OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[Agamon]

OAs or AoO or whatever should be a part of the grid and minis combat option, but not the gridless. Then you can use them or not as you desire. And as they'd be part of an option, you could still use minis and not have opportunity attacks if you wanted and it shouldn't break anything.

But I'll agree that they should not be anywhere in the core rules.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't see how it is not simpler.

You don't see how a set of rules involving modifiers and a save vs paralysis is fiddly and complicated. I see where it's going, and the idea is sound (but then so are both the AoO and OA ideas). It's the execution that's fiddly.

(emphasis mine)

But with the blocker maneuvering, and particularly with circling, how does this actually block the foe trying to get to the wizard? I can see the blocker moving to engage a lone opponent trying to maneuver around and locking him down in combat with some kind of zone of control. But I would also expect him to continually try to interpose himself between the opponent and the protected wizard.

Of course. It's more like football (soccer) than American football - can the attacker pass the defender? And can the defender stay between him and the goal?

Shouldn't there also be room for the rock placed in the stream style of blocking, where the fighter stands his ground lashing out around him at multiple opponents trying to get past, possibly channeling them into other danger zones from other block-friendly PCs?

There should be room for that type of PC, yes. In 4e it's normally called a "fighter" (although some wardens and beserkers qualify). But that isn't the default of how PCs should work.

But a basic attack might not be very valuable when trying to protect the wizard and stop opponents from getting around the blocker. I think that's one of the complaints leveled about the fighter in 3e and how well (or poorly from the perspective of those making the argument) he actually performs as a blocker. Without some kind of additional benefit, does an OA actually do enough?

That depends how good your OA is. And how reckless and/or disciplined your opponents are. In my experience, as long as you're using your prime stat for the OA then yes.

For some builds of 4e fighters, a successful OA stops the opponents move action (though he can immediately start back up if he has another suitable action left).

And if he uses two actions, he can't attack. That's a crippling penalty.

Yes, thank god those days are gone. Playing an anthropomorphic whale halfdragon/halfillithid/halfsuccubus fighter/cleric/oozemaster/order of the munchkin with the were-t-rex template is MUCH better.

But I'd rather have the options to play ridiculous things, then mitigate them with the campaign setting than not have them all and rule out a whole lot of interesting material.

Agreed, and 4E is no better. You just shift and cast. All that the OA does is punish you for moving more than 5 feet. 4E has become loaded down with abilities that let you shift as part of doing something, or shift multiple squares, presumably as a way to loosen up combat and keep it mobile--when that goal could be much more easily achieved by scrapping the OA and replacing it with a narrowly focused "allow the fighter to protect the squishies" mechanic.

It's the specialists who can move more than five feet. And OAs matter.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or obtuse. But you haven't stated either "why" or "what" in any of your postings...just that you don't want DM fiat in the game?

As DM I want to minimise DM fiat. I want the smart monsters to be able to be played smartly without having to metagame against them. Having to play the monsters stupidly within the bounds of gameworld constraints weakens my enjoyment both as DM and player.

Come on, people, can we please stop pretending that OAs/AoOs are a serious impediment for casters and archers? What they do is make you shift (in 4E) or 5-foot step (in 3E), and then do your thing. That's it. That's all.

That depends. They aren't a serious impediment on their own. Stack them with anything else on the other hand and they get nasty. A mark. A defender aura. Prone. Dazed. Terrain. You name it. They are a part of the whole that works.

The only time it becomes an issue is when the enemy has reach or you're somehow prevented from shifting.

You think that some players don't play to that? It's not a gamewinning tactic. It's a tool that enables a range of tactics.

 

[CM]

Agreed, and 4E is no better. You just shift and cast. All that the OA does is punish you for moving more than 5 feet. 4E has become loaded down with abilities that let you shift as part of doing something, or shift multiple squares, presumably as a way to loosen up combat and keep it mobile--when that goal could be much more easily achieved by scrapping the OA and replacing it with a narrowly focused "allow the fighter to protect the squishies" mechanic.

Remember though that this is tempered by the fact that 4e's spellcasters are not the beasts that they were in 3e. Their powers aren't any better than anyone else's, and don't even need the OA to help balance them.

 

[Minigiant]

You don't see how a set of rules involving modifiers and a save vs paralysis is fiddly and complicated. I see where it's going, and the idea is sound (but then so are both the AoO and OA ideas). It's the execution that's fiddly..

I think you are confused.

My suggestion for core is having the area around the fighter count as difficult terrain... not save vs paralysis or any modifiers.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Just throwing this out there. Haven't spent more than 20 seconds thinking it through, so feel free to shoot major holes in it.

