http://castlesandcooks.com/2012/06/07/dd-next-lets-talk-about-opportunity-a ttacks/
All we did to avoid most of the problem was make any space with a person in it unable to move through. It avoided wave after wave of kobolds from all getting their attacks by just moving out afterward to let the next guy in.
No more dashing through your ally's space. Moving two people past each other in a 5' hallway is simple enough. Having them do it while swinging weapons or casting spells and it's a little more difficult to avoid bumping/hitting one another.
The idea that OAs are modular is an ok one but a must have for me to participate in the game. I've played 2E where there was no AoO's/OAs (barring supplemental books) and combat.....got stale.
The fighter (or from DDN's perspective, the guy with the Defender theme/feat) really lacks a punch for protecting his allies. This means, to me, that you either have to A.) be right next to the Wizard at all times or B.) Fight in 5' corridors in dungeons. And with everyone being able to Move, Swing, Move on their turn, no OAs makes it even more ridiculous.
the rpged world was fine w/o them for 25 years, and will be fine if they never rear there ugly heads again.
DDN next puts power in the GM hands and the players and not the rules
I've played 2E where there was no AoO's/OAs (barring supplemental books) and combat.....got stale.
AoO's actually first appeared in 2e (core). They just weren't specifically named. (E.g. unarmed combat, fleeing)
DDN next puts power in the GM hands and the players and not the rules
I have no idea what this means. It implies that the DMs and Players were somehow at the Rules mercy, when in fact they never were. I've had DMs in 3E throw out the rules for AoO's and it was encouraged that you not take options that enhanced these rules (ala Combat Reflexes). Same thing with the 5-ft movement (or a Shift in 4E terminology), no one is saying you have to use this rule and have also seen DMs disregard it as well.
I hate the idea that you can only use Weapon Finesse with an elite classification of weapons when all it does it mitigate the attack stat to Dex instead of Strength. So I'm ok with someone using it for any weapons they meet the prerequisite for. Same thing with Hit Points, I normally allow my PCs to take average + Con mod or allow a Roll. And other times I just give them Max (and also Max the monster's out as well).
Basically have a clear, cut, and simple sheet that spells out what rules aren't being used or changed and let the players know that before character gen session. This goes for ability scores, races, classes, alignment, spells, supplements that aren't allowed or only by a case-by-case basis via DM permission. With this, there is no complaining about X-rule not being followed to the "T" or Y-rule not covered and needs more explination, or some unfair understanding that my build was made obsolete because the DM didn't want to factor in Metamagic feats or Attack of Opportuinity.
AoO's actually first appeared in 2e (core). They just weren't specifically named. (E.g. unarmed combat, fleeing)I've played 2E where there was no AoO's/OAs (barring supplemental books) and combat.....got stale.
I didn't dispute that they weren't existant, just that we didn't use them in our games. And it was profoundly clear when we'd go back and forth between 3E and 2E on how the game really played with them and the options gained with their inclusion. By then, we'd sworn off 2E forever and have only gone up from there.
DDN next puts power in the GM hands and the players and not the rules
I have no idea what this means. It implies that the DMs and Players were somehow at the Rules mercy, when in fact they never were. I've had DMs in 3E throw out the rules for AoO's and it was encouraged that you not take options that enhanced these rules (ala Combat Reflexes). Same thing with the 5-ft movement (or a Shift in 4E terminology), no one is saying you have to use this rule and have also seen DMs disregard it as well.
yep, and if they have been offically thrown away, you definitely dont!!
Not having house rules is a good thing too,
it is nice to all play the same game and not sit down to play and suddenly realise your d20 game is not like anyone elses
I like AoO's personally. One attack is not really slowing the game down. It is not like I need a table to learn how to do one and/or make 2 or 3 rolls also in order to make it work.
Less things could be subject to an AoO if it really bothers other people, but I would not just abandon it.
DDN next puts power in the GM hands and the players and not the rules
I have no idea what this means. It implies that the DMs and Players were somehow at the Rules mercy, when in fact they never were. I've had DMs in 3E throw out the rules for AoO's and it was encouraged that you not take options that enhanced these rules (ala Combat Reflexes). Same thing with the 5-ft movement (or a Shift in 4E terminology), no one is saying you have to use this rule and have also seen DMs disregard it as well.
yep, and if they have been offically thrown away, you definitely dont!!
Not having house rules is a good thing too,
it is nice to all play the same game and not sit down to play and suddenly realise your d20 game is not like anyone elses
I daresay no one's d20 is like everyone else. But we all know OAs aren't going to "go away" but probably put into a tactics rules module. But really, the idea and selling point of DDN is that NO ONE will be playing the same game.
thats fine, optional rules are good if everyone appreciates them, js house rules i never got on with
have now run 3 sessions of DND next and the OA/AOO issue is not missed in its absence
the difficut thing is trying to get everyone out of 4th/PF mindset and trying to reboot how they play
Overall, I'm relieved to see AoO go away. It's not that I disagree with the reasons behind that mechanic in the first place, necessarily, so much that it begins to bog the system down with an emphasis on the mechanics over descriptive play. I find it refreshing to see tactics left up to the player less than what the mechanics allow their player to do. I still agree, however, that being allowed actions at any point along the move ("Spring Attack") seems to almost necessitate AoO existing in at least some form. I'll likely bandaid the 2E version over the Playtest until whatever tactical module that handles it gets presented.
