OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Out of curiosity, who goes "OA fishing"? The nearest I've seen are provoke-tactics which are the equivalent of a gambit in chess. You want to be OA'd because you think it's bad for the monster. But that (a) is relying on the Defender's punishment and (b) is something the monster has complete control over. I don't see the ability to offer gambits that the monster need not accept to be a problem.

Now AoO fishing is another story. Just ask all the spiky-chain-death-trippers of doom. The something out of whack there with the mechanics is that standing up from prone provokes an AoO. So tripping someone effectively forces them to either provoke AoOs or to fight from down on the floor. Here's where the break is.

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?

First there's the genuine protection aspect. Second there's the "I want to face OAs". I don't want to make dancing a conga line round the enemy too easy - I want it to come with a sense of cool and a sense of achievement. Third there's the issue round flanking. I consider facing in a game using 6 second turns to be generally a mistake for bipeds as you can turn fast. (Unless in a pikeblock or shieldwall). But allow free movement and flanking becomes trivial. You need some sort of protection without completely eliminating flexibility.

It's not just the fighter who needs to be able to hold the battle line - the fighter should simply be very comfortably be best at it. Of course having the wizard as unable to make an AoO wouldn't be a problem. But I'd rather a default as yes here.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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).

Agreed. But daggers and throwing spears should be worse ranged weapons than bows. Their penalty is that by carrying weapons like that they are jack of all trades, master of none.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Out of curiosity, who goes "OA fishing"? The nearest I've seen are provoke-tactics which are the equivalent of a gambit in chess. You want to be OA'd because you think it's bad for the monster. But that (a) is relying on the Defender's punishment and (b) is something the monster has complete control over. I don't see the ability to offer gambits that the monster need not accept to be a problem.

Now AoO fishing is another story. Just ask all the spiky-chain-death-trippers of doom. The something out of whack there with the mechanics is that standing up from prone provokes an AoO. So tripping someone effectively forces them to either provoke AoOs or to fight from down on the floor. Here's where the break is.

People who have games with a ton of OAs may have OA fishing. Or maybe not. Perhaps their problems with OAs in this respect are exaggerated.

I was a bit nonplussed by the whole discussion around changing OAs from once per turn to once per enemy turn. I even missed that change for several months, but it made absolutely no difference for us. We'll have routinely maybe 2-4 OA per fight, with 7 players against double that many monsters. And it ain't because of lack of movement, nor me favoring the non-OA approach. When I have a monster that could easily go for the safe or aggressive route, I'll give some rough odds and roll a d6 to decide what the monster does.

Complaints about frequent opportunity attacks are a bit like complaints about, say, all those times the 3E fighter totally dominated the adventure and didn't let anyone else do anything. I see that, and think that something else, not expressed, must be happening.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I was a bit nonplussed by the whole discussion around changing OAs from once per turn to once per enemy turn. I even missed that change for several months, but it made absolutely no difference for us.

I think that was due to certain people twisting the spirit of the rules into a pretzel with synchronised timing. Or possibly with certain forms of mind control. Whatever it was it was something to stop an abuse under the rules as written that was not part of the rules as intended. And would get me in the DM's chair raising an eyebrow and saying "Nice trick. I'll allow it this once. Don't do it again."

 

[Sunseeker]

Absolutely NOT. OA's are the way to control the battlefield, to punish movement in melee, to give defendery-types a way to protect their allies and hold their ground.

You don't need minis or a grid for OAs. If a guy comes up and hits you with a sword, it's a pretty sure bet they're in melee, in such a case, if they move out of it, you get an OA. What do you need minis or a mat for that?

How are they complicated? Even wizards get OAs! They don't hit for much, but you still can.

 

[steeldragons]

@SteelDragon , My view on a lot of these type of issues is that there is a subtle design and development difference between these approaches:

1. Opportunity Attacks are not in the system. As an option, you can add them.
2. Opportunity Attacks are in the system. As an option, you can drop them.
3. Opportunity Attacks are in the system. As an option, you can ramp them up or down in importance, including ramping them down to effectively "never comes up in play, can safely ignore it."

