OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Oh, I get that, believe me.

On a purely dramatic level, I agree with you. The chance to say "I'm going to take that hit, because if I don't get to my friend's side with actions to spare, he's going to die" is one that I want to be able to make.

But I'm also one of those guys who--as much as I love both editions--feel that combat in both 3E and 4E A) takes too long, and B) is not newbie-friendly. And while OAs are far from the only culprit, they certainly contribute.

And I haven't yet found a satisfying way of melding those two, so it comes down to what one wants more--speed/simplicity of combat, or a broader variety of options. Of course, not only do we each draw the line somewhere different, but I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom the line changes, depending on campaign, character, or even just my mood at the time.

So I was just throwing something out there that might hit the right balance for some people; I don't expect it to appeal to everyone. It only sometimes appeals to me. If I had a perfect answer, I'd already have shared it, and none of us would be having this conversation.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

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.

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.

Perhaps add

Reckless 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 move action. Any melee combatant whose threatened area you pass during your move gains a free out-of-turn melee attack against you. If this attack knocks you prone or reduces you to 0 hp or less, your movement stops.

Of course, on had to define attacks to knock someone prone for this rule to work.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I doubt that OA at its basic (the 3 points I listed earlier) are too difficult to understand.
I can undestand the time consuming argument, as you have an extra choice to make.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem with ending movement cold is that there's no physical reason it should. I'm very much of the school of DMing that says "Roll the dice or say yes" - and hard coded movement ending is very much a "The players can't even try crazy plans" approach. And what is adventuring except a series of more or less crazy plans, one after the other? You are forcing PCs with possibly the most dangerous job ever to not take risky moves in combat.

Being forced to be cautious even when being reckless would be good tactics is not why I play D&D. And being physically unable to take actions that I could in the real world because of hard-coded mechanical rules, made for simplicity, is to me precisely the problem with CRPGs. That if the designers either hadn't thought of something or considered it too much hassle I can't do it.

I therefore consider B/X and Mouseferatu's approach (honestly, the reason I'm taking the risk is to preserve my standard action much of the time) to be thoroughly disempowering, deprotagonising, and inimical to one of the reasons I play TTRPGs. I need to be able to take risks to preserve resources (and actions are resources).

Now simplifying OAs is entirely possible. Flat automatic damage might work. (Something like I take my level in HPs as I use up some of my luck - faster than an OA and I can sort it out on my own sheet although many might not like that at all). But all the means I've seen of actually eliminating OAs have done it either by limiting my ability as a character to control the space around me, or by deprotagonising my PC and making that PC physically unable to take risks even to save an ally's life. If I want my PC deprotagonised, I'll go back to the WoD storyteller who inflicted three DMPCs on the party - one for each PC.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I doubt that OA at its basic (the 3 points I listed earlier) are too difficult to understand.
I can undestand the time consuming argument, as you have an extra choice to make.

I don't really get it either, but I have seen numerous new players who have a very difficult time wrapping their heads around the idea that leaving a threatened square is what provokes. There's something about it that's really counter-intuitive for some people.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

[sarcasm]Being flat out unable to do things that are realistically possible breaks verisimilitude.[/sarcasm]

 

[JamesonCourage]

[sarcasm]Being flat out unable to do things that are realistically possible breaks verisimilitude.[/sarcasm]

I think I'm missing what the contribution from this post is. Is it that the logic of "I want to be able to do this, because even I could pull this off" is bad logic, because verisimilitude should take a back seat during game design, in your opinion? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or anything, I'm just trying to figure out what you mean beyond pointless sarcasm, but have failed to communicate (to me, at least). As always, play what you like

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

But there is going to have to be a compromise in the core. The extreme 'no AoO' versus 'must have AoO' (or equivalents) are divisive viewpoints that don't fit under a unifying edition brand. Conciliation is the only real option.

I'm not concerned about the exact mechanics, all I care about is that:

- Front liners have some means to harry enemies wanting to push past them
- Being routed in combat is a worse state than retreating
- Non-melee combat is less effective in melee
- Not being combat alert in melee is dangerous, and yes I'd include being struck unconscious, paralyzed & sleeping as well as rummaging through your pouch.

I also don't think that there needs to be a universal solution to the above.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't really get it either, but I have seen numerous new players who have a very difficult time wrapping their heads around the idea that leaving a threatened square is what provokes. There's something about it that's really counter-intuitive for some people.

I can see that problem. And when you don have a grid, it even gets worse. But the three important cases are (repeating myself):

1. Running away from melee without retreating first.
2. Passing by someone. (here it really does not matter if you attack when he enters or leaves the threatened area)
3. Doing things in melee that are no melee attacks

I would add:
4. Beeing unable to defend yourself (aka helpless/stunned)

With those things, you easily have all the basic cases covered.

In 3rd edition you also have: trying a special maneuver without traing... (sure why not)
In 4e you have OAs if you are a defender and an enemy attacks an ally while you are threatening him.

I am sure i want that defender mechanic retained. And maybe the OA against special maneuvers were good too. I however believe, there should be no feat to circumvent that attack. Never. Too many special cases make this rule unwieldy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I also think that, at least for 4e, part of the problem with OAs was that they became once per turn, instead of once per round. It did simplify things in one respect; you no longer had to remember whether or not you'd already made an OA that round. However, it increased the number of OAs that could occur in a given round, significantly.

I don't have an issue with fighter types having such an ability (as they require it to do their job) but it doesn't make sense for most character types. I could see the wizard getting perhaps one OA in a 6 second round, but the wizard laying about him as a dozen opponents run past him gets a bit silly, IMO.

It's not a solution in and of itself, but I think limiting OAs to once per round for most classes would be a step in the right direction for streamlining combat.