must be in the same position tactically to act as a meat sheild. The difference is the number of actions. Given the case of a fighter protecting a mage versus two orcs, one already in a threatened square and one not. With AoO, he would get his attack against the one already threatened and another if the other orc tried to enter into melee with the mage. In the system I'd be writing, he'd hold his action, attack the orc that tried to run by if he did (while the orc had a Dex penalty), and if not attack the threatened orc at the end of the round. If he had multiple actions, he'd be able to attack the threatened orc as well as reserve an action for the other orc if he tried to run by. This would probably require some changes to possible actions as well as initiative, but if getting rid of AoO as extra actions, the way it integrated with the rest of the game would have to be looked at.

And then with his next action, the orc just runs past the now-actionless fighter. Basically, your system doesn't allow for reactions, unless you plan to react ahead of time. Someone recently asked me what the procedure was for getting lunch if there is an emergency that only lasts from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Of course, you don't know that the emergency will end when lunch rolls around at noon, which is like the position your fighter is in, and hence, he will end up holding his action forever, because, according to you, he is incapable of reacting.

I also note, that because your system assumes an "end of the round" it is incompatible with cyclical initiative. Basically, you seem to want to return to the old, cumbersome methods of declaring actions and rolling initiative every round. So, to get rid of AoOs, which are pretty easy to understand and use (and only have a few corner case problems) you seem to want to go back to a cumbersome and difficult system.

Once again: Yay! You've made D&D less fun!

The entire initiative system is something that I'd much rather spend time looking at. We've been looking for something that seems realistic without being cumbersome every since 1E, but it seems very hard to do. I think the best one I've liked so far was house ruled in 1E, and consisted of the one minute turns being broken up into the ten segments and then going by impulse, using weapon speeds and casting times to determine exactly what people were doing when. Worked well for people that were used to the system and made it possible to determine where anybody was and what they were doing at any given moment, but did require some record keeping.

Yep, you are looking to go back to rolling initiatve every round and declaring actions. Which, from my perspective, is making D&D much less fun. So much so, that I'd probably stay with 3e D&D or go back to playing other game systems (which is what I did for most of the run of 2e AD&D).

 

[Lanefan]

Yep, you are looking to go back to rolling initiatve every round and declaring actions. Which, from my perspective, is making D&D much less fun.

Rolling initiative every round is the only way to give any shred of realism to a combat. People just don't act in ordered turns in battle - by its very nature a disorderly and chaotic thing - so to have them do so in the game is, to me, too great a sacrifice of realism.

A further problem, to me, of locked-in turn order is that it affects the in-combat tactics. If you always know when your foe will strike next (or, at least, the soonest they will strike) you can act accordingly. But if you never know just when the next action will be, you have to think differently. Yes, it's a bit more cumbersome, but I'm prepared to live with that.

It's much less cumbersome if you use a smaller initiative die than d20 and accept that things *will* happen simultaneously due to ties.

Lanefan

 

[Warbringer]

Keep em, but add that "any movement" (ex 5ft step - see below) in or out of a threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity. Then, after leaving the threatened sq the "injured" party may perform any actions. If damage was taken while leaving the treatened sq any spell or skill (note: NOT spell-like ability) that is performed requires a concentration check.

Next... I'd dump the 5ft step. It's an add-on to make AoOs less of a problem in combat.

Of course, it's all only a problem because the inititaive sequence is turn based rather than concurrent, like so many 2e house rules

 

[Taraxia]

There are lots of ways to be smart. Geometric logic is one way. Many of the best GMs I know, including me, are not especially bright in that particular way.

It's really not that hard if you actually use a grid and minis. I mean, you look at the grid, you see where the guys with weapons are, you don't run right past them or else they'll hit you. It's a lot easier than, say, playing checkers.

If you want realism, there are way easier ways to give the game that feel. Try killing cumulative hit points, bringing hit locations for damage, making armour work as DR instead of modifying to-hit probabilities, etc.

None of these problems with "realism" directly create unrealistic situations *in combat*, though.

It's hard for me to think up an AoO-less system that still works the way 3.5 combat does that doesn't involve everyone scurrying right past the fighters and killing the mages *or* the fighters standing there doing nothing but guarding the mages. Either one makes the game more boring.