So, Attacks of Oppportunity?

[Campbell]

Savage Worlds has OAs. Look for "Withdrawing From Close Combat." Page 76 in the Deluxe Edition book.

Missed that. I just picked it up the Deluxe Edition last week. It's actually more severe than in 3e or 4e. Ouch.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

RuneQuest/Legend does have the equivalent of OAs. They merely aren't keyed off of movement. That's not surprising in MRQ rules, since the movement rules are rather loose. But you can get smacked by a reactive attack that was sparked by you attacking poorly! And a couple of attacks can take you from hale to out of the fight--sometimes even one, if you are particuarly unlucky.

Adding D&D-style movement-based opportunity attacks to MRQ would be like adding a kid with a nerf gun to a firing squad.

 

[Campbell]

RuneQuest/Legend does have the equivalent of OAs. They merely aren't keyed off of movement. That's not surprising in MRQ rules, since the movement rules are rather loose. But you can get smacked by a reactive attack that was sparked by you attacking poorly! And a couple of attacks can take you from hale to out of the fight--sometimes even one, if you are particuarly unlucky.

Adding D&D-style movement-based opportunity attacks to MRQ would be like adding a kid with a nerf gun to a firing squad.

True. The important thing about ripostes and the "free swing" for closing in on an enemy with a longer reach in MRQ is that it still costs you an action which you might need to defend yourself. Of course the game also pretty has strong incentives for even a "dedicated spell caster" to be a somewhat capable combatant. A sorcerer who can't parry will soon find himself written into the dead book.

I don't mind reactive swings. I just don't like there being no cost for it and I feel a reaction is not strong enough of a cost without devoting resources. I'd be fine if it took your next action.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Here's the latest from Mike Mearls (from here):

We're strongly considering adding a free attack if someone breaks away from a melee. The playtest feedback has been a little soured on letting people move around without consequence. However, the rule would be much simpler than attacks of opportunity - likely it'll be that if you start your turn in someone's reach, they get an attack on you if you try to leave their reach using an action to withdraw.

To me, this actually sounds like a bad approach, unless they eliminate split movement. It's just more incentive for rogues to dart in and out every turn (and thus never start a turn in an enemy's reach). Maybe if it was "start a turn OR TAKE AN ACTION in someone's reach..."

I'll note that elsewhere in that thread he also backs up someone's point that they're "moving roles out of class," which might go against my notion that the fighter should be intrinsically somewhat defender-y. Ah well.

 

[Derren]

That sounds not really good.

Only when you start next to someone? The big "problem" are the people who dart around the battlefield, not the one who simply disengage.

I really don't know why everyone is so afraid of AoOs. The 3E rules were easy. I have no idea why so many people had trouble with them.

 

[Incenjucar]

That sounds not really good.

Only when you start next to someone? The big "problem" are the people who dart around the battlefield, not the one who simply disengage.

I really don't know why everyone is so afraid of AoOs. The 3E rules were easy. I have no idea why so many people had trouble with them.

The only issue I've ever had with OAs is that they can be laughably unlikely to hit for a lot of characters, making them often a waste of time, while monster OAs were usually still quite potent. Hopefully the bounded accuracy thing would reduce that issue. Alternatively, they could make OAs do something like grant Advantage rather than do damage for most, representing someone defending themselves off-balance.

The main thing they're trying to avoid is the number of actions someone takes, but the whole advantage system makes every action take so many more rolls that I don't see the point in being afraid of two more.

 

[mlund]

That sounds not really good.

Only when you start next to someone? The big "problem" are the people who dart around the battlefield, not the one who simply disengage.

I think the idea is that if you try to flit in-and-out of the melee the melee will come find you and then you'll be stuck in. The problem is defining leaving a melee. With 5' control areas and 30' movement a Wizard could still with 10' between him and behind a fighter engaged with a bugbear, move 15' (10' forward, 5' diagonal), drop Shocking Grasp, and return to his original position. On it's turn the bugbear moves around the fighting 10' and is still 5' out of reach of the Wizard. If he moves the last 5' is he "leaving melee" due to getting out of the fighter's reach, or is he still in melee since he's bringing his ax down on the Wizard's skull?

And no attack for spellcasting or ranged weapons in close combat?

There's already a penalty to range weapons in melee in the play-test, and rules for making Arcane magic hazardous near people with sharp sticks. There's no urgent need to pile OAs on top of that.

- Marty Lund

 

[Crazy Jerome]

From the math and action economy perspectives, it would probably be easiest to have a list of "simple provokes" (and/or just use DM guidelines for provoking in the core). Then give each character a damage rating when you provoke in their reach. Fighters get more than Wizards; dragons get more than goblins. Provoke, take the damage--no rolls involved. After the first creature tries it in a given situation, the rest know what they are dealing with and can back out, if so inclined. (First kobold tries to run by the fighter. Whack! Second and third kobold slow down considerably... )

If you really want a roll, instead of "auto hits"--make the roll a saving throw by the creature provoking. One roll, versus all that you provoke, after you commit ...

Given the different views on the nature of hit points, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't care for that. Heck, my views on hit points work with it, and I'm not sure I care for that. But it is consistent with what Next has presented thus far.

 

[ren1999]

It doesn't have to be difficult.
If you run adjacent to an opponent who sees you and can attack then you must deal with this opponent. That opponent then attacks you on its next turn. No need for an OA.

 

[slobo777]

It doesn't have to be difficult.
If you run adjacent to an opponent who sees you and can attack then you must deal with this opponent. That opponent then attacks you on its next turn. No need for an OA.

"Must" is an absolute, and "deal with" a bit fluffy?

I'd like PCs to have some choices, and consequences for the choices, for this part of the game. The challenge then is to keep these simple, and ideally during your own turn.

So I guess I'd like the controlling player to decide what "deal with" constituted, from "I attack it" to "I ignore the creature that I am running past". Then *something* should happen thanks to that choice.