So, Attacks of Oppportunity?

[Shroomy]

I definitely don't want a return to 3e style attacks of opportunity, as I much prefer the more simplified 4e system. However, I'm leery of reintroducing movement-triggered OAs into the general rules, as I think they are one of the primary causes of combat slowdown. I'd rather they be limited to class/theme features and monster abilities. Also, I think that at the very least, an OA should consume a reaction.

 

[Dausuul]

I understand the thought that opportunity attacks slow down the game but actually, when you do damage during an opportunity attack that speeds up the game.

No, it doesn't. It may reduce the number of combat rounds, but it doesn't reduce the number of real-life minutes required for combat, which is what "speeding up the game" is about. (Look at high-level 3E combat for an example of how you can have combats that last only a couple of rounds, yet go on for hours because those rounds take so freaking long to resolve.) If the OA deals less damage than a regular attack, and takes the same amount of real-world time to resolve, it is dragging out combat.

This is particularly important when you have OAs from people who aren't melee specialists. When the fighter takes an opportunity attack (especially in 4E), folks sit up and take notice, because the fighter's OAs really sting. When the wizard takes an opportunity attack, however, nobody cares. It very seldom hits, and if it does hit it deals crap damage, but the wizard takes it anyway because there's no in-game cost for doing so. A slight chance of a little free damage is better than nothing. Grindtastic.

I think opportunity attacks should exist, but as a fighter class ability, not a general rule. (They could also be available to certain monsters, probably those that fight in a disciplined, organized way; hobgoblins come to mind.) Then they can allow fighters to continue controlling the space around them, without being a nuisance in other contexts.

 

[Mattachine]

I definitely don't want a return to some of the nonsensical AD&D rules like "can't shoot ranged weapons in melee". What happens if a PC tries? No one knows, since it isn't possible.

Reminds me of a DM ruling I had to make in AD&D when I was 11--a wizard goes to put on a suit of chain mail. The rules say that he can't--so I ruled that though the wizard tries, he just can't figure out how to put that armor on.

 

[the Jester]

OAs are fine for an optional module, but they DO slow the game down and they really aren't necessary with a decent gm- he can adjudicate and make rulings on the "Drop your guard, free attack!" sort of thing.

 

[Droogie]

And we need opportunity attacks to make some of the popular feats still useful such as point blank firing and quick drawing of a ranged weapon.

I think the design goal for feats is quality over quantity, so I think these types of nickel-and-dime feats may become rare or unnecessary. I won't miss them, personally; tired of paying my feat tax when the rules need a patch.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's just walking past the enemy and shooting a bow or a ranged spell when someone is right in your face. These are clearly explainable as bad plans and even the tactical schmucks get that.

It's reasonable, but why are they absolutely so bad?

Personally I think that the reason for AoOs vs ranged attack is not really about realism... I mean, shooting a loaded crossbow at point blank, how can that possibly be more AoO-provoking than swinging an axe, which require much more movement of your arms when you raise it upward?

I think the reason instead is game balance: you just don't want ranged weapons to be just as good from point blank otherwise you may have no reason for melee weapons, if you can use a ranged weapon both from range and in melee, and I quite agree with this.

Spells are maybe different, but I still think that the reason was balance rather than realism.

But the truth is that in 3ed it was a piece of cake to take a 5ft step in most situations and avoid the AoO, there was a cost tho, because if you take a 5ft step essentially you don't take your normal move action.

What I don't agree much with is about "moving past the enemy". If the enemy is there, looking at you, and you run past him, it makes sense to think that it should get a free attack. But that's not necessarily what happens... it's a combat with a lot of people running around and acting simultaneously and possibly the enemy is fighting with one of your friends already. If it is realistic to think that he should get a swing at you because you pass by, then it is realistic to think that your friend should get a swing at him because he gets distracted when doing the AoOs at you... you can complicate ad infinitum if you think in terms of "realism"!

There is already a rule saying that you cannot move past the squares occupied by a creature unless he lets you. If you want to make a "wall formation" then stick closer to each other and nobody can pass, or alternatively use the ready action to strike someone passing by. I don't think we need more realism than this in the no-module game.

