OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[SoldierBlue]

Making AoOs fighter-specific also means taking them away from most monsters by default.

As you said, the issue is not when players get free attacks on monsters, it's when monsters get free attacks on PCs. With that in mind, I think #3 is the best option.

Whoops...my error - thanks for the catch. What I meant by Option #3 was to suggest that amongst PCs, only fighters had it, but that monsters with reach would have it as a default (I failed to make this explicit).

Good point - I guess if only specialist fighters had it (defenders, perhaps), that would work, but then I could envision it creeping in to monster stat blocks as a special ability, especially those with reach...

Also, I can see this being a unncessarily difficult sticking point amongst new players taking on the fighter (if indeed they chose a speciality with AoOs....)

No - I'd prefer it to remain a combat option for everyone in the game, monsters included, but not core...

 

[B.T.]

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.

To summarize why I would make it fighter only: because the fighter needs something special that only he can do. Once you start letting other classes do things because it's "just melee," the fighter quickly loses anything that makes him special (beyond having a higher attack bonus or more damage or something else that is not particularly interesting).

The other melee classes all have special mechanics unique to their classes--paladins smite, barbarians rage, rangers have an animal companion--that cannot be replicated by other classes. I don't think it hurts the game too much to let fighters be the only ones to make AoOs.

Now, if you want to get into how this would work in my Personal Fantasy Heartbreaker #8,047: I would make AoOs a special encounter ability that could be learned by melee classes but that the fighter started with automatically.

 

[SoldierBlue]

Not my preferred option (see above), but I can't argue with this - this is tight logic. The fighter does need some love, at least in terms of something unique to do...

Question - what about monsters? Do Large creatures threaten OAs/AoOs 10' out? Does that troll get OAs/AoOs, or only if he has a fighter template?

Play what you like, Gamer Nation!

 

[B.T.]

Not my preferred option (see above), but I can't argue with this - this is tight logic. The fighter does need some love, at least in terms of something unique to do...

Question - what about monsters? Do Large creatures threaten OAs/AoOs 10' out? Does that troll get OAs/AoOs, or only if he has a fighter template?

Play what you like, Gamer Nation!

That's a good question, and one I've been mulling over. I probably would not include AoOs on most monsters. If I were designing 5e, I would include AoOs as a fighter-only option in the PHB and then expand it as an optional rule in supplemental material, changing the fighter AoO power to give him a bonus on attack and damage rolls when make AoOs.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

To summarize why I would make it fighter only: because the fighter needs something special that only he can do.

Why should OA/AoO be where the fighter get something special?? This wasn't the case in all editions prior to 4E, the odd optional supplement excepted.

I don't think this is a good enough reason to take a universal mechanic that supports melee engagement and 'turn it off' all other melee combatants.

 

[FinalSonicX]

To me, opportunity attacks serve an incredibly important purpose in the game.

1. They prevent people from just walking around the melee folk/front line
2. They prevent people from using ranged weapons in melee
3. They prevent people from casting spells in melee
4. They make it hard to run away from someone if you get caught in melee

While AOOs are not necessarily the only way to serve these goals, I haven't heard any other better suggestions in this thread and I don't see too many inherent problems with the system itself to justify swapping it out for (in my eyes) equally flawed systems. My rebuttals of a lot of the points brought up against AOO's follow:

First of all, opportunity attacks DO prevent folks from casting or shooting in melee, even with 5 ft. steps. First off, the threatening warriors might have reach - in which case there's no simple escape. Second, multiple threatened areas can overlap or cover large ground, so a party attacked on two sides might threaten a mage even if they were to 5 ft. step "backwards".

Even if we ignore these points, there's a simple solution to ensure that the rule functions as intended: say that casting spells and shooting arrows begins at the start of a character's round. As a result, mages and archers would provoke AOOs before they can 5 ft. step if they cast or shoot arrows. This is the way I run it and it works great. I also make the concentration and Defensive casting DCs higher than normal - it makes casting in combat quite risky compared to defending and trying to move carefully towards allies. Moving in to fight someone (charge or otherwise) never provokes from the targeted enemy.

Second, I don't know how other people are having OAs slow combat down so much. It's very simple for my table of 4-5 players and runs quickly. Someone declares their actions, you point out the OAs and from whom (and if there's an obvious alternate route point it out and let them respond), roll all the dice, deal out damage, mark it, and move back to the players turn. Shouldn't take longer than a minute tops to handle all OAs in a combat round.

Third, a player's ability to understand a rule is only relevant if the rule is overly convoluted or poorly written. OA rules need not be either. How is it difficult to narrate an AOO? Why is a player having difficulty understanding the rules and why isn't the group helping them understand/offering alternatives?

my simple AOO rules:

If you do any of these in a threatened area, you provoke an AOO

leave a threatened area without disengaging (if disengaging is an option)
Run through a threatened area without attacking the threatening creature.
drink a potion
stand up
declare a spell
declare an attack with a ranged weapon

you never provoke from movement if you move 5 ft. or less in a round. Casters and archers must declare their spell casting/shooting at the start of their round if they are threatened because that is when these processes begin. Otherwise, they cannot take those actions.

What is difficult about this? I'm honestly curious where people are getting hung up.

Here's my list of things my thoughts for an AOO replacement mechanic's qualities:

1. It cannot simply say "NO" to a player or NPC. They should be able to try to get around someone, even if there are huge consequences that make it a bad option.
2. It cannot be class-exclusive. There are a lots of melee classes in the game and they all have a chance to contribute to holding the line, in my eyes.

If AOOs or some other mechanic for protecting areas of a combat area to protect the casters/others isn't in 5e, then that doesn't bode well for the system in my mind and it would seriously influence my decision to adopt 5e. I especially don't want AOOs to be a Fighter-only thing. In my games, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, and Rogues all make pretty heavy use of it. If another mechanic replaces it, it needs to serve the same purpose. Putting OA's in a module is fine as long as the module is well-balanced and well written. Streamlining the actual expression of the rules is fine - but we can't lose functionality just because we're concerned that some people have difficulty understanding it the first time they pick up the book (I've almost never understood half the rules I've read in any game I've ever played the first time I read the book).