[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




AOOs don't make any sense. Just because I move, you get to attack? wtf? so there was a moment you could've hit me, but didn't because I didn't move...cool. Another example that proves wotc doesn't understand the game they "own". Also general mechanics hate thread.
>>
File: 1368102408730.jpg (23 KB, 256x256)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>>62436913
Are you from the past?
You try to move past someone.
This gives him a lot of openings as you're now focusing on moving instead of keeping up a constant guard.
He hits you in your back as you run past him.

AoO is not a difficult concept to grasp.

PE and 3.5 had some other windows of opportunity, like casting spells, fiddling with your backpack and trying to aim a bow in melee, perfectly good reasons for dropping your guard when some dude tries to stab you.
>>
>>62436913
Combat between 2 characters occurs in a 10 foot space represented by 2 tiles. Within that space the fighters are dodging, shuffling around, attacking, etc with their attention on one another.

To escape that engagement you either walk backward, which is slower than your enemy can move forward, or turn around and run, which exposes you.

In what way do you escape from this "combat lock" without risking an attack? That aren't already represented by skills/talents.
>>
>>62436913
It's a sort of meta-gamey rule to encourage people to be statically locked in combat, so that people/monsters have zones of control and area denial abilities. They wanted a game where you can't casually stroll past the guards to geek the support characters in the rear.

There are better ways to do it, but I understand why they did it the way they did.
>>
>>62436976
>>62437032
>wtf is defensive movement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQYeSXpC244
>>
>>62437060
>meta-gamey rule to encourage people to be statically locked in combat
another reason it sucks, it leads to boring combat where ppl stand in place and swing over and over
>>
>>62437065
Yeah, you can defend yourself from an attack of opportunity like any other attack. It's represented by a dice roll and the GM narrates it if it happens.

You still get attacked though.
>>
>>62437060

Is there better ways to do this?

Flat out just having monsters lock out the area. (I kinda wish my knowledge of those mechanics wasn't Magic the Gathering Tactics)
>>
>>62437085
Sorta. You gotta remember that DnD came from a wargame. They wanted to be able to simulate static fighting lines, not Erol Flynn acrobatics.
>>
>>62437116
and every time you strike, you open yourself to a counter-attack. this is not represented in the system, because dnd is not a simulation, it's an abstraction....until the people who own a card game decide to pile on a bunch of unrelated simulationist mechanics
>>
I think an option for another character to cover your retreat out of combat
>>
>>62437140
which is why aoo's werent added until 25 years later?
>>
>>62437158
Exactly.
>>
File: download (1).png (72 KB, 400x400)
72 KB
72 KB PNG
>>62437187
>>
>>62437065
Yes. Some people have defensive movement as a skill, trait or ability.

It's good to understand that you have now understood what an AOO is and and your original example is dogshit.
Wotc seemingly understand the game more than you do pal.
Have a good day.
>>
>>62437224
nice try faggot, but that would require someone to have an AOO skill. Good job proving you don't understand the game, sweetie.
>>
>>62437137
The better way to do it would be to have fairly beefy rules for held actions, and significant bonuses to attacking people from the side or behind. Such that running past someone has a good chance of getting you stabbed in the back.

AoO are a more gamey way of accomplishing something similar.
>>
Surprised this many fags aren't even aware of tsr dnd....but I guess I shouldn't be.
>>
>>62437265
>run past someone
>that someone gets sneak attack if they have the skill
this wouldn't bother me
>>
>>62437216
The game didn't support the style of combat they wanted to represent, so that added rules to make it work closer to thier imagining.

Meat shields in front, wizards in the back.
>>
>>62437265

You don't want held actions to be good.

It's important that proactive actions not get straight fucked by easy use reactions with little to no cost.


Otherwise, everything goes into stalemates, and stalemates are only hype when they are rare.
>>
>>62437288
no, a completely different company made those rules, which were "refined" by the owners of My Little Porny
>>
>>62437284

That's actually how 4e works.

