So, Attacks of Oppportunity?

[Minigiant]

To me, attacking someone trying to run past you is a no brainer unless you are currently occupied. Animals do it.

And attacking the person you see as a most serious threat first is common sense too.

But AoOs and Oppy attacks are not the best way.

Limiting movement or action of the active character is probably better.

When you are attempting to withdraw from a fight or move out of an enemy's range from melee.

1) Take a Dodge action and move normally.
2) Take another action at disadvantage and move normally
or
3) Take another action and move half speed.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I tend to play monsters according to their intelligence, cunning, training, and personality when it comes to tactics. And I'm usually better at tactics than most of the players at our table. So if I back off a bit for some relatively stupid monsters, it doesn't hurt anything. I also don't have any problem glossing over the literal details of the rules to stop "stupid rules tricks".

That said, I liked for the rules to at least cover the major cases, somewhat well. You don't run by an experienced guy armed with a sword, lightly. You just don't, because if you have that attitude, you'd already be dead back in the early orc boot camp days, and wouldn't be here to try it now. OK, maybe if you are an orc you do, and this indicates something profound about the fatalistic nature of orc society, because it means that being an orc is like being an English fighter pilot in 1940 or a German one in 1945--the odds are not on your side as an individual, even though statistically some of you will make it.

A trained, experienced fighter is like a combination of a pro football QB and a tiger. He's got eyes in the back of his head, and twitches when something moves. It doesn't matter if four opponents are closing in, if you try to run by him, you set off his radar. He won't be able to do anything about it every time, but he will not let it just slide. For one thing, even if the wizard owes him money and stole his best girl and has poor hygiene, the fighter is not going to just let Weasly McStabby Pants and his dagger get behind him for a free shot. That free shot might be directed at the fighter. That is, this guy is a lot like Conan.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me, attacking someone trying to run past you is a no brainer unless you are currently occupied. Animals do it.

And attacking the person you see as a most serious threat first is common sense too.

But AoOs and Oppy attacks are not the best way.

Limiting movement or action of the active character is probably better.

When you are attempting to withdraw from a fight or move out of an enemy's range from melee.

1) Take a Dodge action and move normally.
2) Take another action at disadvantage and move normally
or
3) Take another action and move half speed.

Why? From a narrative perspective it makes no sense that you suddenly come to a screeching halt. From a dramatist perspective, running past someone to accomplish something works. And the gamist tactical options on provoking are useful. How about "If you move into a square adjacent to an enemy your movement ends unless you choose to give that enemy a free attack against you. If you give them this free attack you may move past that enemy freely." Make it something that the mover calls?

 

[Minigiant]

Why? From a narrative perspective it makes no sense that you suddenly come to a screeching halt. From a dramatist perspective, running past someone to accomplish something works. And the gamist tactical options on provoking are useful. How about "If you move into a square adjacent to an enemy your movement ends unless you choose to give that enemy a free attack against you. If you give them this free attack you may move past that enemy freely." Make it something that the mover calls?

I never stated the it would would halt your action.

My suggestion is that the moving character either sacrifices their action or sacrifices their movement. Either your action is at an disadvantage or your movement is halved.

The orc runs by the fighter to get to the wizard. He either slows down to defend himself better and continues toward the wizard if he can make it. Or he charges past the fighter's swinging blade and wastes his action parrying that sword strike to the head.

THEN you have a module where you sacrifice nothing and the other character gets and opportunity attack.

Normal Speed/Disadvantaged Action
Halved Speed/Normal Action
Normal Speed/Dodge Action only
MODULE: Normal Speed/Normal Action/Provoke Opportunity Attack
MODULE: Opportunity Saving Throw for Normal Speed/Normal Action. Failure Half Speed/Disadvantaged Action
MODULE: Opportunity Attacks and Saving throws end turn

 

[bganon]

Why should the DM constantly make terrible tactical decisions? A fudged roll once in awhile, sure, but for every encounter in every game?

The best tactical decision would be to have monsters that don't engage the party at all unless they have supremely overwhelming odds. If your goal is to kill the PCs then "rocks fall, everyone dies" is your best choice as a DM. Even the grittiest sandbox campaigns don't fill every dungeon with DC 999 deathtraps.

