Ditching OA's, replace with....?

[IanB]

My gut instinct is that getting rid of OAs will break the game entirely. Anyone being able to walk anywhere they want with no consequences will devalue an *enormous* number of powers, maybe even whole classes. Do a search in the Compendium for the word "shift", that will give you an idea of just how far-reaching the effects would be.

I wouldn't consider it in 4e, maybe in a new ruleset but 4e is practically built around the OA.

 

[mudlock]

1) Cleric use Inspire Fervor, a daily weapon attack with an Effect that all allies within 2 squares can shift 2 and make an MBA.
2) Rogue shifts 2 to flank with cleric, makes MBA.
3) MBA makes enemy bloodied.
4) Enemy uses power that, when bloodied, can make claw attack on 2 enemies within melee 1.
5) Fighter (who had ability to shift from cleric power, but hasn't yet) says "Wait, can I also shift next to the monster? If I take my MBA, and he claws someone else, I can get Combat Challenge since he violated my mark."
6) Cleric says "No, don't do that...I'm getting combat advantage from the rogue, and I can kill it with the attack I haven't taken yet."
7) DM says, "Wait, another monster is using a triggered encounter power since his ally was bloodied to shift 3 behind the rogue and make a basic attack, with extra damage for having combat advantage."
8) Rogue says, "Wait, I'm going to use Second Chance on the claw attack, if it goes off. Otherwise, I'll use it on the attack by the monster that moved up."

While I'm sure that's there a proper rules way to figure this out, the rules are not so clear-cut that this kind of situation doesn't happen even with well-meaning players.

First, thank you very much for the example.

Now I'm going to nit-pick it

Most significantly, not one bit of this example deals with opportunity actions or opportunity attacks, so really it's got nothing to do what the stated intent of this thread. But let's put that aside and assume, for now, that "OA" means "every kind of out-of-turn action".

Moving on: powers resolve in the order they are written. The Cleric's attack is the first thing that happens; he can't wait for the rogue to move to flank. (Unless Inspire Fervor is written so the effect is first? Point is, it's in a specific order.)

Then, the effect of the power happens; it effects multiple targets, and so each target is resolved one at a time, in the order chosen by the power's user. If the Cleric says "rogue, go" first, then the rogue goes first.

When the fighter asks if he could have gone before the rogue, after he sees what happened, well... "rewinding" stuff like that is hard, and perhaps unfair as it reveals information (i.e., results of die rolls, the fact that an enemy becomes bloodied) that the player/character couldn't have possibly had. Again, it's the Cleric who gets to decide, but even if he *did* want to change his mind in this case, I would encourage the DM to say "sorry, no; you said 'rogue, go' and we've already rolled, so we're sticking with that."

You were unspecific about what power the monsters were using, so it's a bit harder to get the details. But if the two monster's powers you describe are both immediate interrupts or free actions, then the DM, controlling both monsters, can decide in what order they resolve. The only time there would be any conflict is if a monster and a PC are both trying to trigger off the exact same result... but the rules have an answer for this too! It's resolved in initiative order; whichever creature is nearer-to-next to go, gets to go first.

Finally, there is no need for the rogue to be so specific about his future plans: the attacks against him are happening in a specific order, and he will have to choose, while they are happening, how he will respond, and before they are resolved.

One way to approach thinking about all this is as a stack; an action goes on top of the stack when it is announced, and sub-parts of it piling on in order as they occur, and any interrupts of the action (or sub-actions) piling on top of it as well. Importantly, only the top-most piece of the pile is ever something that anyone can respond to, and there is a specific, defined order for who gets a chance to respond when. When no-one wants to (or can) respond, only then is the top-most piece resolved.

For your example, the stack at its most-complicated would look something like this:

Rogue uses Second Chance
Monster hits rogue with ???
Monster targets first enemy (rogue) with ???
Monster uses ??? to attack two enemies in melee 1
Monster becomes bloodied
Rogue attacks monster through Inspire Fervor effect
Cleric targets first ally (rogue) with Inspire Fervor effect
Cleric's Inspire Fervor effect-line happens
Cleric uses Inspire Fervor

Which is pretty deep... but when approached logically, not all that complicated.

The rules are quite clear though. Most of the time, the specifics of those clear rules don't matter and are glossed over; a bad habit to get into because then you run into an actually complex situation, and if you've never actually learned the rules, you WILL get confused.... as you do no less than five times just in your example.

So I'm going to stand by last comment and say that the people who are getting confused have certain fundamental aspects of the rules which they have not learned properly. (And if this example is any indication, it's not even the OA rules that are causing the problem.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], there may be a middle ground for you to consider.