… given you actually use the run action vs. normal movement.
>>
>>62437284
Honestly everyone should have sneak attacks. Rogues should just be better at it.
>>
>>62437303
Exactly.
>>
>>62437065
That's what we call a "shift" in the single non-retarded WotC edition.
>>
>>62437273
Really anon? I'm surprised they get the abbreviations right.
>>
File: AD&D2eRetreating.jpg (92 KB, 582x524)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>62437158
>which is why aoo's werent added until 25 years later?
>>
>>62437381
>2e
15 years later, but fleeing is not the same as moving in and out of someone's range. fleeing rules don't bother me
>>
>>62437315
I hate to say it, but I honestly think this was one of the things done really well by Palladium Fantasy. Almost any character who had combat training got some kind of bonus for attacking people from behind/surprise. For most it was just an auto-crit, but for the well trained people it could be an auto-KO, and for assassin types it could be an instant kill.
>>
>>62437291
Not really. Held active being as good or better than normal activities just results in different gameplay.

Stalemates tend not to happen much.
For example:
I want to stab the king.His guard has held an action to try and stop me. I can either deal with the guard first, it deal with the consequences of not doing so.b the guard hasn't forced me into a stalemate. But he has forced me to make a decision.
>>
>>62437408
Fleeing is treated the same as moving out of someone's range.
But in 2e moving into someone's range never drew an attack (well almost never), because it assumes you're approaching carefully.
>>
>>62437461
I drive think you get to now for morning in do you? Just moving in them moving out, ie running away or running by.
>>
>>62437461
no it isn't, fleeing specifically says turning your back and running, which is clearly different than the kind of movement that allows AOO in wotcdnd
>>
>>62436913
Then house rule it. Jesus, you act like this is hard.
>>
File: download (13).jpg (62 KB, 360x325)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
>>62437492
holy shit this is a great post
>>
>>62437499
Well if you want to compare to wotc dnd
>Moving
>Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

>Withdraw
>Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. (Invisible enemies still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you can’t withdraw from combat if you’re blinded.) You can’t take a 5-foot step during the same round in which you withdraw.
>If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal.
>You may not withdraw using a form of movement for which you don’t have a listed speed.
>Note that despite the name of this action, you don’t actually have to leave combat entirely.

>Restricted Withdraw
>If you are limited to taking only a standard action each round you can withdraw as a standard action. In this case, you may move up to your speed (rather than up to double your speed).

Which suggests that leaving your opponent's threatened area is considered you turning tail and fleeing, unless you withdraw or 5-foot step, in which case you're being careful.

Now enemies with long reach fuck you either way, but that's another issue. The simple truth is the AoO assumes you're acting like a scared bitch as opposed to tactically moving about.
>>
>>62436913

Play one of those simulation games... The Dark Eye for example. Have fun keeping track of a million things in combat, if that's what you want. Complaining about DnD not being realistic is like complaining about Duke Nukem not being a realistic video game. Holy shit, man, there's more than DnD.
>>
>>62437492
Is that some impressive autocorrect, or some mildly impressive machine learning?
>>
>>62437440

Just sounds like the guard has burned a turn to force you to focus on him.

Not terribly interesting.

>>62437429
Eh, that's just a coup de grace with just much easier activation conditions.
>>
>>62437597
>DnD not being realistic
not my complaint at all. wotcdnd is like a mutated baby, grown out in all the wrong places. I have no problem with tsr dnd, which holds to being an abstraction. It's the addition of simulationist elements that make the game into nonsense. and I play lots of other games.
>>
>>62436913
I don't play with attacks of opportunity, but if the players don't react with
>"n-nani?! h-he's fast!"
Or something similar when one of the npcs moves up to them to attack I give them a penalty.
Same goes for the the creatures and characters I control too though.
>>
>>62437492
>>
>>62436913
They're a mechanical choice to prevent people from escaping melee without consequence
>>
>>62437583

4e works the same way, just not having a double speed option that ignores provoking OA on the square you use it.
>>
>>62437583
So it's impossible to strafe backwards?
>>
>>62437775
Go outside, get with a friend and a pair of sticks. Try to break contact to at least 5 feet while moving backwards and guarding yourself from his blows. Do it about 10 times to get a good baseline.

