So, Attacks of Oppportunity?

[Neonchameleon]

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.

From the SRD:

Action AoO
Attack (melee)No
Attack (unarmed)Yes
Attack (ranged)Yes
Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil No
Aid anotherMaybe
Bull rushYes
Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time)Yes
Concentrate to maintain an active spellNo
Dismiss a spellNo
Draw a hidden weapon (see Sleight of Hand skill) No
Drink a potion or apply an oil Yes
Escape a grapple No
FeintNo
Light a torch with a tindertwigYes
Lower spell resistanceNo
Make a dying friend stable (see Heal skill) Yes
OverrunNo
Read a scroll Yes
Ready (triggers a standard action) No
Sunder a weapon (attack) Yes
Sunder an object (attack) Maybe
Total defense No
Turn or rebuke undeadNo
Use extraordinary ability No
Use skill that takes 1 action Usually
Use spell-like abilityYes
Use supernatural ability No
​

So that's a table with 27 types of action, of which ten provoked and a further 3 sometimes did. That's not an easy set of rules. Cut down provoking to movement or movement + ranged attacks (i.e. 1 or 2 conditions) and you neither get a terrifying table that makes people not want to start, nor get to situations where reading a scroll is different from using an item and a spell like ability is different from a supernatural one.

 

[Derren]

So that's a table with 27 types of action, of which ten provoked and a further 3 sometimes did. That's not an easy set of rules. Cut down provoking to movement or movement + ranged attacks (i.e. 1 or 2 conditions) and you neither get a terrifying table that makes people not want to start, nor get to situations where reading a scroll is different from using an item and a spell like ability is different from a supernatural one.

No. Thats really simple.
- Leaving a threatened square except by withdrawing and 5ft steps
- Ranged, unarmed attacks and spellcasting
- Combat abilities unless you have the feat for it.
- Skills not used directly for combat.

It can't get more simple than that. I really worry for what people D&D is being designed when they can't even remember this list.
But then, I was also worried with 4E ditching the 1-2-1 movement because its "too complicated" (imo its also very simple to remember).

 

[Neonchameleon]

No. Thats really simple.
- Leaving a threatened square except by withdrawing and 5ft steps
- Ranged, unarmed attacks and spellcasting
- Combat abilities unless you have the feat for it.
- Skills not used directly for combat.

It can't get more simple than that. I really worry for what people D&D is being designed when they can't even remember this list.
But then, I was also worried with 4E ditching the 1-2-1 movement because its "too complicated" (imo its also very simple to remember).

Thank you for making the point. Drink a potion doesn't fit the spellcasting category (or any other). Casting a spell from a wand doesn't trigger an AoO. Standing up from prone doesn't fit any of your categories.

So what's so complicated about AoOs?

1: Your summary doesn't work.

2: I don't recall them ever being presented as in your summary.

It's obvious that your summary is something like what they were going for. But there are edge cases (potions and wands), people don't always memorise the feats for combat maneuvers or see why they have to, and the presentation doesn't IIRC make the idea clear.

 

[Wiseblood]

AoO's can and should die.

 

[Rhenny]

The idea to use contests or checks to "disengage" or "move past/through threatened spaces" at this point is the only option that is consistent with the core rules. I like it. I've been using it in my playtests, and it adds an extra thrill to combat, while limiting erratic movement.

If creature A wins the contest, he or she can disengage or move past or through treatened spaces. If creature A fails, he must stop movement...end. Perhaps the DM can assign "disadvantage" if creature A has to move through more than one threatened space.

This is logical, and consistent with the core rules. There doesn't have to be an attack...basically this allows us to mechanically simulate the following:

Creature A wants to do something that Creature B wants to prevent (opposes). It is clear and consistent.