As I'm reading it--and correct me if I'm wrong--your problem isn't the concept of OAs, but the variety of conditions in which it becomes unclear when/in which order they might apply, or how many can occur.

So what if you were to drastically simplify/restrict them?

1) Any character/monster gets only one OA per round, rather than per turn. (You might make an exception for solos.)

2) OAs and immediate actions do not, themselves, trigger OAs.

3) Any given action can only trigger one OA, even if it has the potential to draw more than one. The closest opponent to the creature gets to make the OA. (In the case of multiple opponents at equal distance, you can resolve it by role--defender, then striker, etc.--or by who's got the highest initiative, or whatever you find the easiest and fastest to apply.)

Doing this would remove the whole "OA pileup/cluster" without removing OAs themselves.

 

[TwoSix]

For your example, the stack at its most-complicated would look something like this:

Rogue uses Second Chance
Monster hits rogue with ???
Monster targets first enemy (rogue) with ???
Monster uses ??? to attack two enemies in melee 1
Monster becomes bloodied
Rogue attacks monster through Inspire Fervor effect
Cleric targets first ally (rogue) with Inspire Fervor effect
Cleric's Inspire Fervor effect-line happens
Cleric uses Inspire Fervor

Which is pretty deep... but when approached logically, not all that complicated.

I think we may have to disagree on "not all that complicated." To someone with gaming experience, probably not. To someone who's logically inclined, certainly not. I don't find it that complicated, myself (although I don't personally like the rule that effects in powers have to resolve in order).

But I do know quite a few gamers who, when the scenario has played out, have said "This is too much." They've also said it becomes impossible to visualize with that many concurrent actions. Even as someone who embraces the narrative leanings of 4e, I myself can have trouble rationalizing a large stack of actions after the fact.

So I'm torn. As a tactical-loving gamer, I think reactive actions are fun. (My personal vision for off-turn actions would be mostly martial powers fueled by a point resource gained by class specific actions, a la Iron Heroes). But as someone who's also trying to leverage the mechanics into a consistent narrative framework during play, I can get frustrated.

 

[mudlock]

I think we may have to disagree on "not all that complicated." ... I don't find it that complicated, myself ...

But I do know quite a few gamers who, when the scenario has played out, have said "This is too much." They've also said it becomes impossible to visualize with that many concurrent actions. Even as someone who embraces the narrative leanings of 4e, I myself can have trouble rationalizing a large stack of actions after the fact.

So I'm torn. As a tactical-loving gamer, I think reactive actions are fun. ...But as someone who's also trying to leverage the mechanics into a consistent narrative framework during play, I can get frustrated.

Although, I have NEVER seen an rpg, even a strongly narrative one (something like Dogs in the Vineyard) have simple rules for resolving actions when more than two characters want to react to each other.

Three is a hard number; it's inherently more difficult than two.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nice! Some really solid advice here, thanks everyone!

I'm getting a clearer picture of OAs as things that help defenders...well...defend...via discouraging movement around them.

I might be partial to the idea that OA's are a unique defender/soldier thing, perhaps linked to the mark. That might help limit it to only a few times per combat, without eliminating its role entirely. Making the front line a little more permeable seems OK to me, especially given 4e's flattened HP distributions. In one of my games, the "frail spellcaster" is actually the party thief, who is a paper tiger being shot out of a glass cannon. And he mixes it up in melee pretty frequently. Melee doesn't seem nearly as deadly to casters as it was before, and this keeps being true if the casters don't provoke themselves for casting anymore.

On the other hand, it might also be something that melee strikers value, too, since it helps keep an adversary near them, without running away every turn....hmmm....

As I'm reading it--and correct me if I'm wrong--your problem isn't the concept of OAs, but the variety of conditions in which it becomes unclear when/in which order they might apply, or how many can occur.

To get a little more specific, what gets my undies in a bundle is the slowdown of gameplay that happens in these situations. Suddenly an action that takes all of 3 seconds to resolve normally ("I move six squares!") takes twenty to fourty times as long ("I move six squares!" "Wait!" *roll attack, do math, determine hit, roll damage, do more math, reference add-on effects, make some more notes, determine if the original move is possible* "Okay!"), even just with one OA. It eats up table time, interrupts the flow, and makes me just want to deny it, on sort of a visceral, "Ugh, not this noise again" kind of level. It is like if a boss constantly interrupted you to tell you to make small changes to your work. More OAs just makes the problem even worse.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm getting a clearer picture of OAs as things that help defenders...well...defend...via discouraging movement around them.

On the other hand, it might also be something that melee strikers value, too, since it helps keep an adversary near them, without running away every turn....hmmm....

