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

[Infiniti2000]

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.

While your example presents several issues on their own, it has nothing whatsoever to do with OAs. That said, I'd like to offer more ideas to KM. As others have suggested, simply changing OAs rather than deleting them is a better idea. Mouseferatu has some good points, too, so you can combine them with an idea of general actions. For example, if you provoke (1/round?) then the opponent either deals some static amount of damage or can stop your action (save to not be stopped). This has a great deal of cinematic potential because now when the wizard tries to move away, the orc sticks out his arm and roughly pushes him back. No damage, easy resolution (save, so easier than an attack). Maybe apply the save to the attack option as well.

 

[MrMyth]

I like Infiniti2000's suggestion in terms of simplicity - basically, the less rolling, the smoother such things can be resolved. Or, as was suggested earlier, the idea of being threatened simply being a condition that opposes penalties, rather than one that provokes attacks.

 

[mudlock]

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.

In my defense, I didn't say they were too stupid to understand the rules, I said they were too lazy to learn them.

As you reiterated, the example provided had zero to do with OAs; so I'm still not sure how getting rid of OAs will help. The basic OA is a very simple thing; they're walking away? Make an MBA. If a character is taking powers and feats to enhance them, they should learn how their powers and feats work. If they can't be bothered, they shouldn't take them.

Now, what if you want to expand this to ALL types of out-of-turn actions? (Which would actually help alleviate the problems in the example?) Similarly, if characters are taking powers and feats that grant other characters out-of-turn actions, they should learn how they work. If they can't be bothered, they shouldn't take them. If you expand on that theory though, it's gets pretty ridiculous pretty fast. Is it just powers that grant attacks to multiple allies that are a problem? Or is it any power that grants an attack? What about shifts and moves? Or the ability to spend a healing surge (yes, those are all, technically, an action taken by the target character)? If you want to disallow all out-of-turn actions at the table, you basically can't have anyone playing a defender or a leader (or a halfling or a gnome), and the DM can probably never use a dragon (most have immediate actions now). OAs are just a drop in the bucket, and so, no, I still don't understand why anyone can get so worked up over them.

And most of the suggestions here don't seem any better, from a complexity or time standpoint, than the default rules. For most of them, you still need to figure out threatened areas, you still need to go look up something on each threatening character's sheet, and you still might have to apply damage (and maybe other effects) to the creature who provokes!

If you're really serious about this, an "engaged" status seems like the best of the lot, particularly the "-5 to attacks" suggestion. Seems similar to the effects of the "run action"; until the start of your next turn, you're penalized, but you don't need to worry at all about what anyone else is doing. (Except for all those other out-of-turn actions that are still going to be in the game...)

So that's my constructive suggestion: replace "provoking" with "take a -5 to hit this turn".