So, Attacks of Oppportunity?

[Incenjucar]

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.

What story-based reasons for not squishing wizards?

The reason to not squish wizards is entirely meta-gaming on the part of a DM from what I can tell. Nobody in their right might would go after the fighter when there's a wizard or a cleric that's just as easy to get to.

 

[Li Shenron]

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...

No reason? If the gaming group is playing a tactical-light game, it means either that (a) this is what they are interested in, or (b) they are beginners and cannot yet handle a tactical-heavy game. If the DM does not comply and decides to go hard on them, if it's (b) then he may be lucky that they quickly improve and then the DM can change from core rules to tactical module rules, but if they are not fast enough or if it's (a) then the DM has simply managed to spoil their fun. Here's a reason, and it assumed of course that the DM himself doesn't want a tactical-light game.

 

[Incenjucar]

No reason? If the gaming group is playing a tactical-light game, it means either that (a) this is what they are interested in, or (b) they are beginners and cannot yet handle a tactical-heavy game. If the DM does not comply and decides to go hard on them, if it's (b) then he may be lucky that they quickly improve and then the DM can change from core rules to tactical module rules, but if they are not fast enough or if it's (a) then the DM has simply managed to spoil their fun. Here's a reason, and it assumed of course that the DM himself doesn't want a tactical-light game.

So, meta-gaming to go easy on them.

Do you feel it is impossible to design a tactical-light D&D that doesn't rely on meta-gaming and coddling?

 

[slobo777]

What story-based reasons for not squishing wizards?

The reason to not squish wizards is entirely meta-gaming on the part of a DM from what I can tell. Nobody in their right might would go after the fighter when there's a wizard or a cleric that's just as easy to get to.

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have used story. I mean "narrative", and also not specifically to protect the wizard. The DM and player can control the combat options in a much more flexible way if they ignore the strictures of a grid.

Contrast:

A narrative approach: "You are all backed up against the wall, with the cleric and fighter protecting the rogue and the wizard - four bad guys can get in, but they cannot get at the rogue and wizard" (i.e. this is really just a choke point, without retreat, re-fluffed allowed because no-one is counting squares)

A grid approach: "You backed against the wall? Right, no matter what you do here, there will be 2 squares free for monsters to attack, and I cannot see any reason why they wouldn't strike at the wizard or thief."

. . . similar concepts apply to "rotating ranks of doom" - a narrative approach is just "well, the bad guys are milling around you, and they are quite mobile, so I'll say 4 of them can attack you in that corner". As opposed to counting squares and finding out that 16 monsters can attack. If you don't use a grid, you don't count count squares.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I definitely want some kind of mechanics that say

• casting in melee is a bad idea

Why? Why should casting shocking grasp be automatically a bad idea in combat? Or Thunderwave?

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.

To me this means that the current 5e playtest mateiral does not stand up to roleplaying in combat and it doesn't stand up to PCs. PCs fighting for their life are going to want every edge they can get.

So you're telling me that I can not roleplay in combat in a combat heavy roleplaying game with a class that specialises in combat.

This is a huge fail whichever way I look at it.

Contrast:

A narrative approach: "You are all backed up against the wall, with the cleric and fighter protecting the rogue and the wizard - four bad guys can get in, but they cannot get at the rogue and wizard" (i.e. this is really just a choke point, without retreat, re-fluffed allowed because no-one is counting squares)

A grid approach: "You backed against the wall? Right, no matter what you do here, there will be 2 squares free for monsters to attack, and I cannot see any reason why they wouldn't strike at the wizard or thief."

Objection. You are having a massively weak DM in the narrative approach and both a DM behaving like Khan and some really sloppy rules in the grid approach.

Contrast:

A narrative approach: "You're backing up against the wall. Which allows all the monsters to pick when and how they attack you. They simply step back and you realise you're against the wall for a firing squad. The commander barks a word and the cleric takes sixteen javelins at close range"

A grid approach: "The Goblin chief barks an order to pull back. Four of the goblin fighters are in the knight's defender aura - after he spots one of them turning his back the other three refuse. One tries to swing at the wizard, but the knight, on his toes and alert for any enemies taking their eyes off him, cuts that one down too. The other two look at each other and then try to attack the fighter. Meanwhile, unable to get a good shot off, the goblins try charging the cleric and thief, two on the cleric (and not in the defender aura), and one on the thief - and the thief gets partial cover from the corner."