These are both definately the case. Without OAs whomever has the higher movement score wins. They can always get to the squishiest target, or avoid being attacked by the heaviest hitter.

Conversely, if you go with the "you can't do anything that would provoke" route, certain characters who should be maneuverable aren't. Specifically you should probably consider giving any character(or power, or whatever) with a bonus to a defense vs OAs a flat-out increase on shift distance or something similar. I'm not sure what to do for characters who gain a bonus to their OAs: I guess that forcing people to stay adjacent to them is probably enough.

I suppose you could go with a "save vs OA" mechanic? If you do something that provokes, make a save. Fail the save and you lose the action.

Fighters would get a "targets saving vs OA adjacent to you take a penalty equal to your wisdom to the roll".

Charisma rogues would get "you get a bonus to save vs OAs equal to your charisma bonus".

That brings it down to a single roll. You can still try it if you thing it's necessary, and ~75% of the time if you choose to spend 2 move actions, you can probably get out of melee if you really want to.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

[/LIST]
I think this one, yes I can see a penalty for ranged and area attacks having an effect although it wouldn't feel like as much of a penalty to do this as being hit and I fear that more ranged attacks would end up being put out there that normally wouldnt be and thus things become unbalanced

-5 is a hefty penalty for an attack. But it is inevitably that changing the rules leads to... changes. Some things become options that were not before, some options are lost.

How is this different than normal
Now you can shift 1 square and you don't get an OA, if you are suggesting that a player can shift their normal movement then it defeats the purpose of it being called a shift which is specificaly designed to counter OAs

The difference is that there are no OAs. This disallows making you to move your speed or something like that. You either shift (1 square unless you have special powers) or you teleport (also requiring a power). Slide, Push, Pull still work, naturally.

It basically removes your options to take an OA. The Disengage option simplifies the process of getting out. Accept that you can only Shift-Attack or Shift-Move when you're engaged, basically, but you don't have to worry that much where to shift too. (Because that would just lead to the next complex decision-making process.)


Edit:
While as a Fighter player I would sometimes love to take plenty of OAs, the primary effect of OAs is that actions are not taken. So if you come up with a replacement mechanics that means these actions are not taken in the first place (but are not too restricte with them), I think Defenders will work fine (and not even all Defenders rely on OAs. Paladins and Swordmages are not that good at them usually.) It will be more restrictive, that is sure, but it will also be faster in resolving the actions.

 

[Breaks]

not trying to insult you or pass any judgments, but i wouldn't want to play in a game where OAs had been nerfed or removed.

I personally find immediate actions and OAs one of the most tactically interesting parts of d&d.

But to each their own, i guess.

If your players take too long to resolve them, that's an entirely different problem, as is wanting to ret-con their turn choices in order to get in on an OA dogpile.

 

[MrMyth]

So I'm going to stand by last comment and say that the people who are getting confused have certain fundamental aspects of the rules which they have not learned properly. (And if this example is any indication, it's not even the OA rules that are causing the problem.)

I'm going to say that dismissing "I don't like these rules" as "You aren't smart enough to understand these rules or play properly" is probably not the most helpful contribution to this discussion.

Take a close look at the example posted. The issue is not that the party cannot figure out a proper order to resolve the various actions. The issue is that you have a lot of triggered actions taking place, each one often with ramifications that a tactically thoughtful party will want to consider. Which tends to bog down play quite a bit as Player 3 decides exactly where he wants to slide Monster 1 in his interrupt response to the monster's triggered attack set off by being bloodied by Player 2's free attack granted by Player 1. Etc.

Other possible issues include players not involved in the stack of responses feeling like they are waiting a very long time for their turn to come around, as well as potentially needing to 'double check' everything one does to see if there is a trigger - since, as you note, you don't want to retcon things after the attack.

"Ok, the monster has declared PC1 as the target, any responses? It is now making the attack roll. It has now hit him. He has now taken damage. He has now been pushed." Etc.

Now, there are many ways to address all of these elements! Whether by adjusting style of group play, or simply learning what powers PCs commonly have and knowing when they might use them, or encouraging decisions to be made quickly even in complex situations, etc.

But for some folks, the easiest solution would be, ideally, to remove such things from the game. Which includes OAs which - while not at the heart of the matter - can greatly contribute to it, especially being available on every opponent's turn in combat.

I get that these aren't issues for you. But you challenged TwoSix to produce an example, claiming that those complaining about these issues are either getting the rules wrong or are exaggerating their difficulties with them. An example - of definite complexity to deal with at the table - was produced. Is it really that hard to acknowledge that others legitimately feel that the complexity of stacks of triggered events can be a headache to deal with?