Spoiler alert, he can move faster forward than you can "strafe" backward.
>>
>>62437624
>Just sounds like the guard has burned a turn to force you to focus on him.
Depends on how bad you want to stab the king. Whether he forced you to do something or not, is besides the point though.

It isn't a stalemate.
>>
>>62437862
That's one of the fun things about dueling with a spear. You learn to be really good at running backwards.
>>
>>62437883
then you'd be a fighter with a defensive trait/perk, and in some rules your weapon of choice gives you a little bonus as well. For the most part though, people on the same level are gonna have trouble disengaging from close range without at least risking a shot.
>>
>>62437865

My point is that you haven't actually made held actions good at all.

You have made them into a trap, particulary after sides close in, because holding an action is never better than just making the straight attack.
>>
>>62437862
so he has to move, thus requiring another action on another turn
>>
>>62437065
So... Two dudes within reach of each other, dodging & blocking... That is a normal combat. Now show us the clip of Floyd running like a bitch & the other dude drilling him
>>
>>62438030
>My point is that you haven't actually made held actions good at all.
How's that?
You mean they aren't a good option in character, or a good as a rule?

Depending on the system he can do something else with his held action, if you decide not to engage him, or try to stab the king.
>>
>>62438137
>running like a bitch
i have never boxed: the post
>getting hit in the fucking arm is getting drilled
lel
>>
>>62437976
>then you'd be a fighter with a defensive trait/perk
Naw, just a character with a held action and extra running, only to run backwards.
>>
>>62438175
Do you have any fucking reading comprehension?

I stated that that clip is of standard combat. One that did not showcase an "attack of opportunity"

Then I asked to be shown a clip showing the person depicted in the video, in an engagement in which they fled & we're attacked in response
>>
>>62436913
I understand if you are tying to move around somebody but backing off also? really? It just makes combat way to static and prevents people from using the environment when they get into combat cause it takes a whole action to disengage.
>>
>>62438249
fleeing is not the same as AOO, my dude
>>
>>62438163

Oh great, you are now vague posting about a system that does it well.

It's still not a good option in character or as a rule, once fighting starts.

I am fine with held actions as a "hey, don't get into my range, or I will stab you, but otherwise I will set here, because I will use other character features to deny this area to my enemies.", but that's something where you are giving characters insentive to not break formation, and giving them an option for direct attacks that doesn't sac their whole turn's damage pontiental.


4e D&D's defender role monster/class camping in a high value area and sitting on a held action to poke does that, while still using the OA framework to possibly double punish a character changing in OR still having some area denial afterwards

Otherwise, monsters have to be actively dumb to not just walk over to the squishy support class and disable them.
>>
>>62438249
Maybe it's your writing, cause I can't understand what you're on about. Floyd moves back, it doesn't provoke an aoo.
>>
>>62438431
>>62438575
In D&D movement is abstracted. If you are not move in more than 5 feet you basically are not moving. If you move more than this then you are moving at a jog (30ft). If you put everything into sprinting then you have no time for anything else but move 60ft
A defensive retreat can be done, but you sacrifice your ability to go on the offensive. This is "disengage" action followed by up to 30ft of movement
Now, imagine being in a boxing match/martial encounter of any kind, bobing & weaving & attacking, then suddenly turning around & -sprinting- away. You do not have time to adequately defend yourself. Your foe would not have to focus on their own defense & so could hit you easier.
>>
>>62439050
>could hit you easier
so it should be a bonus to next attack then, but not allowing an extra attack which would not have occurred otherwise
>>
>>62439140
>an extra attack which would not have occurred otherwise

