Question: How do you rationalize opportunity attacks?

[RangerWickett]

I've got a sword. A man in front of me has a sword too. He decides I'm scary and so he turns and runs away in a hurry. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack?

I've got a sword, he's got a sword. But he needs a magic potion, so he rummages through his hip pouch trying to find the potion, then draws it. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack?

The default logic in D&D for both cases is, sure, he's dropped his guard. You get to hit him.

If "he drops his guard" is the rubric that determines when I get a bonus attack, but about things that have no guard at all?

I have a sword, but he has no weapon, and he's not trained in martial arts. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack, simply because he has no way to block or parry my weapon?

I have a sword, he's paralyzed? Do I get to stab him as a bonus attack? If not, why is being paralyzed less dangerous to him than running away?

I have a sword. He is a tree (so not exactly a "he," at least not in English). Do I get to chop at him as a bonus attack? After all, a man running away has to be harder to hit than a stationary tree.



What about other Opportunity Attack situations? A man with a sword runs behind me, but within 5 ft. Even if I'm engaged in the duel of my life, I have no trouble whatsoever swinging at this guy who's in the opposite direction than where most of my attention is focused.

What if, instead of him running past me, the wizard blasts him with a gust of wind that blows him past me? Do I get a bonus attack against him (or does it not count because he's not moving under his own power; in which case, can I ride around in combat on a horse, letting my mount provoke OAs while I'm safe)?

What if I'm a solipsist, and I believe I'm the center of the universe, and every time I take a step, I stay stationary but the rest of the world moves around me? Can I make people provoke OAs whenever I want?



I get why OAs exist in the rules. In reality, if someone's trying to keep you from running past him, it's dangerous to try to run past him. If you're in a duel and you stop to check your watch, you'll probably die.

But I'd rather the mechanics did it some way other than by granting bonus attacks all the time. There should be a specific action, like call it "Hold the Line," which lets you attack anyone who moves adjacent to you and stop their movement. And if you don't have a melee weapon out, you should take a penalty to your AC against other melee attacks. And if you pull something out of your bag during combat, you are more-likely to die, because you're giving him an extra attack on his turn without taking an attack of your own; no need to penalize you twice.

What do you think?

 

[Gorgoroth]

I actually

think it should be worse. If you run away, and the guy following you can run faster, he can run you down with a sword in your back. Maybe not instantly (especially not instantly, depending on how cunning or fast the escapee is), but whoever has the faster run speed should get a free attack. What I'd rather is that if you turn around and run, instead of like in pathfinder where you can just "withdraw from combat" no questions asked (blah), your opponent gets to auto-follow you a step behind, and if somehow he can catch you, THEN he gets a free backstab, 2x damage, even with a greataxe.

It'll make you think twice about running away, won't it. You need someone to cover your retreat, but then who will cover theirs? Maybe if you do a "covered retreat", it can work with your ally who has either a melee OR a ranged weapon. Sort of like, pursuit grants OAs or makes you let your guard down.

But yeah, realistically, I can see at least 50% of the case where you wouldn't grant an OA, but just CA instead. Drinking a potion in one hand and holding out your hand in the other, maybe a concentration or dex check to avoid dropping the potion while you're deflecting incoming blows. I could totally see that in my mind, and would much prefer it to free attacks all the time. Lots more stuff should be in the CA granting range, rather than the OA granting range. But definitely, retreating from combat should at least grant CA and a free pursuit one square behind as an "opportunity move" from your foe. That would be way more cinematic and true-to-life. Why can I run, even with an OA, out of the room before my opponent even gets his wits about him that I would bar the door shut behind him to prevent pursuit?

I think turns should have more "riposte" like manveuvers, for the advanced optional rules. (that the DM might even see fit to "enable" on a whim because it's a cool rules fit to something that wasn't otherwise meant to be possible in his game. I like auto-expanding and contracting rules in the middle of combat, where it may be fairer to the players or the foes, based on the "rule of cool".

let's do this.

 

[korjik]

I've got a sword. A man in front of me has a sword too. He decides I'm scary and so he turns and runs away in a hurry. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack?

I've got a sword, he's got a sword. But he needs a magic potion, so he rummages through his hip pouch trying to find the potion, then draws it. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack?

The default logic in D&D for both cases is, sure, he's dropped his guard. You get to hit him.

If "he drops his guard" is the rubric that determines when I get a bonus attack, but about things that have no guard at all?

I have a sword, but he has no weapon, and he's not trained in martial arts. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack, simply because he has no way to block or parry my weapon?

I would imagine he is highly motivated to avoid you. Should you manage to miss his pathetic AC, you dont get a free attack.

I have a sword, he's paralyzed? Do I get to stab him as a bonus attack? If not, why is being paralyzed less dangerous to him than running away?

This is the only good example. The prior editions made this an almost instant death. 4e chose not to do that.

I have a sword. He is a tree (so not exactly a "he," at least not in English). Do I get to chop at him as a bonus attack? After all, a man running away has to be harder to hit than a stationary tree.

