Incenjucar
Legend
To be fair, it's not that difficult to tack OAs back onto the core game. The main issue will be that they'll have very little support and consideration since they won't be the true core material.
So, Attacks of Oppportunity?
- Thread starter Dordledum
- Start date
To be fair, it's not that difficult to tack OAs back onto the core game. The main issue will be that they'll have very little support and consideration since they won't be the true core material.
Argyle King
Legend
It's not just the OAs. I agree those are easy. I'm starting to feel as though there is a mentality behind things which doesn't sync up with my views about gaming. I'm having a bit of D&D Deja Vu.
I see a lot of things I like in the design for 5th Edition up to a certain point, but then I feel as though a lot of decisions were a left turn where I would have instead made a right turn.
Incenjucar
Legend
My general perspective is this:
We, who already have good games we enjoy, may or may not be able to enjoy 5E better. We can do our part to give the game a chance, and to give the designers a chance to make it more to our liking. Even if we fail to have enough influence to make it a game worth our time, our nudges may make the game better for someone else. It can be truly frustrating to see the game inch away from what you want it to be, but we may still help other people be happy, even if we ultimately turn our backs when the deed is done.
Altamont Ravenard
Explorer
Why not just give automatic "Tumble" to everyone (ie you can move thru a threatened square as if it were difficult terrain to avoid AoOs) and give full speed Tumble to the acrobats?
How? In classic D&D attack rolls don't even correspond to a single swing of the sword. So what is the creature doing, counting the number of attacks given vs received? What about creatures with multiple attacks per round? It can't work. At best, a creature that has engaged in multiple combats might be able to deduce that moving away from the opponent causes them to receive somewhat more grievous wounds, but it's still difficult for them to have a point of comparison.
Moving away from an opponent is real. Attacks are (more or less) real. Turns are not real. When Creature A is attacked by creature B just prior to disengaging, it has no way of knowing if the attack was a normal one on B's turn, or an OA during A's turn. How would it?
Nobody is discussing 4E. And this doesn't even seem like a good strawman - one of 4E's flaws is too often disconnecting mechanics from in-game reality.
No, I've defined metagaming as making character decisions using knowledge of things that can't and don't exist in the game world. I'm pretty sure this is not an controversial definition.
I dunno, in real life "backing away" is generally how you get safely away from a melee attacker, so maybe you are. It's moving in to attack that grants openings, typically.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
I can understand where you're coming from here but I'm not so sure I totally agree. Firstly, an opportunity attack or attack of opportunity is pretty much conceived as a single attack and not part of the back and forth of a round. It is when a combatant let's down their defenses when directly threatened by another combatant (or stops being able to counter-threaten the threatening combatant more precisely).
I think a basic given for most creatures is that if they are being threatened, they are in danger. I think a prime motivation here for the creature is not to get whacked if being threatened. Now if disengaging safely is the prime motivation, then this should be achievable unless the threatening combatant is ready to follow them. Otherwise, incautious movement in, through, away or around a threatening combatant is something that a combatant simply will not do unless pushed with a very good reason. The kobold may scamper past if it thinks it can but under normal circumstances, it is more likely going to wait for an opening to do such things. (Aside: I think a lot of DMs over-optimize their combatants actions when in battle, many creatures are perhaps better represented with less efficiency).
However, a big issue here is the turn-based cyclic initiative and the general unwillingness of a DM to separate one combatant from it's group when more believably, combatants are going to be a little more spontaneous (and even chaotic) to such combat openings. The game as presented does not easily allow this and so you need a game-mechanic to represent this "normal" behaviour. And thus, you are always going to have to deal with such meta-mechanics as turns, opportunity attacks and so on to try and represent this natural, believable behaviour. It is inescapable. So when a kobold backs away from a threatening character, it is up to the DM to decide which meta-mechanic to use to best represent the natural behaviour (did they withdraw, shift, or did they recklessly move). And so while the kobold does not know such things, the DM (and players) are left with the meta-mechanics to best represent and roleplay their combatants and characters.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Argyle King
Legend
I'm still doing the playtest and filling out surveys when I get them. I find that I'm starting to lose steam though. I started out with a neutral view of the game. Along the way I had a few spikes of enthusiasm, and a part of me still hopes for some things, but I've generally started to settle into apathy.
