OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[Alzrius]

I'm definitely on board with getting rid of Ao's! We don't need no stinkin' "overgods" in our campaign settings! They just-

*re-reads thread title*

Oh...whoops. My mistake. Carry on then.

 

[steeldragons]

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

OA is very easy to play without a grid.

Same way we always did? The 4 "M's" of running combat.
1. Movement
2. Missile
3. Magic
4. Melee
(4a or 5: Missile a second time for long and short bows)

The mages have to stay back, think clearly and concentrate. If they get hit before their spell goes off *fizzle city*. Practically any average-intelligence foe is going to know that when the guy in the robes starts waving his hands and mumbling weird syllables, "AH! She's using magic!!! Try to hit her if you can!"

And pretty much any adventuring melee fighter knows (or should) that even if you're a "swordsman" or an "axeman" or whatever, you should be carrying a spear or javelin or shortbow, a light crossbow or something to hit things (in this case goblinoid shaman, witch-doctors, evil cultists or wizards) from afar if/when you have to.

No, obviously, this doesn't "balance" everything...but it worked mighty fine for a long while.
--SD

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Same way we always did? The 4 "M's" of running combat.
1. Movement
2. Missile
3. Magic
4. Melee
(4a or 5: Missile a second time for long and short bows)

The mages have to stay back, think clearly and concentrate. If they get hit before their spell goes off *fizzle city*. Practically any average-intelligence foe is going to know that when the guy in the robes starts waving his hands and mumbling weird syllables, "AH! She's using magic!!! Try to hit her if you can!"

But that's not the only part in the melee/magic balance. How does the Fighter stop the "average-intelligence foe" from just ignoring him and moving around him to whack the Wizard?

 

[groklynn]

I think that opportunity mechanics should be locked within unique powers/feats/actions for "martial classes" as different kinds of ripostes and counterattacks. as for the casters they've got their feather falls, dispels, etc. and they don't really need opportunity actions in melee, it's kinda strange that casting-oriented character acts like a warmonger/slasher/killer kind of melee dude. so - keep AoO as is and make it as a feature of non-casters in a "classic" way, and add some immediate spells for casters (e.g. shield could be immediate, or invisibility, to make casters more reflex/spontaneous/cinematic but less melee-ish)

 

[dkyle]

I'm not clear on what's so complicated about them. If you leave a spot where an enemy is able to a attack you in melee, then they get to attack you before you leave. Maybe there are some major complications in 3.5 that I never dealt with, but in 4E, they're very simple. Even the least tactics and rules minded players in my group never had a problem with them.

They're also easy to use without a grid. Just base it on "engagement" instead of positioning. If someone has attacked another, or been attacked, they are engaged with each other. If either leaves engagement, the other gets to attack. Lots of systems meant to be played without a grid use those sorts of mechanics.

OAs add a lot to the game. And (now it's this 4E fan's turn to say this) it just wouldn't feel like DnD without them!

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Opportunity Attacks mechanically represent the "shield wall" tactic. They are the primary means melee characters and enemies use to prevent the other side from reaching the squishies in back, while at the same time reflecting the advantage melee has against ranged when in their face.

If removed, these things must be replaced by other mechanics. DM fiat is not a substitute.

Personally, I've never found them complicated or difficult to understand, and have been using them since I started playing with 2E

 

[steeldragons]

But that's not the only part in the melee/magic balance. How does the Fighter stop the "average-intelligence foe" from just ignoring him and moving around him to whack the Wizard?

Standing in front of them?

As I said, I am aware that is not covering everything, but it does cover a great big chunk of "what happens/how things happen in melee" and then flavor/fluff to taste.

We could sit here all day, probably til the end of days, and discuss, "Well, what about this circumstance?" and "Nuh uh, what about that scenario?" But going individual round by separate corner case is not going to get anyone anywhere...and we'd NEVER see a 5e get finished.