Now. Why is your narrative approach any more valid than mine? Because I really don't think it is. But under 4e rules with grid based combat my fighter can literally do what I have written him as doing. Your grid based combat issue hasn't been a reflection of core D&D for years.

 

[drothgery]

[/LIST]Why? Why should casting shocking grasp be automatically a bad idea in combat? Or Thunderwave?

I was speaking more of a general rule than a universalism there; 4e said casting range 'close' spells did not provoke OAs, and I'd be fine with a category of spells designed to be use in melee that didn't incur risk.

 

[Incenjucar]

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have used story. I mean "narrative", and also not specifically to protect the wizard. The DM and player can control the combat options in a much more flexible way if they ignore the strictures of a grid.

Contrast:

A narrative approach: "You are all backed up against the wall, with the cleric and fighter protecting the rogue and the wizard - four bad guys can get in, but they cannot get at the rogue and wizard" (i.e. this is really just a choke point, without retreat, re-fluffed allowed because no-one is counting squares)

A grid approach: "You backed against the wall? Right, no matter what you do here, there will be 2 squares free for monsters to attack, and I cannot see any reason why they wouldn't strike at the wizard or thief."

. . . similar concepts apply to "rotating ranks of doom" - a narrative approach is just "well, the bad guys are milling around you, and they are quite mobile, so I'll say 4 of them can attack you in that corner". As opposed to counting squares and finding out that 16 monsters can attack. If you don't use a grid, you don't count count squares.

Choke points exist whether or not you have OAs, but OAs allow you to have "soft" choke points since they give a character the ability to affect more than their own square. Occupying a space and creating a body barrier only works in choke points, however. In an open battle field, the non-OA melee characters can't do jackall to stop anyone from just walking by them to get to the wizard.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

No reason? If the gaming group is playing a tactical-light game, it means either that (a) this is what they are interested in, or (b) they are beginners and cannot yet handle a tactical-heavy game. If the DM does not comply and decides to go hard on them, if it's (b) then he may be lucky that they quickly improve and then the DM can change from core rules to tactical module rules, but if they are not fast enough or if it's (a) then the DM has simply managed to spoil their fun. Here's a reason, and it assumed of course that the DM himself doesn't want a tactical-light game.

First, just because the group doesn't want each turn of combat to take an hour doesn't mean they want the combat system to have obvious holes in it.

Second, if the core rules don't contain SOME kind of stickiness for fighter-types, then the entire combat role of a fighter changes completely depending on what rules module you're using.


Finally, in my experience, the beginner/RP-heavy player who would be most interested in a "tactical-light" game is probably the one who, when playing a melee character, would want to be most creative in combat. He's the guy who says, "Rognarg growls and rips the orc's blade out of his hand with a fierce blow," and then expects the DM to adjudicate that on the fly; if you told him, "You need a 3rd-level encounter power to disarm your enemy," he'd say that was stupid and artificially limiting. The problem isn't that he doesn't want options; it's that he doesn't want to memorize a bunch of fiddly rules to exercise those options. And if he's playing a defender-style character, he'll definitely expect to be able to do something to protect his squishy allies from the goblin hoards beyond just hoping the DM makes them act in an unrealistic and tactically stupid manner, attacking the angry guy in platemail instead of the priest huddling behind him. More often than not, that player is actually the one who will be MOST annoyed by enemies who act in a tactically stupid manner just to make the combat easier.

 

[Rhenny]

In an open battle field, the non-OA melee characters can't do jackall to stop anyone from just walking by them to get to the wizard.

This is why, in real life, and in the game, it is not a good idea to fight in a wide-open area (the killing fields). Use of terrain (choke points, obstacles, cover) will be even more important in a game without AoO.

 

[Rhenny]

And if he's playing a defender-style character, he'll definitely expect to be able to do something to protect his squishy allies from the goblin hoards beyond just hoping the DM makes them act in an unrealistic and tactically stupid manner, attacking the angry guy in platemail instead of the priest huddling behind him. More often than not, that player is actually the one who will be MOST annoyed by enemies who act in a tactically stupid manner just to make the combat easier.

But won't the defender have abilities to protect (defender and hold the line...probably more on the way...)?