You arent in a fight with the tree 'attack' dosent really apply

What about other Opportunity Attack situations? A man with a sword runs behind me, but within 5 ft. Even if I'm engaged in the duel of my life, I have no trouble whatsoever swinging at this guy who's in the opposite direction than where most of my attention is focused.

My name is Inigo Montoya. you killed my father. Prepare to die.

You are supposed to be a skilled fighter. Someone who runs by you defenceless is going to get a quick jab. That is the meaning of defenceless.

What if, instead of him running past me, the wizard blasts him with a gust of wind that blows him past me? Do I get a bonus attack against him (or does it not count because he's not moving under his own power; in which case, can I ride around in combat on a horse, letting my mount provoke OAs while I'm safe)?

What if I'm a solipsist, and I believe I'm the center of the universe, and every time I take a step, I stay stationary but the rest of the world moves around me? Can I make people provoke OAs whenever I want?



I get why OAs exist in the rules. In reality, if someone's trying to keep you from running past him, it's dangerous to try to run past him. If you're in a duel and you stop to check your watch, you'll probably die.

But I'd rather the mechanics did it some way other than by granting bonus attacks all the time. There should be a specific action, like call it "Hold the Line," which lets you attack anyone who moves adjacent to you and stop their movement. And if you don't have a melee weapon out, you should take a penalty to your AC against other melee attacks. And if you pull something out of your bag during combat, you are more-likely to die, because you're giving him an extra attack on his turn without taking an attack of your own; no need to penalize you twice.

What do you think?

I personally think 'make an attack' is far more interesting than 'they stop'. OA's are not prefect, maybe not even particularly good a mechanic, but it is simple and quick. I dont think a bunch of conditionals to make it more 'realistic' is worth the effort.

 

[Umbran]

The default logic in D&D for both cases is, sure, he's dropped his guard. You get to hit him.

If "he drops his guard" is the rubric that determines when I get a bonus attack, but about things that have no guard at all?

I have a sword, but he has no weapon, and he's not trained in martial arts. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack, simply because he has no way to block or parry my weapon?

He still can dodge out of the way of your weapon, so no. "On guard" doesn't just mean "has a weapon he uses well in hand". It is more about awareness and attention than weaponry.

I have a sword, he's paralyzed? Do I get to stab him as a bonus attack?

If you have the time, you get a full coup de gras, do you not?

I have a sword. He is a tree (so not exactly a "he," at least not in English). Do I get to chop at him as a bonus attack? After all, a man running away has to be harder to hit than a stationary tree.

You ever try to chop down a tree? It doesn't generally happen on a combat timescale.

The tree (if it isn't a creature) has a hardness and such - the whacks that kill humans don't mean a whole lot to the tree. Go ahead, take an AoO on the tree. Come back to me in ten minutes, and we'll talk about how far you've gotten in chopping it down.

 

[RangerWickett]

More on point, there's a chandelier held up by a rope. I want to attack the rope. It is defenseless. Do I need to spend an action? Or a rope bridge. Or vial of acid that when smashed will pour onto my enemy.

 

[Water Bob]

You're operating from a fallacy. The combat round in D&D is abstract--at least it is for melee (it's not for ranged weapons).

Whether you're talking about a one minute (AD&D) or six second (3.x) combat round, the melee part of it is handled abstractly.

One attack throw does not necessarily equal one swing of the sword (although it could).

Remember, D&D has its roots in miniature wargaming. With those types of games, one figure may represent an entire squardron of tanks. Yet, when two tank figures come base to base, one attack roll is made for each side with that roll determining, in an abstract way, the amount of damage each side took.

D&D is really no different than that. The "figure" represented in one character, instead of an entire battalion of men or a tank squadron. But, still, the single d20 attack throw for melee is an abstract way to come up with how hurt each side got during that combat round.

Take this scene from Spartacus, for example.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHtSs3mrqrA"]Ep. 4 Scene Clip "Spartacus Fight" - YouTube[/ame]

We'll call it 30 seconds long to account for the two slow motions shots.

In 3.x, for a character with one attack per round, that would be a total of 5 attacks. Yet, if you count them, the character performs 10 attacks.

Does this mean that the character is at least 6th level and gets 2 attacks per round? Maybe. That could very well be true.

But, this scene could also represent a 4th level character with one attack per round.

Why?

Because it's abastract.

When you hit your target with your dagger and do 6 points of damage on him (4 pts plus STR bonus), this could mean that you hit your target once and did 6 points of damage.

Or, it could mean that you hit your target twice, doing 1 point on one stroke and 5 points on the other.

Or, it could mean that you hit six different times, doing 1 point each.

Or, it could mean....a lot of things.

It's abstract.





So, to bring this around to the Question in the OP: How do you rationalize Attacks of Opportunity.

If two characters are fighting, and a second foe gets close enough to hit, is there a chance that your character took a swing at him too?

There's your rationalization. Melee combat rounds are abstract. They're not die for blow situations all the time. The attack throw can mean a lot of different things happened during the combat round.

