OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[JRRNeiklot]

You also couldn't play an Elven Cleric, but I'd rather leave the days of nonsensical restrictions in the past.

Yes, thank god those days are gone. Playing an anthropomorphic whale halfdragon/halfillithid/halfsuccubus fighter/cleric/oozemaster/order of the munchkin with the were-t-rex template is MUCH better.

 

[Doug McCrae]

2) It obligates playing on a mat.

We managed to play 3e okay without a battlemat, we trusted the GM to make the calls regarding AoO, flanking, etc.

I would say make them a modularized option, but that won't work - once you've got 'em in, they change too many disparate aspects of the game.

I don't see any reason why they can't be in a module. Their presence doesn't, to me, seem to have a particularly large effect on the game. Certainly no more so than, say critical hits, or non-magical rapid healing, both likely module candidates, and less than feats or skills.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My biggest problem with AoO in 3e is that it was too easy as a caster to avoid them. Five foot step backwards, or defensive casting (the DC for defensive casting was far too low imo). AoO *should* have been a great leveller for casters in 3e, but in practice they weren't.

 

[Dausuul]

My biggest problem with AoO in 3e is that it was too easy as a caster to avoid them. Five foot step backwards, or defensive casting (the DC for defensive casting was far too low imo). AoO *should* have been a great leveller for casters in 3e, but in practice they weren't.

Agreed, and 4E is no better. You just shift and cast. All that the OA does is punish you for moving more than 5 feet. 4E has become loaded down with abilities that let you shift as part of doing something, or shift multiple squares, presumably as a way to loosen up combat and keep it mobile--when that goal could be much more easily achieved by scrapping the OA and replacing it with a narrowly focused "allow the fighter to protect the squishies" mechanic.

 

[the Jester]

Yes, thank god those days are gone. Playing an anthropomorphic whale halfdragon/halfillithid/halfsuccubus fighter/cleric/oozemaster/order of the munchkin with the were-t-rex template is MUCH better.

Oh come on now, that's a total strawman. Surely you see that "elven cleric" is a far cry from "anthropomorphic whale halfdragon/halfillithid/halfsuccubus fighter/cleric/oozemaster/order of the munchkin with the were-t-rex template".

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But a basic attack might not be very valuable when trying to protect the wizard and stop opponents from getting around the blocker. I think that's one of the complaints leveled about the fighter in 3e and how well (or poorly from the perspective of those making the argument) he actually performs as a blocker. Without some kind of additional benefit, does an OA actually do enough?

In 3E it could result in death and at the very least puts the risk-taken closer to death if hit. But, you're right I wish it had done more when a skilled warrior used an OA. In comes:

For some builds of 4e fighters, a successful OA stops the opponents move action (though he can immediately start back up if he has another suitable action left).

Although if he does he is unable to attack without an action point.

The close to melee action helps. He can either take his attacks on the guy he's engaged with, or move to engage, but not attack, the wizard.

The passage you quoted was intended to be an unengaged foe moving past the Fighter to attack the Wizard.

Either way, I don't recall the rules requiring you to spend a whole round moving to engage a foe and then not be able to attack.

Yes, thank god those days are gone. Playing an anthropomorphic whale halfdragon/halfillithid/halfsuccubus fighter/cleric/oozemaster/order of the munchkin with the were-t-rex template is MUCH better.

If you equate an Elven Cleric with such a monstrosity then I apologize for offending your sensibilities.

Besides, older editions had equally silly things roaming the world than example above.

Besides my beside, the ECLs on your example would make your proposed character quite pathetically weak, so have at it whale-man. I tell my players "yes" and let them find out for themselves how horrible it is to get what you wished for.

Besides^3, I agree there need to be sensical restrictions. And in some cases, even ones I consider nonsensical in a generic sense, like Elven Clerics, can be sensical in the context of a campaign world. But you need to give me a better reason than "they just don't" to satisfy me because adventurers, to me, are the ones that do the things others of their kind don't.

 

[avin]

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.

So, you want to speed up combat but you want DDN to have interruptions? I have seen a lot of folks around saying we should completely get rid of interruptions to speed up game.

Unless we are talking about long casting times, which isn't true for 3E and 4E.

I think 3E was balanced assuming a melee could interrupt with a Delay action and AoO which were countered by Concentration Checks.

4E had even more interrupting tools.

In my humble opinion OAs should stay.

 

[Fanaelialae]

One way to simplify OAs would be to make them automatic. If you provoke an OA, you take X damage (no roll). X Could be something like 25% of the max damage of your basic attack. Defender types could have their own special feature, modifying that.

It would be very easy to add a module to that explaining how to use rolled OAs.

Personally, I don't think that someone should be able to make an OA in a turn they took damage in. Whether you define a successful attack as an injury or a very near miss, it would still be very difficult to recover from that in order to suddenly exploit your opponent's vulnerabilities. Perhaps an experienced fighter might have it in him to do so, but certainly not a lesser skilled opponent.

Allowing a successful attack to deny an OA might in turn encourage more movement.

 

[P1NBACK]

Oh come on now, that's a total strawman. Surely you see that "elven cleric" is a far cry from "anthropomorphic whale halfdragon/halfillithid/halfsuccubus fighter/cleric/oozemaster/order of the munchkin with the were-t-rex template".

Wait, this is a strawman, but using "Elven Cleric" as a reason why a rule is bad because it's from a system that didn't have Elven Clerics is not a strawman? Wtf? At least this argument is rooted in reason.

And, why can't you play an Elven Cleric in any edition of D&D? Create an Elven Cleric class. The end.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not attached to the AoO itself so much as I believe there should be mechanics for moving past enemies you're engaged with and performing ranged actions in spells in melee. If AoOs are to be removed, they must be replaced with something more than DM fiat.

Ok. So...Why?...and What?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or obtuse. But you haven't stated either "why" or "what" in any of your postings...just that you don't want DM fiat in the game? You need some mechanics to play "properly"? "Realistically"? What?...and "optional module for you to add into your games" is not good enough, from what it sounds like, for you. So, why not?

Convince me that AoO (or some similar mechanic) is necessary as an integral built-in part of the "core" basic game. You may be right...I don't know. But "no Dm fiat" isn't really an answer when plenty of people/games have been able to do so without said crunch carved in stone in the system.

Again, to each their own, "everyone play what/how you like (with these various option modules)" sounds fine and dandy to me.
--SD