My opinion is that if someone truly wants to satisfy as many people as possible, the third option is always superior. For some things, OAs among them, you might very well set the default position to "never comes up in play, can safely ignore it."

But saying that things can be "added" or "removed" seldom works out as well as people tend to expect.

And lest someone pick up on my reference to "dials" and take it overly literally, the exact means can include "on/off switches" and other mechanical means. I'm still saying it is better to have OAs in, but turned "off" by default, than to not have them in, but something you can add by module.

A crude example would be having an OA system, complete with provokes, and one of the options for what provokes an OA is "nothing".

I can totally get down with this. I am ALL FOR "complexity dials."

The crux of this working, then, goes back to the DMG making clear (and the PHB for players' understanding) that the dials might, can/are allowed "by the rules of 5e", and likely will be (for any number of mechanical things) turned down to "0" or up to "11" at the DM's discretion.

I just want, however they incorporate...many things, not just AoO/OA but alignment, feats, skills/how skill checks are performed, even things like Racial Abilities, Damage Reduction, et al. it to be understood that because the system of 5e "allows" for their use in this manner does not mean any DM using them in a different manner (be it turned up or toned down) is not "doing it wrong."

There MUST be some verbage or even consistent reminders in every mechanics explanation, that stipulates "the DM is permitted to use these 'guidelines' as much or as little as they feel the situation warrants."

The #1 thing, imho, to bring the D&D gamership (?) back together is to kill the rules lawyering! Bring the game back around to the players dealing with EACH OTHER...and that includes the DM (we's is players too, ya know! ...not players dealing with all of the minutia of the rules and using the "rules" to stranglehold the DM and hold a session at bay cuz they feel they're somehow being slighted.

D&D (of any edition) IS a social game...an interactive experience...before we ever had computers to be "interactive" with.<rolls eyes> Make it a "shared experience" again. Not Player 1 with their rule book. Player 2 with their rule book for their class. Player 3 with their rule book for some other class...oh yeah, and then the DMs there to handle the monsters that we are ENTITLED to kill...gods help you if it's not level appropriate. "How can I play a game that isn't level appropriate? My character has nothing to do against 8 goblins! The book says I only need to fight 5!"

We have a couple of editions now (though all of them are open to this) where "system mastery" is the goal. That's "fun" for some people...and I don't want to take that away from them. Knowing the rules is a GOOD thing and generally helpful. But I'm saying, I want "FUN" to be the goal. If your table/group is using modules XYZ with the dials set to A, B and C, respectively, that's a perfectly viable game and not "badwrongunfun" cuz the PHB sez so...I should be allowed to do K.

But that focus on "Us (or more often, "ME") vs. the DM mentality" regardless of your group, their characters, the game as a whole needs to be removed from the "rules" of the basic 5e game. Otherwise I do not believe 5e will be the Unification Edition it proposes to be...and I certainly hope will be.

--Steel "options, dials, options, dials" Dragons

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can totally get down with this. I am ALL FOR "complexity dials."

The crux of this working, then, goes back to the DMG making clear (and the PHB for players' understanding) that the dials might, can/are allowed "by the rules of 5e", and likely will be (for any number of mechanical things) turned down to "0" or up to "11" at the DM's discretion.

Absolutely. One of my reasons for preferring that such things be handled in dials, is that the range of the dial sets expectations for designer, playtester, and user alike. The presence of "zero" on the dial creates the idea in peoples' heads that you ought to be able to set it there, and it work well enough. That's not always true of things that get added or dropped. Or you can set it to something else. It will be different results at different settings, but each will work as intended.

And that's equally true of dials that only handle from "2 to 10". That says clear as day, "Hey, we made the dial as wide as we could. We maybe even tried it turned off, or turned up to 11, and it broke. You can do that if you want, but this game isn't designed to handle it."

It would be a fairly strange dial that had working options that were presented such that people thought, "we aren't supposed to do that, or choice B is somehow substandard." It happens all the time with optional material, though. Some will not want to use certain options, but that's fine of course.

