Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Ditching OA's, replace with....?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5663454" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>If I remember Basic and 1E correctly, they went with prohibiting the kinds of actions that would provoke in 3E and 4E. (The older games are all somewhat mushed together in my mind with house rules and variants from Dragon, though.) In any case, the actual effect was that it was possible for the tougher characters to position themselves to slow down a dogpile on the weaker characters. But if the wizard got surrounded, and didn't have some ready defensive spells--he was so hosed.</p><p> </p><p>For 3E or 4E, I'd go with the penalty to attacks option, rather than straight nullification of options. That always gives the dogpiled character a choice--even if picking between two relatively bad options. Having a choice when in trouble makes the player feel a bit better.</p><p> </p><p>For 4E in particular, I'd go with something like -2 to all attacks for the full round after provoking. And then stacked on top of that, if you provoke a defender, they get to mark you. For the fighter, rather than apply damage, let him stop movement. I'm not sure what other defenders would need to compensate, if anything. Take the paladin for example. His mark damage isn't usually decisive. But now a hoard of weaker opponents running by him have a total of -4 to hit (and -2 to hit him). And if they risk that -4, they all take his mark damage. So getting to mark multiple opponents is not a bad trade for an OA--and would certainly handle the main task of making people respect the defenders.</p><p> </p><p>The ones that really get messed up with that rule, however, are the melee strikers. I suppose controllers or leaders with nasty status effects they want to dish out also could be affected. So how about stacking on the rules in the preceding paragraph that any character can "lock" onto a provoking opponent and gain a +2 to hit with their next attack against that guy? </p><p> </p><p>Provoking is now pretting nasty, but it doesn't involve any rolling. You've got -2 to hit everything, and the guys that you provoked have now got a +2 to hit you on their turn. If you provoked a defender, you are also marked. If you are the lead brute ogre trying to bust through the line, you'll suffer. But at least the horde of goblins following you won't all give up the +2 to hit them, even if they do suffer the negatives.</p><p> </p><p>For flavor purposes, this rule is assuming that a thinking opponent simply can't totally let down their guard when someone is waving a big axe under their nose.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5663454, member: 54877"] If I remember Basic and 1E correctly, they went with prohibiting the kinds of actions that would provoke in 3E and 4E. (The older games are all somewhat mushed together in my mind with house rules and variants from Dragon, though.) In any case, the actual effect was that it was possible for the tougher characters to position themselves to slow down a dogpile on the weaker characters. But if the wizard got surrounded, and didn't have some ready defensive spells--he was so hosed. For 3E or 4E, I'd go with the penalty to attacks option, rather than straight nullification of options. That always gives the dogpiled character a choice--even if picking between two relatively bad options. Having a choice when in trouble makes the player feel a bit better. For 4E in particular, I'd go with something like -2 to all attacks for the full round after provoking. And then stacked on top of that, if you provoke a defender, they get to mark you. For the fighter, rather than apply damage, let him stop movement. I'm not sure what other defenders would need to compensate, if anything. Take the paladin for example. His mark damage isn't usually decisive. But now a hoard of weaker opponents running by him have a total of -4 to hit (and -2 to hit him). And if they risk that -4, they all take his mark damage. So getting to mark multiple opponents is not a bad trade for an OA--and would certainly handle the main task of making people respect the defenders. The ones that really get messed up with that rule, however, are the melee strikers. I suppose controllers or leaders with nasty status effects they want to dish out also could be affected. So how about stacking on the rules in the preceding paragraph that any character can "lock" onto a provoking opponent and gain a +2 to hit with their next attack against that guy? Provoking is now pretting nasty, but it doesn't involve any rolling. You've got -2 to hit everything, and the guys that you provoked have now got a +2 to hit you on their turn. If you provoked a defender, you are also marked. If you are the lead brute ogre trying to bust through the line, you'll suffer. But at least the horde of goblins following you won't all give up the +2 to hit them, even if they do suffer the negatives. For flavor purposes, this rule is assuming that a thinking opponent simply can't totally let down their guard when someone is waving a big axe under their nose. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Ditching OA's, replace with....?
Top