I suppose its a playstyle thing, but if there are combatants in front of the mage, I never let the enemies just waltz around them to take a swing at the wizard. If they have missile weapons and want to try to shoot passed the melee folks, that fine. But they can't just race by the fighter for the wizard instead...there's 3 dimensions of armored fury to get by first.

Part of the reason a "marching order" was always so important to have/maintain, I suppose...a party's standard operating procedure, as it were.

There's situation-to-situation circumstances, of course. If it's a large or outdoor area and the party just wandered into an ambush from both of their flanks, then, yeah, obviously the attackers will be able to go straight for whoever they want. But in a "face-to-face" dungeon kind of encounter, there's probably not enough room for them to "just go around/ignore" whoever is in front.

There can not, nor should attempt to, be rules for every possible permutation/scenario that might/could possibly occur in game. That way leads to confusion, eventual contradiction and almost certain madness.

The piling/layering of optional modules may add complexity at a rate that any player/group desires...and if your threshold for complexity (and/or madness ) is higher than the group down the street, then have at it and enjoy.

The rules don't have to, again, nor should say "everyone must apply this level complexity to their game." They need to say, "Here is the bare bones basic simplest framework of the game. Any game of 5e D&D uses this starting framework" and go/add on from there.

OA/AoO are not that "bare bones/simplest possible" mode of playing...with or without the use of grids or miniatures. Hence, optional module. Tack it on when you like...tack it on all of the time...don't tack it on at all. Up to you/your DM/table/group.

--SD

 

[CM]

Never had a problem with them, and I feel they are a good addition to the game. The only time we have trouble occasionally is some players forget that in 4e, standing up from prone does not provoke while in 3e it does.

Part of me doesn't like how easy it is for 4e casters to gain the ability to no longer provoke while casting, but I think that's just a knee-jerk reaction to the OP horrors of 3e spellcasters.

 

[hemera]

Always liked them, but to be honest I don't think I've seen that many in use. It seems most monsters are tactical GENIUSES apparently. Most of the AoOs I've seen have come up from either drinking potions, casting, or special combat actions. Rarely movement, as most people seem to adopt the pawn 5' approach to combat.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Standing in front of them?

As I said, I am aware that is not covering everything, but it does cover a great big chunk of "what happens/how things happen in melee" and then flavor/fluff to taste.

We could sit here all day, probably til the end of days, and discuss, "Well, what about this circumstance?" and "Nuh uh, what about that scenario?" But going individual round by separate corner case is not going to get anyone anywhere...and we'd NEVER see a 5e get finished.

I suppose its a playstyle thing, but if there are combatants in front of the mage, I never let the enemies just waltz around them to take a swing at the wizard. If they have missile weapons and want to try to shoot passed the melee folks, that fine. But they can't just race by the fighter for the wizard instead...there's 3 dimensions of armored fury to get by first.

Part of the reason a "marching order" was always so important to have/maintain, I suppose...a party's standard operating procedure, as it were.

There's situation-to-situation circumstances, of course. If it's a large or outdoor area and the party just wandered into an ambush from both of their flanks, then, yeah, obviously the attackers will be able to go straight for whoever they want. But in a "face-to-face" dungeon kind of encounter, there's probably not enough room for them to "just go around/ignore" whoever is in front.

There can not, nor should attempt to, be rules for every possible permutation/scenario that might/could possibly occur in game. That way leads to confusion, eventual contradiction and almost certain madness.

The piling/layering of optional modules may add complexity at a rate that any player/group desires...and if your threshold for complexity (and/or madness ) is higher than the group down the street, then have at it and enjoy.

The rules don't have to, again, nor should say "everyone must apply this level complexity to their game." They need to say, "Here is the bare bones basic simplest framework of the game. Any game of 5e D&D uses this starting framework" and go/add on from there.

OA/AoO are not that "bare bones/simplest possible" mode of playing...with or without the use of grids or miniatures. Hence, optional module. Tack it on when you like...tack it on all of the time...don't tack it on at all. Up to you/your DM/table/group.

--SD

As I said before, I don't consider DM fiat to be a good substitute for what AoO/OA mechanically provides.