OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[YRUSirius]

You mean the exact same role as the fighter?

The cleric, ranger and barbarian have the same role as the fighter in the battle?

The cleric's role might be to support the whole group, and he does this with buffing the group, healing the group, etc.

The ranger might single out an enemy on the battlefield and hunts him down, either with melee or ranged attacks.

The barbarian rushes forward while raging trying to inflict terrible, terrible damage.



Does their role in combat really have to overlap with the fighter's role in the combat? If any of these classes should have something similiar as the fighter's opportunity attack class feature, it should be the paladin, but give him something specific like opportunity smite or something.

-YRUSirius

 

[Sunseeker]

The cleric, ranger and barbarian have the same role as the fighter in the battle?

The cleric's role might be to support the whole group, and he does this with buffing the group, healing the group, etc.

The Cleric when specced into a "melee hitter" setup, yes.
The Barbarian because he's in your face with a big honkin weapon.
The Paladin because he's basically a divine fighter.
I would really hate to see the cleric's only role as "support", I hate the "support" roles in any game, it's such a waste.

The ranger might single out an enemy on the battlefield and hunts him down, either with melee or ranged attacks.

I generally regard the ranger as a ranged attacker, otherwise he's a heavy rogue or a light fighter.
As a light fighter, I would say the ranger should have AoO, as a ranged build, he should get something else, as a heavy rogue, he should get something else.

Does their role in combat really have to overlap with the fighter's role in the combat? If any of these classes should have something similiar as the fighter's opportunity attack class feature, it should be the paladin, but give him something specific like opportunity smite or something.

-YRUSirius

I would say so. Any mainly-martial class should get AoO, perhaps there is some variance in how their AoO's work, when they get them and so on, but I certainly think that anyone with a big weapon, a big shield or the skill to know when to strike should get an AoO.

That's why I would generally break the AoO line between "mainly caster" and "mainly melee". Melee dudes get AoO, caster dudes don't. There would be specific exclusions and inclusions, but on the whole that's how I'd draw the line at the base.

But hey that's just IMO. I think most melee classes overlap with the fighter a lot more than you are giving them credit for. Not all fighters are intent on battlefield control. I think this is best demonstrated between the Knight and the Slayer in essentials. Both get AoO's, but the Knight's "Defender aura" allows him to do them much more often, because he's using those attacks as a means of battlefield control, while the slayer is using their attacks as a means to beat you up for doing something stupid. In WoW terms, the Knight is using his AoO's as a taunt to keep aggro, he's not gonna kill you with AoO, just keep you from killing anyone else. The Slayer is just sneaking in some free lucky hits.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Keep 'em. I like 'em, they're fun, and would miss them. Optional module is fine.

The only problem for me, with OA, is that I (the DM), and a lot of my players, think very tactically, so we have had about 5 OA in 7 years.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Personally I really really want to see the Paladin move away from the glowing divine light back to the threat that makes much better sense - the weapon in their hand that they're trying to kill people with.

AoO, OA or whatever mechanic should imo take the form of a universal combat feature, as it has been throughout all the editions from 1E on.

 

[Incenjucar]

The only problem for me, with OA, is that I (the DM), and a lot of my players, think very tactically, so we have had about 5 OA in 7 years.

OAs are supposed to make you act tactically, so that's working as intended.

 

[B.T.]

So what about the Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger and even Cleric?

Basically what about the other melee characters??

Paladin has smite/spells, ranger has spells/animal companion, barbarian has rage, and cleric is strong enough as-is.

 

[YRUSirius]

Not all fighters are intent on battlefield control. I think this is best demonstrated between the Knight and the Slayer in essentials. Both get AoO's, but the Knight's "Defender aura" allows him to do them much more often, because he's using those attacks as a means of battlefield control, while the slayer is using their attacks as a means to beat you up for doing something stupid.

That's why I'd only give the "Guardian/Knight" fighter this OA class feature. The other classes would get other iconic class features.

-YRUSirius

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

The only problem for me, with OA, is that I (the DM), and a lot of my players, think very tactically, so we have had about 5 OA in 7 years.

When I was last playing a high AC character in 3E I would not uncommonly provoke AoOs. I'd do it to clear a path for allies to follow or to take a flanking position. A high AC & good HPs are strengths to be exploited, and the free basic attack is not always enough deterrent.

 

[Sunseeker]

That's why I'd only give the "Guardian/Knight" fighter this OA class feature. The other classes would get other iconic class features.

-YRUSirius

Eh, my mistake, apparently cavilers can't take Mighty Challenge because it applies to "divine challenge" not the defender aura. That's a little more balanced I guess, I'd probably house-rule it to let people take it though. It's a pretty obvious upgrade.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Paladin has smite/spells, ranger has spells/animal companion, barbarian has rage, and cleric is strong enough as-is.

But what has that to do with them in combat when their opponent drops their guard?

If the fighter is quick enough to take advantage & run them through, surely the Paladin isn't a slouch in this department? I could well imagine a frenzied Barbarian would hack a bit more if the opponent began to rout.

Saying 'fighter only' doesn't make sense when what we're talking about combatants dropping their guard for whatever reason in melee.

If you are saying fighters can train in techniques to further punish foes who drop their guard, I'm fine with that. I'd add that this training should be accessible to any melee character - we are talking non-magical training here. On the other hand I am also open to and support the idea that due to extensive specialized martial training, the Fighter is more easily able to reach their fighting potential sooner.

I'd imagine that their would be grand mastery techniques accessible to the very skilled, and the fighter would generally begin these before the other melee classes.