OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[Fanaelialae]

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.

That could help. An explanation in realistic terms would probably make more sense to some players than game terminology. I don't know that it fully addresses the issue, however. My suspicion is that it has more to do with information overload than being unable to parse game terms.

I think the direction I might go would be to grant full OA to bodyguard type warriors, once per round OAs to other types of front-line fighters, and no OAs to non-warriors. (Perhaps non-warriors could acquire the ability to make OAs with a feat, or some such.)

Then only the more well-trained enemies would have OAs, allowing the DM to moderate their use if his players are struggling with the concept.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe here, the most easy thing is making that the weapon property. In 3rd edition, only wielding a melee weapon allowed you to threaten a square.

Why not just say, that typical caster weapons don threaten without proper training.
Or maybe your solution is ok. I would however define standard:

-> one opportunity attack per round, if you wield at least a martial weapon.

Fighter: You may make OAs with all weapons and may take one against each enemy.

 

[Umbran]

1) They don't need to be complex.

2) They don't need to require playing on a mat.

Agreed. To elaborate slightly:

The implementation in 3e and 4e puts a whole lot of mechanics around positioning in addition to the AoO itself, and that is what necessitates the mat. Back in 1e, we were playing with a, "if you get into melee range, and muck about not actually fighting the guy, he's going to get a chance to whack you," rule.

It is only when the rules then put in seventeen ways to either force or avoid this to happen, and those ways are described in terms of 5' squares, do you need a mat.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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).

"Take you level in hit point damage and get to break the default rules of this campaign, in manner X" is not a bad general purpose way to handle any kind of optional, semi-dangerous bit that the table really doesn't want to mess with most of the time, but still allow as possible. I could see that applying well beyond OAs. In some ways, it would be better if it did apply widely, because then it would become a more natural-seeming mechanic.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

An attempt by players to go "OA fishing", same as with "Critical fishing" or "Save or Die fishing" or any number of such "Push it until it breaks fishing" things--is a sign that something is out of whack with the mechanic. Might not be the same something in every case, and might not even be that terrible in the whole scheme of things--probably isn't, in fact--but such fishing is definitely a sign that something is off at least a little.

It doesn't help any that the first instinct in such instances is always to either address the symptoms instead of the cause, or merely throw the whole thing out in frustration.

 

[SkidAce]

I think taking the risk and trying to get past an opponent is an option you should be able to attempt.

Key word attempt. That fighter might be a bad ass or lucky, and stops you cold with his OA.

So while I like KM's idea, a chance of not making it through no matter how carefully you move should exist.


----------

 

[Dausuul]

Question. Everyone seems very focused on the idea of being able to stop/hinder movement with OAs. Is this important in itself, or is it purely a means to the end of "the fighter can protect the squishy wizard?" From the point of view of the guy making the OA, what do you want that capability for?

Another question. Is it necessary for everyone to be able to make OAs? Or could it perhaps work as a special ability that only certain combatants (e.g., fighters, defendery monsters) have?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hmm... I'd reduce the OA conditions to just leaving a threatened square/turning your back on a foe. Simple and easy to remember. (Or possibly even leaving a foe's threat area). That way we don't need to call it something abstract like an AoO. Disengaging when using gridless play therefore becomes a move action and replaces the 5 foot step.

As for punishing people for doing silly things with bows or casting in melee, an AC penalty per hand not engaged in the melee should handle that nicely. Or even just that bows and other ranged weapons should be inferior to melee weapons - a greatbow doing about equivalent damage to a longsword so people don't want to be there - it gives up their advantage. No need for any direct punishment for this at all.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Question. Everyone seems very focused on the idea of being able to stop/hinder movement with OAs. Is this important in itself, or is it purely a means to the end of "the fighter can protect the squishy wizard?" From the point of view of the guy making the OA, what do you want that capability for?

For me, it is important in itself. Protecting the wizard is merely an easy example of why. But in general, I prefer that the system encourage movement, unopposed. Then it is up to the combatants to discourage that movement and its advantages. Swinging on the chandelier is easy. Doing it without Sheena the Barbarian taking your head off with her great axe is the hard part. The history of traditional gaming has largely been the other way. Sheena ain't that much of a threat to your swinging, but your lousy dexterity/balance/agilty/chandelier swinging skill is.

 

[Fanaelialae]

As for punishing people for doing silly things with bows or casting in melee, an AC penalty per hand not engaged in the melee should handle that nicely. Or even just that bows and other ranged weapons should be inferior to melee weapons - a greatbow doing about equivalent damage to a longsword so people don't want to be there - it gives up their advantage. No need for any direct punishment for this at all.

An interesting approach, but I don't think this would work all that well. A person throwing spears or daggers would be unhindered (because they're also melee weapons).