OAs/AoO - they gotta go

[Crazy Jerome]

I also think that any kind of "Major Kaboom!" magic should take at least 2 rounds to fully use. Or more precisely, the action economy should force it to take 2 round duration to fully release, such as taking two standard actions, even if you could still move and do other minor things in the meantime. Then, if you happen to include some more minor, repeatable magic, like the 4E at-wills, for flavor, that can be allowed to happen at the usual speed. Plus, some defensive magic might not even take a standard action.

Not only will that reign in major magic while letting it be major magic, it changes underpinnings of combat such that a lot of fiddly stuff becomes unnecessary. You don't need OAs or readied actions or 5-steps to avoid them when the way to mess up "Prismatic Gandalf" is to keep smacking him on your turn. That doesn't, of course, fully solve how the fighter keeps the orcs off of the wizard (makes it harder in some ways even though the wizard can always use the smaller stuff), but it does open up some interesting design room that could be used to let the fighter fulfill that role, and perhaps have more fun in the process.

That could also be extended to intricate combat maneuvers, by the way, not merely restricted to magic. If you do the big stuff, it takes at least two standards to do it.

 

[Argyle King]

While I prefer the way other games handle such things, the way D&D is set up to work in combat makes me prefer having OAs in D&D to not having them.

What would be the drawback to just using a ranged weapon all the time without OAs?



I don't find them to be very complicated -even in 3rd edition. They are not the most elegant solution to handling some combat issues. If the game had a little more granularity when it came to the differences to different weapons (especially ranges vs melee) and/or had active defenses, I would be more inclined to ditch OAs. However, most people wouldn't feel the game which would result would still be D&D. As such; things being what they are, and D&D being D&D, I want to keep OAs.

I think it would be easier and more consistent for the core game to assume they are there and then have individual groups ignore the rules for them than it would be for the core game to assume they aren't there and have different groups implement them via DM fiat.

 

[P1NBACK]

While I prefer the way other games handle such things, the way D&D is set up to work in combat makes me prefer having OAs in D&D to not having them.

What would be the drawback to just using a ranged weapon all the time without OAs?

Here's one: a ranged attack takes a full round (i.e. no movement that round). You have to ready the weapon (pull an arrow from the quiver, knock it), aim the weapon and then fire it. So, sorry. You cannot move while doing so.

Or, whatever.

Sure, AoO may be necessary for 3E and 4E... But, 5E doesn't have to follow the same sort of mechanics. There can be 1000 other ways to handle these problems...

I don't find them to be very complicated -even in 3rd edition. They are not the most elegant solution to handling some combat issues. If the game had a little more granularity when it came to the differences to different weapons (especially ranges vs melee) and/or had active defenses, I would be more inclined to ditch OAs. However, most people wouldn't feel the game which would result would still be D&D. As such; things being what they are, and D&D being D&D, I want to keep OAs.

People keep saying "I don't think AoOs are complicated". Well, they aren't. They are not complicated.

What they are is time consuming. Another thing to track, another action to remember, another turn someone gets to take...

They are far from the most elegant solution to the problem.

I think it would be easier and more consistent for the core game to assume they are there and then have individual groups ignore the rules for them than it would be for the core game to assume they aren't there and have different groups implement them via DM fiat.

I disagree. Assuming they are there assumes tons of other things...

Wouldn't it be easier for groups who like AoO to just add that extra complexity in?

 

[Dausuul]

What would be the drawback to just using a ranged weapon all the time without OAs?

Come on, people, can we please stop pretending that OAs/AoOs are a serious impediment for casters and archers? What they do is make you shift (in 4E) or 5-foot step (in 3E), and then do your thing. That's it. That's all. You lose a move action that probably wasn't going to do much for you anyway, since you're a ranged attacker and don't need to move around to hit your target. The only time it becomes an issue is when the enemy has reach or you're somehow prevented from shifting.

The sole function of OAs is to hinder movement and make combat more static. I remain amazed that so many people think this is a good thing. If you want a mechanic for one PC to guard another, then implement a mechanic for one PC to guard another. We don't need sweeping rules that reshape the battlefield to fulfill that one very limited objective.

 

[P1NBACK]

Come on, people, can we please stop pretending that OAs/AoOs are a serious impediment for casters and archers? What they do is make you shift (in 4E) or 5-foot step (in 3E), and then do your thing. That's it. That's all. You lose a move action that probably wasn't going to do much for you anyway, since you're a ranged attacker and don't need to move around to hit your target. The only time it becomes an issue is when the enemy has reach or you're somehow prevented from shifting.

The sole function of OAs is to hinder movement and make combat more static. I remain amazed that so many people think this is a good thing. If you want a mechanic for one PC to guard another, then implement a mechanic for one PC to guard another. We don't need sweeping rules that reshape the battlefield to fulfill that one very limited objective.

Yes x 1000.

Wish I could give you XP, but sadly (but not really), you've apparently said more good stuff recently.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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

Its simple. Moving past melee characters/monsters and taking risky actions in melee(spells, bows) should have consequences(like an AoO), but at the same time you should be allowed to take those consequences to do the actions(as opposed to the action being forbidden because you're in melee). This is an essential part of combat that there should be a rule for. While I'm not big on DM fiat, I'm not completely opposed to it having a place in the game, but it shouldn't substitute for rules in places where rules should be.

As for optional modules, I'm all for having both ways. I don't see why removing AoOs shouldn't be the optional one though.

 

[Argyle King]

Here's one: a ranged attack takes a full round (i.e. no movement that round). You have to ready the weapon (pull an arrow from the quiver, knock it), aim the weapon and then fire it. So, sorry. You cannot move while doing so.

Or, whatever.

Sure, AoO may be necessary for 3E and 4E... But, 5E doesn't have to follow the same sort of mechanics. There can be 1000 other ways to handle these problems...



