OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[JamesonCourage]

I prefer it as a feat. But I also like more feats than once every 2 or 3 levels, too. So, I'm one of those "complexity" guys. As always, play what you like

 

[Mattachine]

I used them, without calling them as such, back in AD&D: you get attacked if you flee in melee, or if you cast spells or use ranged weapons when in melee. No grid was needed, though there would be the occasional discussion of whether or not a given combatant was "in melee".

Still, one thing always bothered me: how come unconscious/helpless targets don't (in any edition) draw attacks of opportunity?

 

[Minigiant]

I understand the reason for have AoO/Oppy attacks. They keep people from doing distancing actions while a guy with a sword in your face.

So just Ban doing Distracting/nonMelee Action when people have swords in your face.

Then add modules if you really want to do the action anyway.
1) AoO
2) Some sort of saving throw
3) Something else

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me OAs are simple. "Don't take your eye off enemies in swords' reach of you or you will be smacked". Don't walk away from them. Don't try to use a distance weapon or attack. And don't do anything else stupid. AoOs are a little more complicated but only a little as they also include "Don't try stunts you don't have special training for" like grapple or trip without a feat, or just standing up. And in my experience it's this slight extra complication of the AoO that adds most of the problems.

Pathfinder Beginner Box has a replacement for AoOs and a glaring weakness. And older editions of D&D had AoOs. The Beginners Box replacement is a "You can't do that" - you can't shoot in melee. Rather than allowing you to at the penalty of an AoO/OA. And older editions had what was an AoO in all but name for trying to disengage. The glaring weakness in the Beginners Box is that monsters can brush past the fighter to splat the spellcaster.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think they should be part of a larger set of out-of-turn actions.

(But simple. You don't need a grid.)

 

[pemerton]

If you don't have out-of-turn actions, then you need to drop turn-based initiative. Turn-based initiative without out-of-turn actions turns the game into some strange stop-motion world.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To me OAs are simple. "Don't take your eye off enemies in swords' reach of you or you will be smacked". Don't walk away from them. Don't try to use a distance weapon or attack. And don't do anything else stupid. AoOs are a little more complicated but only a little as they also include "Don't try stunts you don't have special training for" like grapple or trip without a feat, or just standing up. And in my experience it's this slight extra complication of the AoO that adds most of the problems.

Pathfinder Beginner Box has a replacement for AoOs and a glaring weakness. And older editions of D&D had AoOs. The Beginners Box replacement is a "You can't do that" - you can't shoot in melee. Rather than allowing you to at the penalty of an AoO/OA. And older editions had what was an AoO in all but name for trying to disengage. The glaring weakness in the Beginners Box is that monsters can brush past the fighter to splat the spellcaster.

I wouldn't mind a way to play without OA rules, provided it didn't wreak havoc with the rules.

As to the Beginner Box problem, one solution is to simply make moving adjacent to an enemy stop your movement action. Or simply grant OAs to fighter types as a class feature.

 

[steeldragons]

They should be an optional module.

This.

If I understand correctly, 5E core rules won't require battlegrid and miniatures. (Is this confirmed?)

We can certainly hope so.

I don't think it has been confirmed, but the proposed simple-complex optional module thing would seem to indicate that you will be able to play the game without them, with them, with/-out them sometimes, etc...as desired.

I'd say Opportunity Attacks are a prime example for the "option in the tactical module that you can drop in your game if you like that sort of thing".

Precxactly!

I prefer it as a feat. But I also like more feats than once every 2 or 3 levels, too. So, I'm one of those "complexity" guys. As always, play what you like

I could see this too....as an optional way to implement them without having to go along with the whole "tactical-heavy module" (presuming there will be one). Furthermore, I could see wanting to use it sometimes and others not...or playing with a group who wants to use them all of the time, as such (a feat available to some or maybe all classes), without adopting the whole hog "tactical options".

Again, simple to complex or how simple/complex will, hopefully, be a matter of individual table/group taste...and we shall all, forever more, with the "official" backing of the book/system, be able to play as we like without ever again having to have debates/arguments about "but the rules say xyz, ergo that is the goodrightfun." Oh what a glorious edition it shall be!

--SD

 

[avin]

So, we remove OAs and how we balance melee with casters?

OA is very easy to play without a grid.

 

[keterys]

At one point I was pondering how to remove OAs, cause my wife wanted mapless easier, and my thought was that if you're engaged by a melee enemy (ie, someone who is trying to get in your face) then you're at -5 to attack with ranged/area abilities and movement is effectively slowed for the turn.

Could do something similar, maybe even switch things up and allow people to either take the -5 or "Grant every enemy a basic melee attack against you". That way the choice is theirs but it's still simple.