If you stop fighting the guy, he's not going to be on guard anymore and he's going to go on the attack. Does that make sense?
>>
>>62439226
No, see, unless it is a 1:1 mechanical representation of my interpretation of reality, it is shit.
>>
>>62439140
No, it's a reaction.
>>
>>62437367
You have equivalent of that in other editions, but I don't expect you not being an ignorant retard.
>>
>>62439140
Except then your target would be out of range. As combat is abstracted to be a succession of turns taking place in the same "round" you cannot/it is difficult to retroactively apply bonuses to an attacker who may have had his turn before you
>>
>>62439374
>would be out of range
right so he needs to move, so it should be another action on another turn
>>>62439276
no, it doesn't make sense. why didn't he attack anyway if there was time?
>>62439248
no idiot, its a game and should be internally consistent
>>
>>62439401
But it isn't an opportunity that occurs when one chases down a runner (at least not the immediate one) but when they first begin their movement
>>
>>62439401
>no, it doesn't make sense. why didn't he attack anyway if there was time?
Because there wasn't time when the opponent was actively defending. When they dropped defenses to run like a bitch you got the time.
>>
>>62439481
that doesn't make sense, it doesn't create time when someone drops defenses. and that's not the only time you provoke AOO, it can happen when side-stepping, running past, or hopping backwards. I know you like this mechanic, but it doesn't fit in the framework of the game.
>>
>>62436913
You, sir, are an absolute buffoon. Of all the mechanics you can hate in D&D, you pick the attack of opportunity?

>so there was a moment you could've hit me, but didn't because I didn't move...cool.
When you're fighting an opponent, you face him and keep your guard up. If you use your turn to attack, you don't leave them an opening, as you're being active and alert to attack him, press on him, and prevent him from counter-attacking. They can't attack you because you're being fighting them actively and not leaving them any opening. If you turn heels on them, or spend a solid six second on chanting spells or reloading crossbows or pulling your bow and shooting at someone else, then you leave yourself completely open to them and allow them to capitalize on that moment to strike. It works perfectly both in terms of logic, turn economy, and game depth/balancement.
I don't play D&D, but I borrow aoo in my games because it just works well.

Be ashamed of how much of an idiot you've made of yourself today, OP.
>>
>>62439569
nope, whether i am guarding or not does not influence whether you have time to attack, nice try tho.
>>
File: bate.png (80 KB, 500x501)
80 KB
80 KB PNG
>>62439804
>>
>>62439878
it's about the time....if you were able to attack, you would have, whether i move or not
>>
>>62437065
>what the fuck is the Disengage action guise
>>
>>62437142
>simulationist mechanics
urgh
>>
>>62439916
He's right tho
>>
>>62439804
>>62439894
You're clearly not getting it.

If time is your problem, let me put it this way.
When your sorry ass is running away, I don't have to keep a guard up. I can move in and hit you because you're being a careless little shit.
>>
>>62439804
>>62439894
I won't give you the courtesy of assuming you're baiting and just consider you a brainlet.
>>
>>62439956
but you don't have TIME to do it, or you would've attacked me anyway...just accept that you have lost
>>62439913
go play vidya kiddo
>>62439981
>when you have no argument
>>
>>62439997
> you would've attacked me anyway...
No, because I would have need that time to defend myself against your attacks.
But since you're not attacking, I now have more time for attacking myself.
>>
>>62439997
I have an argument and have explained it in detail. You're just too stupid to understand it, it seems.
>>
>>62440067
ok this is an attempt at argument finally. Unfortunately, defending is passive, not active, so it does not take time in the system. But at least you are trying, good job
>>
>>62437142
As some dude said above, melee combat is about finding opportunities to get a clean hit in. Higher level fighters find more opportunities to get hits in. Battlemasters can choose to focus on capitalizing on an opponent's openings when he strikes by using riposte. If someone misses your AC and you dont have riposte it just means that your enemy found an opening that could be defended but not countered
>>
>>62440144
>more opportunities to get hits in
yes, represented by extra attacks
> riposte
does not represent a counterattack in the situation i described
>>62440107
just because you're wrong and can't defend your position doesn't mean I'm stupid
>>
Something something play something other than D&D
>>
>>62440140
>the system is simulationist when I want it to
>the system is gamist when I want it to
8/10 got me to respond
>>
>>62442526
This is actually my point, it's a retarded mix of elements that don't make sense together.
>>
>>62439521
>it can happen when side-stepping, running past, or hopping backwards.