 

[Li Shenron]

OAs are fine for an optional module, but they DO slow the game down and they really aren't necessary with a decent gm- he can adjudicate and make rulings on the "Drop your guard, free attack!" sort of thing.

I generally agree on this, but the "drop your guard" argument is overrated...

Unless you are using a shield, the only weapons that come to mind that allow you to attack with them without dropping your guard would be piercing blades (e.g. rapier, spear), a crossbow (provided it's already loaded) and a spell without somatic component.

Anything that requires you to swing (clubs, maces, swords, axes) already drops your guard, certainly not more than a widely gestured spell, but still.

 

[Bluenose]

OAs are fine for an optional module, but they DO slow the game down and they really aren't necessary with a decent gm- he can adjudicate and make rulings on the "Drop your guard, free attack!" sort of thing.

So how do OAs slow the game down when a rule says when they happen, but not slow it down when the GM says when they happen?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's reasonable, but why are they absolutely so bad?

Personally I think that the reason for AoOs vs ranged attack is not really about realism... I mean, shooting a loaded crossbow at point blank, how can that possibly be more AoO-provoking than swinging an axe, which require much more movement of your arms when you raise it upward?

I think the reason instead is game balance: you just don't want ranged weapons to be just as good from point blank otherwise you may have no reason for melee weapons, if you can use a ranged weapon both from range and in melee, and I quite agree with this.

Shooting the crossbow at point-blank range is not the problem there. If anything, the guy coming up on you should have a bit of a problem. The thing they are noting there is after you shoot the crossbow, now what? It's a lot easier to get an axe back into a position to block (or threaten to do so) than it is to block with a crossbow after firing it.


Anyway, a tactical rules module can go nuts, but still has to work. However, in the Core, there has to be something to attach the tactical rules to. Given what we've seen thus far, what I'd like to see in the Core related to opportunity attacks is something like this:

1. Use the criteria from 4E adapted to Next--you provoke when walking by someone with a melee weapon or trying to fire a ranged weapon or cast a spell in melee.
2. If you provoke, you give advantage to all attacks from melee weapons made against you until your next turn. (This could be a condition.)
3. You also have disadvantage to all attacks that you make. (This could also be part of the condition.)

Or if you prefer streamlined:

1. If you walk by opponents, fire a ranged weapon, or cast a spell in melee, you get the "Unguarded" condition until your next action.
2. While you have the "Unguarded" condition, all melee attacks against you have advantage, and all attacks that you make have disadvantage.

That doesn't cover every edge case, but the DM is supposed to handle those in the Core. It's severe enough that it will cut out about 80% of the obvious "abuse the letter of the rules" stupid tactical tricks. (Thus the double-dipping on giving advantage and getting disadvantage.) There are no reactive opportunity attacks to slow down the game. If you don't want to so make yourself a sitting duck, you can elect to not provoke--which is functionally the same as a blanket prohibition in those cases. It makes running past a fighter and cleric to smack the wizard usually a bad idea, but sometimes you gotta get the wizard down and take your chances. If you are really commited to running down the wizard, instead of darting in and out, you'll take a rough round to get there, and then try to stay there.

Best of all, the tactical rules module and DM judgement can piggyback on those simple rules. If you do something esoteric that the DM rules is appropriately risky, he can slap the "Unguarded" on you, with clear results. (Or let you know that will be the consequence before you commit.) "Can I drop my sword, grab the princess, and fall off the balcony behind us as the guards close in from both sides and below?" "Sure, but you'll provoke Unguarded when you do it." "Ok, I'll take my chances with the ones below, since I don't think the guards on the balcony will come after me."

 

[Teataine]

Regarding ranged attacks, spells (and potentially potions etc) in melee I woul simply say the attacker gets Advantage. It's simple and easy to remember and makes sense - if you aren't fighting you can't parry or keep the other person at bay, so it's muc easier to hit you. They don't magically get an extra attack.

As for moving past enemies and AoO, this is all the fault of D&D's disjointed initiative system where things that should in theory be happening simultaneously are happening in sequence. Change how actions are declared/imitiative is determined and that issue goes away. But I very much doubt we'll see D&D return to that mode so they need to figure something out...hopefully something better than the old attacks of opportunity.