Movement: You can move up to your speed. If you pass through the threatened area of a melee combatant, your movement ends immediately. This requires a move action.

Cautious Movement: You can move up to your speed. Your movement does not automatically end if you pass through a melee combatant's threatened area. This requires a standard action.

So, there's still a cost/benefit analysis to be considered. There's no flat out "You can't do this." You can still move around the fighter if you want, but it may be less effective/harder than simply confronting him first. But there's no extra rolls or extra actions to be made. It's a little less granular/simulationist than OAs, but also more mechanical/less fiat than "You just can't."

And yes, it means if you don't know there's an enemy in the way, you probably won't select to take a cautious move, and it'll be too late when you discover he's there--but that makes sense to me.

One could do something similar with ranged attacks and spells, in terms of bumping the attack/casting time. Precisely how would depend on whether there are "full-round" actions or not, but it could be done one way or another.

Edit to add: There could, of course, be additional rules/abilities where fighters and other defenders are involved. This would just be the basic foundation and the general rule used most of the time.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION], I like it, but must spread XP. A minor action to drink a potion readily at hand, but a move action to do the same when engaged in melee would also fit that.

 

[Argyle King]

Just throwing this out there. Haven't spent more than 20 seconds thinking it through, so feel free to shoot major holes in it.

Movement: You can move up to your speed. If you pass through the threatened area of a melee combatant, your movement ends immediately. This requires a move action.

Cautious Movement: You can move up to your speed. Your movement does not automatically end if you pass through a melee combatant's threatened area. This requires a standard action.

So, there's still a cost/benefit analysis to be considered. There's no flat out "You can't do this." You can still move around the fighter if you want, but it may be less effective/harder than simply confronting him first. But there's no extra rolls or extra actions to be made. It's a little less granular/simulationist than OAs, but also more mechanical/less fiat than "You just can't."

And yes, it means if you don't know there's an enemy in the way, you probably won't select to take a cautious move, and it'll be too late when you discover he's there--but that makes sense to me.

One could do something similar with ranged attacks and spells, in terms of bumping the attack/casting time. Precisely how would depend on whether there are "full-round" actions or not, but it could be done one way or another.

Edit to add: There could, of course, be additional rules/abilities where fighters and other defenders are involved. This would just be the basic foundation and the general rule used most of the time.

What I don't like about this is that it takes away my choice to provoke if I feel the possible reward is more valuable than the risk.

What do I mean?

One of the things I like about OAs is that I can attempt to do an action anyway if I want to take the risk of getting hit. The mounted knight on his faithful steed is well aware the dragon can hit him before the knight can get close enough to attack, but he still attempts it anyway; hoping to fell the beast. The cleric charges past a demon to get to a fallen ally before his soul slips away. The wizard makes a last ditch effort to get off one more spell in hopes of saving his friends; knowing he may well die in the process. I like knowing I can choose to face the risk if I feel it is necessary far better than I like the game just simply telling me no.

I don't feel your cost/benefit analysis matches what I expect from the idea.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

...Good Stuff...

I like the basic principle here of spending more effort to get a desired result. At a "Basic" level, this works really well.

What I don't like about this is that it takes away my choice to provoke if I feel the possible reward is more valuable than the risk.

What do I mean?

One of the things I like about OAs is that I can attempt to do an action anyway if I want to take the risk of getting hit. The mounted knight on his faithful steed is well aware the dragon can hit him before the knight can get close enough to attack, but he still attempts it anyway; hoping to fell the beast. The cleric charges past a demon to get to a fallen ally before his soul slips away. The wizard makes a last ditch effort to get off one more spell in hopes of saving his friends; knowing he may well die in the process. I like knowing I can choose to face the risk if I feel it is necessary far better than I like the game just simply telling me no.

I don't feel your cost/benefit analysis matches what I expect from the idea.

However, this is a really good point.

I would XP you both but EN World is telling me I cannot.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mouseferatu]

What I don't like about this is that it takes away my choice to provoke if I feel the possible reward is more valuable than the risk.

Certainly true. I don't for one minute suggest that what I proposed handles every case. I was putting it out there as a compromise for the people who feel the OA rules are too time-consuming, but also don't want to just default to "Can't be done."

 

[Argyle King]

Certainly true. I don't for one minute suggest that what I proposed handles every case. I was putting it out there as a compromise for the people who feel the OA rules are too time-consuming, but also don't want to just default to "Can't be done."

For the record, I was not suggesting it was necessarily a bad idea. Just, for me personally, I think it would change the game in a way which would make it more difficult for me to enjoy the game.