If you move out of a threatened space and it's not a 5-foot step or a withdrawal, it's not you side-stepping, or hopping backwards, it's you turning tail to run like a bitch. If you run past it's you trying to dash by the enemy and run like a bitch.

If you want to complain, it's not the AoO's fault that D&D doesn't have 5 million modes of movement.
>>
>>62443352
Withdrawal isn't necessarily fleeing
>>
>>62443636
Which is why I said 5-foot step and withdrawal are the exceptions to running like a bitch.
>>
>>62443188

Eh, it makes sense, in that it makes keeping close to a target actually works, reducing kitings power.
>>
>>62443754
Which is why I don't mind the fleeing rules from tsr, but can't stand aoo
>>
>>62437085
>>62437140
I hope you guys remember that you can do other stuff with your action, like use an item, grapple the opponent, or shove them, which can knock them prone or push them back 5 feet.. You aren't limited to hack and slash
>>
File: 1539300525039.jpg (120 KB, 540x802)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
>>62436913
OP there is a mechanic called disengage that you should look into. I think it will solve your problem.
>>
>>62437065
This dipshit posted boxing to counter AOO in Dnd. Your dad gave you an extra chromosome dude
>>
>>62437137
My system of choice has facing rules and low HP values overall. Even if you catch the knight by surprise and bolt past while he isn’t waiting and ready, running past him to swing at the qt healer is a great way to get OHKO’d from behind.
>>
>>62444371
if you can run circles around people without provoking AoOs and you also have facing rules, you'll just end up with everyone getting backstabbed always (unless I guess you do some very restrictive stuff where you can only attack and move in the same turn if you charge in a straight line or something).
>>
I get that there is and has to be lot of abstraction but DnD has always (as long as I remember) had issues in keeping itself contained into one level of abstraction. Sometimes you are locked in combat for a turn and sometimes you do individual maneuvers down to very small details.

Either is fine but try to keep it straight, action budget has no place in combat where characters are already expected to do fighting maneuvers as part of standard attack and defense rolls, just use the actions as modifiers (in most cases).
>>
>>62437032
>In what way do you escape from this "combat lock" without risking an attack? That aren't already represented by skills/talents.
Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!
>>
>>62436913
There usually isn't any reason to move during combat, unless the party is ambushed or has to get to a point quickly, there are actual mechanics for cover, etc.

But I still don't understand why you are upset. If AoO counts as character's attack in this round, and he can only attack once, it's a good mechanic. Does D&D have a different system?
>>
Attack rolls do not represent individual weapon swings, but potential threatening attacks in the span of a turn. Making a few rapid strikes and two big swings aren't mechanically different, the number of attacks you get represent your skill, not your speed. You get to turn more chances into potentially lethal attacks, because you don't suck as much.
AoOs represent a lapse in the defenders guard because they had to stop defending themselves as well as they normally do for some reason. Maybe to run away, or in some editions to cast a spell, or because another character used some special ability/magic to give you that chance Commander's Strike in 5e goes here, or because your own training let you unexpectedly get a chance in when most people couldn't (feats).
>>
>>62448233
>If AoO counts as character's attack in this round
that's not how it works tho
>>
>>62437065
covered by bonus action: disengage
>>
>>62437240
you don't need a skill for AOO, try again





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.