 

[drothgery]

I definitely want some kind of mechanics that say

• casting in melee is a bad idea
• using ranged weapons in melee is a bad idea
• running past the fighter to get to the wizard is a bad idea
• you're likely to get hit if you panic and run
• doing something complicated in the middle of combat other than fighting is dangerous

Exactly how those rules work doesn't matter much to me, as long as they're simple and effective.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Well, 5e playtest rules lets you get safely away using normal movement. It's the same as assuming you are always careful enough to withdraw if you want. Just like the rules assume you are always attentive enough to target vital areas (critical hits), without necessarily using rules for called shots. And they assume you are always precise enough in casting spells, so that you need concentration checks only when specifically distracted but not in general.

I don't see anything outrageous in the ability of withdrawing freely... on a more tactical game, you'll definitely get a penalty for withdrawing, with an ad-hoc rule. In a tactical-light game, withdrawing from the fight is a penalty already!

 

[Keldryn]

It can't get more simple than that. I really worry for what people D&D is being designed when they can't even remember this list.
But then, I was also worried with 4E ditching the 1-2-1 movement because its "too complicated" (imo its also very simple to remember).

I can make your list even simpler: doing anything that causes you to drop your guard or stop paying attention to your opponent. That's not the primary issue with AoOs, in my experience.

Players counting our squares -- and checking to see if they will het attacked -- for three different routes each time they want to move really slows down the game. It also gets very tedious after a short while.

AoOs also aren't that meaningful with regards to casting a spell or making a ranged attack unless you're surrounded or your movement is constrained by an obstacle, as safety is only a shift or 5' step away.

As with many rules in 3.x and 4e, AoOs are not too complicated to remember or understand; they are, however, yet another rule that is fiddly enough to often take more time and effort to adjudicate than the end result justifies. When you pile enough of these mini-systems on top of each other -- each of which requires a small but non-quite-trivial amount of time and effort to use -- you end up with combats that take an hour or more and players potentially getting bored while they wait 10 minutes until their next turn.

4e's simplified diagonal movement was also less about it being too difficult to remember or calculate 1-2-1 and more about helping the game to play faster. Given that the battle grid is an abstraction of the game world, a little more abstraction in movement helped the game play more smoothly.

Some players love the level of tactical depth that rules such as AoOs give them. Other players are utterly bored with the resulting combats that play out with such rules, and start to find the game to be more work than fun. It's got nothing to do with the players not understanding the rules. Sometimes even smart people enjoy playing with a streamlined, fast-playing set of rules.

And the best way for the game to accommodate both types of players is to have a stripped down core with option tactical modules. Yes, that way makes more work for the tactical-minded players, but honestly, it's those players who will be more likely to put in a bit of extra effort to tweak the game.

 

[Incenjucar]

I don't see anything outrageous in the ability of withdrawing freely... on a more tactical game, you'll definitely get a penalty for withdrawing, with an ad-hoc rule. In a tactical-light game, withdrawing from the fight is a penalty already!

The thing with a "tactical-light" game is that there's no reason for the DM to not eradicate your squishies except to take it easy on you, and ranged attackers can pretty much do whatever they want. Withdrawing from the fight is neither a penalty for the giant whomping on your wizard nor for the mounted archer kiting your cleric.

 

[slobo777]

The thing with a "tactical-light" game is that there's no reason for the DM to not eradicate your squishies except to take it easy on you, and ranged attackers can pretty much do whatever they want. Withdrawing from the fight is neither a penalty for the giant whomping on your wizard nor for the mounted archer kiting your cleric.

IMO the current 5E playtest material does not stand as a separate (and confrontational) playable game on a battleboard, nor does it stand up to either DM or players wanting to use the rules to their full extent for advantage.

The story-based reasons for not squishing wizards, not having rank-rotation in the front rows etc, are best maintained without the grid, and with additional effects, not codified in the published rules, limiting choice narrated in by DM and players. As soon as someone reaches for exacting measurements so they can get some rules to back up a play, it's time to start looking for (or at the moment, wishing for) the tactics module.