People keep saying "I don't think AoOs are complicated". Well, they aren't. They are not complicated.

What they are is time consuming. Another thing to track, another action to remember, another turn someone gets to take...

They are far from the most elegant solution to the problem.



I disagree. Assuming they are there assumes tons of other things...

Wouldn't it be easier for groups who like AoO to just add that extra complexity in?

I don't find OAs time consuming either. How much time is "hey, I make an attack"?

As for your suggested fix, I would honestly prefer something like that, but I do not feel most people would. I also play GURPS, and the added granularity of needing to draw the arrow and 'load' the bow is part of ranged attacks. Each weapon has ups and downs; that's really all I'm asking for here. IMO, D&D already has too many no-brainer choices; if ranged attacks have advantages without drawbacks, that simply just adds another one.

I agree that OAs are not elegant. However, unless other changes were made such as adding a little more granularity to differentiate weapons and having active defenses rather than static defenses, I prefer having them in the game to not having them in the game.

Come on, people, can we please stop pretending that OAs/AoOs are a serious impediment for casters and archers? What they do is make you shift (in 4E) or 5-foot step (in 3E), and then do your thing. That's it. That's all. You lose a move action that probably wasn't going to do much for you anyway, since you're a ranged attacker and don't need to move around to hit your target. The only time it becomes an issue is when the enemy has reach or you're somehow prevented from shifting.

The sole function of OAs is to hinder movement and make combat more static. I remain amazed that so many people think this is a good thing. If you want a mechanic for one PC to guard another, then implement a mechanic for one PC to guard another. We don't need sweeping rules that reshape the battlefield to fulfill that one very limited objective.

I'm not pretending.

Here's the thing: I cannot attack with a melee weapon from range. That is a drawback.

If I could choose a ranged weapon and do everything I can do with a melee weapon without any drawbacks and then still be able to attack from range, that seems a little unbalanced to me. If those were my two options, I would choose the ranged weapon every time.

Combat need not be more static because of OAs. What I get out of them isn't static combat; instead, what I get out of them is combat which takes a little more thought -something I feel is good. Granted, in 4th Edition I usually just chose to provoke an attack anyway because the monsters struggled to hurt me, but that's a different discussion.

You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of D&D adventures take place in dungeons (not all, but a lot.) A defining feature of many dungeons is close quarters combat. In those situations, whether you are making a ranged attack or a melee attack is indeed important because getting away from the enemy is not as easy. Again though, if there were no drawback to just point blank using a ranged weapon, ranged weapons gain a benefit while melee weapons still retain their downfalls. With one of the design goals being to have flatter math (which I take as meaning less disparity between options; by proxy also giving me the impression of giving all options their own place to shine without stepping on the toes of other options too much), it seems a bit counter intuitive to give one style of combat such an obvious advantage over another.

 

[SoldierBlue]

Every point made here for keeping OAs/AoO is completely valid - I don't disagree. However, in the past decade, there are 1-2 players in each gaming group (so 25-50% of each group) who don't get them. And it angers them, and it makes for frustrating pauses in the game when we have to explain why they drew an AO.

Then when we ask them to play again the next week, they decline.

Everyone on ENWorld gets them; I get them, and think they're important. But I don't think they're core.

D&D is now like the "bookcase" games of the '70s - belonging to an elite cadre of hobbyists who pore over their deeply complex rules. But if 5e truly wants to unite the base, and to have any cultural impact beyond dedicated hobbyists it needs to lose hard-to-grasp aspects like OAs.

It doesn't matter that everyone on these forums has no problems getting them. Empircally, there are too many occasional gamers who do NOT.

I was a pretty smart 12-year old, but there was no way I would have bothered to understand OAs while learning D&D - hard work like that was left for school, not for leisure.

So, think about the kids! (Starts humming "We Are the World", while swaying back and forth slowly....)

Play what you like, Gamer Nation!

 

[Argyle King]

A second thought:

One of the things I liked the most about later 3rd Edition products and then 4th Edition was the addition of more abilities which were triggered; interrupts, and similar things. In response to one of my previous posts, the word static was used to describe what OAs (an interrupt/triggered action) do to combat. I feel the complete opposite way.

To me, having things like OAs and other abilities which trigger off of what the other moving pieces of a combat are doing makes combat feel more fluid. Instead of just standing in a spot like a chess piece and getting hit while not being to react (nor having the ability to actively defend myself like I would in other games,) I like the idea that I can offer up a riposte or swing at an enemy as he tries to bolt past me to get through a door. Just standing there and not being able to do anything is what feels static to me.

 

[Dausuul]

If I could choose a ranged weapon and do everything I can do with a melee weapon without any drawbacks and then still be able to attack from range, that seems a little unbalanced to me. If those were my two options, I would choose the ranged weapon every time.

I do not dispute this logic in the least. What I dispute is the idea that provoking OAs is a significant drawback. It's far too easy to avoid.

Pre-4E, the main drawback to ranged attacks was that ranged weapons had smaller damage dice and you suffered MAD--you used one stat for attack rolls and another for damage bonus, where the sword-swinging fighter got to use Strength for everything. Plus, you needed a special bow to get your Strength bonus and there was a limit to how high that bonus could go.

In 4E, the primary drawback to ranged attacks is that you don't get fancy melee powers and bonuses.

You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of D&D adventures take place in dungeons (not all, but a lot.) A defining feature of many dungeons is close quarters combat. In those situations, whether you are making a ranged attack or a melee attack is indeed important because getting away from the enemy is not as easy.

It's very rare for quarters to be so tight that you can't shift away, unless you're backed into a corner. I'm not saying it never happens, but it's far too unusual to be a major concern. Like monsters with reach, it's a special situation that does not normally obtain.