Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grayhawk" data-source="post: 1784842" data-attributes="member: 11288">I've been trying to figure out how to get rid of AoO's myself.This may not be good enough, as it doesn't seem to refrain a spellcaster from casting in melee (I've been trying to find a way to make spellcasting in combat more risky <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101610" target="_blank">over here</a>.)Regarding moverelated AoO's, I'm inclined to go the other way and allow the leaving of a threatened space without the drawing of an AoO, if it's only a single move. If it's a double move (or Run), I'll let it draw an AoO. This was the way it was in 1e, where the you could 'fall back' unhindered, but where your opponent got a free attack (to your back) if you tried to flee (taking a double move). With this ruling, a spellcaster or an archer can take a move back and still cast or shoot, but with the 5 foot step rule they can already do this (granted, they won't be subject to full attack's the following round, but at least the archer won't be able to 5 foot step back and make a full attack himself...).To go with this, I'd rule that you must stop moving once entering a threatened space (with no reach, this will leave you in melee range yourself).So if you want to run past the mooks protecting their shaman, you'll have to move up to them, stop, and maybe make an attack vs one of them if you have only moved your speed. Then the mooks in melee range of you gets to have their attacks. On the next round you can leave them behind and hopefully reach the shaman with a single move action. What this does for chases, is that it'll cost you something to get away. You either disengage by taking a single move, hoping you won't be followed, which in turn makes it possible for your opponent to move up to you and make an attack. Or you take a double move, suffer an attack as you do so, but this puts you beyond reach of a melee attack on the follwing round, short of a Charge, like what Plane Sailing said.Or am I making more problems than I'm fixing?</blockquote>

Verification