 

[Celebrim]

If "he drops his guard" is the rubric that determines when I get a bonus attack, but about things that have no guard at all?

I have a sword, but he has no weapon, and he's not trained in martial arts. Do I get to hit him with a bonus attack, simply because he has no way to block or parry my weapon?

Well, certainly if he tries to attack you, the the logic of D&D says you get a bonus attack because he has no way to safely threaten you.

I have a sword, he's paralyzed? Do I get to stab him as a bonus attack?

The mechanism of 'coup de grace' is ill-defined. Perhaps it is running him through; perhaps it is hacking on the target wildly while it is helpless?

In any event, I think you are thinking about this wrong. D&D is an abstract combat system. It doesn't attempt to nor claim to provide moment by moment tactical simulation. It doesn't simulate every swing or parry. Rather, things like oppurtunity attacks exist to provide a degree of cinematic narration and consistancy as much as they do versimlitude. For me, the real question is, "Do the mechanics and the dice provide something I can consistantly narrate in an exciting and believable fashion." Sure, it's nice that oppurtunity attacks increase the tactical depth and give the gamists something to do, but that's not the entirety of their purpose. Sure, oppurtunity attacks do help provide a more believable simulation, but perfect simulation/realism isn't really the goal. What the system is going for is simply, "Good enough to pass casual examination during the excitement of play."

Each of the situations you describe is narratable and tense. I would tend to describe trying to get something out of your backpack during melee as a desparate scramble, with the character ducking under blows, spinning around, shoving his foe off him, dodging to and fro and .... will he succeed in this risky manuever cleanly, or get cut, and if so will it be serious? Stay tuned as the dice clatter!

I'm not saying that the system is perfect. In my homebrew game, that tree chopping in combat event is a perfect time to declare a an offensive stance flail action and just wildly swing. Is this functionally equivalent to an extra attack? Not exactly, but in a narrative way it is quite similar.

But I'd rather the mechanics did it some way other than by granting bonus attacks all the time. There should be a specific action, like call it "Hold the Line," which lets you attack anyone who moves adjacent to you and stop their movement.

I've often thought about vastly increasing the number of manuevers available to characters and then simply have feats that enhanced each manuever. But I wonder whether 20 or 40 manuevers might not simply be too intimidating for most players, and slow play too much as they tried to think of exactly the right thing to do.

And if you pull something out of your bag during combat, you are more-likely to die, because you're giving him an extra attack on his turn without taking an attack of your own; no need to penalize you twice.

What do you think?

I think the system works pretty well as it is. I disagree that the penalty for dropping your gaurd is too harsh. If anything, it's not harsh enough. I am concerned about D&D's handling of the concept 'defenseless' which has some narrative holes in it. It's obvious for 'asleep' or 'paralyzed', but what about 'holding a knife to your throat'. There is really no mechanic for obtaining and retaining that sort of an advantage against a foe - especially the sort of weaker foe where it would make some sense.

 

[Celebrim]

More on point, there's a chandelier held up by a rope. I want to attack the rope. It is defenseless. Do I need to spend an action? Or a rope bridge. Or vial of acid that when smashed will pour onto my enemy.

That gives me an idea for a feat.

 

[Janx]

I think AoO was invented to try to model the things RW describes. As an attempted improvement over the prior system.

I'm also OK with each attack roll representing a sword swing. It's true for arrows, why not stabs? Given the round timing being 6 seconds, it's close enough for government work.

Given all the examples you gave, I believe the right approach to devise a new system is to make a list of all the examples where a person would be more vulnerable or be better able to inflict some hurt (might be an extra attack, or a bonus to existing attack). Categorize each by "defender more vulnerable" or attacker enabled to hit.

Once you see a pattern, come up with a rule set to support that that keeps it fairly consistent.

It's an engineering problem to me, not a "this rule doesn't make sense" problem. AoO makes sense, it just isn't perfect.

 

[RangerWickett]

I love abstract combat. You spend a few swings or steps setting up an attack, and then you go for an actual strike; no need to make a "feint roll," a "footwork roll," and a "leverage your foe's weapon out of the way roll." You just make an attack roll. Groovy, ideal.

Alternately, you spend a few seconds lining up your aim, and then you loose an arrow.

But you don't have the same time to set up an effective attack when someone just sprints past you. I'd like the mechanics to work differently.

Grappling in 3e is too complicated. You should just make an attack roll and cause an effect, though maybe you should have a "resist grapple" stat with size influences factored in.

Likewise it's silly that two weapons grant you extra attacks against a single target; the combat round is abstract, so you should make one attack roll for those two weapons, but probably with a higher accuracy. There might be a "twin attack" option if you want to strike at two people, with lower accuracy.

I dunno, it's late and I'm rambling. Mostly I just recall being upset during Red Hand of Doom 5 years ago when I couldn't do "overwatch" with my bow and make opportunity attacks at multiple enemies as they rounded a corner. I could fire 3 arrows a round normally, but if I ready an action to shoot them as they round a corner, I can only get 1. The other 2 guys are able to come out an alley and gank my archer.

Yes, I am bitter from 5 years ago.