We have a couple of editions now (though all of them are open to this) where "system mastery" is the goal. That's "fun" for some people...and I don't want to take that away from them. Knowing the rules is a GOOD thing and generally helpful. But I'm saying, I want "FUN" to be the goal. If your table/group is using modules XYZ with the dials set to A, B and C, respectively, that's a perfectly viable game and not "badwrongunfun" cuz the PHB sez so...I should be allowed to do K.

I'd like to see "system mastery" turn into, "we've tried the various knobs, dials, switches, levers, etc. enough and/or gained enough insight that we know how to set them to get the kind of game we want." So when someone has an issue with their game, helpful message board members can suggest, "Turn Dial A to 5, and try option B with it. See if that helps."

 

[Dausuul]

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.

First there's the genuine protection aspect. Second there's the "I want to face OAs". I don't want to make dancing a conga line round the enemy too easy - I want it to come with a sense of cool and a sense of achievement.

Throwing out another idea. What if OAs were something that had to be actively declared? Say you spend a move action to "hold the line." In return, you get an OA against anyone trying to move past you, and a hit stops them cold. If you aren't holding the line, you don't get OAs.

Then, in a situation where it's important for Combatant X to get to Point Y, opponents can use "hold the line" actions to try and keep Combatant X at bay, creating tactical challengey goodness. In situations where positioning isn't a big deal, we don't have to deal with it. And newbies won't meet OAs as a random "gotcha"--the DM must announce that a monster is holding the line, which cues the newbie to ask what that means.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Throwing out another idea. What if OAs were something that had to be actively declared? Say you spend a move action to "hold the line." In return, you get an OA against anyone trying to move past you, and a hit stops them cold. If you aren't holding the line, you don't get OAs.

I'm fine with that as a move action. There's a certain amount of good gaming symmetry and also a nod to realism that a character can use his "move" to either move or try to deny others the ability to move.

You'd still have the issue of making the OA sufficiently threatening to work, but that's true in any such system, and not a problem with this idea in particular. I can see some misguided application of the symmetry part happening here, if someone wasn't careful. Defense should still be "cheaper" than offense, and that includes the action economy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Attacks of Opportunity/Opportunity Attacks need to go, for two simple reasons:

1) They are complex in such a way that they deter new players. Hell, they even deter old players. I GM'd a campaign with experienced players last summer, and it was shocking how many didn't get the concept. There is in fact a thread on the 3.5 Legacy forum right now, where experienced gamers are still wrestling with the concept. It may sound simple - "You draw an attack when you leave a threatened square" - but it is not intuitive for a large percentage of players.

Cross-posted (more or less) from the OA thread in General.

I came across an interesting idea today while reading about the Scratch RP System. Therein, if you provoke an OA, the provoked may make a free attack. However, this attack does not deal damage. Rather, should you hit, the target's action is denied and his turn ends.

Instead of 2 rolls (attack and damage) and tracking (hp), you have one simple roll. Most groups would likely only see a modest, if any, improvement in combat speed. However, I like simpler and faster, and I think it would really help any group that has the type of player that has to add up his combat modifiers every single time he rolls damage. I've witnessed those firsthand on more than one occasion.

Instead of a high hp enemy strolling past you in a blase manner regardless of whether you hit him or not, players can actually interpose themselves by denying movement. Also, if OAs did end one's turn, that would certainly be a reason to think twice before provoking one. Action denial is way harsher than damage, in most cases.

Features or feats could also modify how this rule works. Fighters might roll damage on a successful OA, while characters with the mobility feat would lose their action but not their turn when hit by an OA (allowing them to try again if they have any actions remaining).

Overall, I'm not certain whether it addresses the complexity issue, but I think it might. There's something about:

P- I walk away from the orc.
D- Okay, but he gets a roll to try to stop you.

that strikes me as being a bit more intuitive than:

P- I walk away from the orc.
D- Okay, but he gets to make a free attack against you.