I hope it's obvious that killing the PCs isn't really the DM's goal. Which means not every monster needs to be run as a tactical genius aware of the combat rules. Are you really demanding that kobolds metagame?

Yeah, I don't pay people to give me extra work to do to make their rules work.

This is the real argument. The question is do OA rules make it easier or harder for the DM to run monsters, and run monsters "well" (as in challenging, believable, whatever)? My own conclusion is that OA rules don't help; without them I can run stupid kobolds or genius metagaming kobolds and it's more or less transparent to the players. With OA rules if I run genius metagaming kobolds the system (and sometimes players) tends to demand that I come up with some explanation for it ("oh, but these kobolds took the Spring Attack feat"). Screw that.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The best tacticians at my 4e table deliberately provoke when it suits us, myself included.

Good for you guys, but that's too meta-gaming and contrived to us.

 

[Argyle King]

If every monster acts like Seal Team 6, what do you do (outside of powering up the monsters) when you want the party to fight Seal Team 6?


I would say DMs making every monster a Patton, is just as pervasive, and pernicious as making all monsters idiots.

.

It hardly takes a tactical genius to figure out "hey, that guy over there is bending reality and throwing huge friggin' fireballs at us; maybe we should do something about it."

 

[Derren]

I think it really depends on the mind-set of the players. I can see how damage from AOOs can shorten a combat. Our group, however, tends to have two types of players:

A. Tactical Gonks, who understand the AOO rules intuitively and can make quick judgements re tactical advantage gained v exposure to attack/damage. They love tactical options and feats.

B. Tactical Schmucks, who, after 12 years, still don't intuitively grok movement, AOOs, reach etc. and sssllloooowwww the game down with re-worked movement/actions after an "Are you sure?" from the DM, or raised eyebrows, or player intervention etc.. They see AOOs (and other tactical elements, e.g. reach) as 'traps' to be avoided, not a set of factors to balance/exploit/enrich the game.

How about not designing the game for Schmucks and instead expand the non combat options so that they can devote their gametime to other things?

 

[Incenjucar]

The best tactical decision would be to have monsters that don't engage the party at all unless they have supremely overwhelming odds.

Only if you meta-game. I don't. I roleplay the monsters I run to act in what they perceive is their best interest based on how the game world works. For anything intelligent, that's going to be "kill the caster" unless there's something in the game world that prevents them.

If your goal is to kill the PCs then "rocks fall, everyone dies" is your best choice as a DM. Even the grittiest sandbox campaigns don't fill every dungeon with DC 999 deathtraps.

Strawman arguments are of no value.

I hope it's obvious that killing the PCs isn't really the DM's goal. Which means not every monster needs to be run as a tactical genius aware of the combat rules. Are you really demanding that kobolds metagame?

Kobolds are smarter than your average rock, so they are smart enough to try and kill the dude who can kill ten of them in one round first once they know of this factor. I don't metagame. Attacking a fighter that could be ignored would be meta-gaming.

This is the real argument. The question is do OA rules make it easier or harder for the DM to run monsters, and run monsters "well" (as in challenging, believable, whatever)? My own conclusion is that OA rules don't help; without them I can run stupid kobolds or genius metagaming kobolds and it's more or less transparent to the players. With OA rules if I run genius metagaming kobolds the system (and sometimes players) tends to demand that I come up with some explanation for it ("oh, but these kobolds took the Spring Attack feat"). Screw that.

I have no interest in a game designed for genius metagaming kobolds. I want a roleplaying game where creatures react based on their knowledge of the world.

 

[bouncyhead]

How about not designing the game for Schmucks and instead expand the non combat options so that they can devote their gametime to other things?

It's a beer & pretzels game (well, beer and crisps), with exploration and combat to the fore. That's what we all enjoy for the most part. The schmucks love their melee as much as anyone, they just don't see the appeal in some of the fiddlier elements of 3.5. I don't think they'd like to be ushered off into some roleplay ghetto for the tactically inept