I hope people do get a game they like. I do not begrudge other people for having fun. It's simply getting harder and harder for me to spend time that I could be spending with one of those games I already enjoy (and possibly helping those companies improve their games) rather than trudging through the D&D Durango process. Maybe somewhere along the line I grew out of D&D without realizing it. I'm not sure.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I'm wondering if a RuneQuest style house rule wherein in order to effectively attack an enemy with a longer reach you first need to close on them might work.
So a wizard could shock dagger wielding kobolds guilt free, but not sword wielding hobgoblins. Of course it lacks some of the checks and balances of RuneQuest combat and might be too detailed for D&D's abstract combat system. In RuneQuest characters get 2-3 actions a round (depending on Dex and Int) and must also use their actions to parry or dodge. The reach advantage here is balanced by the fact that dual wielders (including shield users) get an extra combat action every round. Of course wielders of larger weapons also get a parry advantage.
Not sure I'd personally use it, but it's a thought. Might give people a reason to use 2 handed weapons since currently the only difference is a marginal change in damage die.
- You cannot attack an enemy who is wielding a larger weapon than yours without first closing. This takes an action.
- When being closed on an enemy may choose to make an attack or disengage immediately. Either choice means they forfeit their next action.
- When you have closed on an enemy you gain advantage on all attacks.
- An enemy who has been closed in on can use their action to disengage.
So a wizard could shock dagger wielding kobolds guilt free, but not sword wielding hobgoblins. Of course it lacks some of the checks and balances of RuneQuest combat and might be too detailed for D&D's abstract combat system. In RuneQuest characters get 2-3 actions a round (depending on Dex and Int) and must also use their actions to parry or dodge. The reach advantage here is balanced by the fact that dual wielders (including shield users) get an extra combat action every round. Of course wielders of larger weapons also get a parry advantage.
Not sure I'd personally use it, but it's a thought. Might give people a reason to use 2 handed weapons since currently the only difference is a marginal change in damage die.
Last edited:
Connorsrpg
Adventurer
I have posted this elsewhere (inc in our playtest report) but since this is a thread about OAs I will repeat here.
We used a house rule that worked very well and did not restrict the ability to take your action at any time during your movement (an innovation we loved).
OA House Rule
You promote an OA if you move away from an armed adjacent enemy without attacking them (in the round you move away).
I never liked the spend you action to move away defensively (when enemy could then move striaght back up to you AND attack) - why can't you do the same in reverse? AS they say, "Offence is the best defence"
. Anyway - Try it. It works. 
We used a house rule that worked very well and did not restrict the ability to take your action at any time during your movement (an innovation we loved).
OA House Rule
You promote an OA if you move away from an armed adjacent enemy without attacking them (in the round you move away).
I never liked the spend you action to move away defensively (when enemy could then move striaght back up to you AND attack) - why can't you do the same in reverse? AS they say, "Offence is the best defence"
. Anyway - Try it. It works.
Incenjucar
Legend
Because the fiction is related to the mechanics. OAs represent, specifically, a reaction to an opening. Similarly, higher armor class represents a decrease in the ability to affect a target.
4E is an example. 5E currently has no OAs and I do not recall seeing rules about how creatures perceive affects. 4E's issue lie more in using specific terms for vague effects, and people misunderstanding things as a result.
That is not the common definition of metagaming. Metagaming is using knowledge not available to the PCs, including information that exists in the game world, such as how to stop a troll's regeneration.
Backing away CAREFULLY is how you get safely away. In 4E, that's a shift. In 3E, that's a 5-foot step. If you just bolt from a melee at normal speed you'll get clocked.