I think that playtest thought to remedy this by somewhat loosening the prepared action. It's also not that easy to define AoO without the map. Is he close enough or not? It could quickly devolve to arguing. Melee people could use some other thing to keep squishies safe as would the monsters. AoO was good at that, but how to make it work with loosely defined map?
thats fine, optional rules are good if everyone appreciates them, js house rules i never got on with
have now run 3 sessions of DND next and the OA/AOO issue is not missed in its absence
the difficut thing is trying to get everyone out of 4th/PF mindset and trying to reboot how they play
What if people enjoy the 4E/PF mindset? Shouldn't D&D:Next attempt to placate those as well? I ran 2 session of D&D:next and that's where we stopped. There just wasn't enought focus on the things we enjoy, options we were used to, and the blandness of combat. The wizard didn't employ Shocking Grasp for fear of getting smacked, the cleric of Pelor just Radiant Lanced his way through the bad guys, the Fighter seemed......stale, and the only one with any interesting combat applications were the Cleric of Moradin with his Guardian theme and even that was extreamly limited. The rogue, well he got pretty upset and decided to just taunt the bad guys because he felt his presence was not required*.
*this was before we realized the spring-attack option available to everyone AND the ability to move through your allies squares, attack a monsters, then move out at-will.
|
thats fine, optional rules are good if everyone appreciates them, js house rules i never got on with
have now run 3 sessions of DND next and the OA/AOO issue is not missed in its absence
the difficut thing is trying to get everyone out of 4th/PF mindset and trying to reboot how they playWhat if people enjoy the 4E/PF mindset? Shouldn't D&D:Next attempt to placate those as well? I ran 2 session of D&D:next and that's where we stopped. There just wasn't enought focus on the things we enjoy, options we were used to, and the blandness of combat. The wizard didn't employ Shocking Grasp for fear of getting smacked, the cleric of Pelor just Radiant Lanced his way through the bad guys, the Fighter seemed......stale, and the only one with any interesting combat applications were the Cleric of Moradin with his Guardian theme and even that was extreamly limited. The rogue, well he got pretty upset and decided to just taunt the bad guys because he felt his presence was not required*.
*this was before we realized the spring-attack option available to everyone AND the ability to move through your allies squares, attack a monsters, then move out at-will.
To be fair I think this first round is for the old schoolers and theater of mind folk who want less tactical rules. I know you like roles and powers from previous conversations but I believe that will come later in the playtests.
thats fine, optional rules are good if everyone appreciates them, js house rules i never got on with
have now run 3 sessions of DND next and the OA/AOO issue is not missed in its absence
the difficut thing is trying to get everyone out of 4th/PF mindset and trying to reboot how they playWhat if people enjoy the 4E/PF mindset? Shouldn't D&D:Next attempt to placate those as well? I ran 2 session of D&D:next and that's where we stopped. There just wasn't enought focus on the things we enjoy, options we were used to, and the blandness of combat. The wizard didn't employ Shocking Grasp for fear of getting smacked, the cleric of Pelor just Radiant Lanced his way through the bad guys, the Fighter seemed......stale, and the only one with any interesting combat applications were the Cleric of Moradin with his Guardian theme and even that was extreamly limited. The rogue, well he got pretty upset and decided to just taunt the bad guys because he felt his presence was not required*.
______________________________________________________________________
*this was before we realized the spring-attack option available to everyone AND the ability to move through your allies squares, attack a monsters, then move out at-will.
The thing is that you thought you are unable to do anything that's not specifically written on your character sheet.
You want to kick the wind out of your opponent? Do that! Name a condition you want to bestow on the opponent and roughly describe how do you want to achieve that. DM probably asks for an opposed ability test and off it goes! Fighter can use monstrous strength to push opponents or knock them prone, Rogue can use dexterity to hamstring them, throw things in their way, or dust in their eyes to blind them temporarily, wizard can use his spell effects to daze them perhaps by int vs. will test.
It's really just about talking the things out. And you don't need the map always. Try it without it :)
thats fine, optional rules are good if everyone appreciates them, js house rules i never got on with
have now run 3 sessions of DND next and the OA/AOO issue is not missed in its absence
the difficut thing is trying to get everyone out of 4th/PF mindset and trying to reboot how they playWhat if people enjoy the 4E/PF mindset? Shouldn't D&D:Next attempt to placate those as well? I ran 2 session of D&D:next and that's where we stopped. There just wasn't enought focus on the things we enjoy, options we were used to, and the blandness of combat. The wizard didn't employ Shocking Grasp for fear of getting smacked, the cleric of Pelor just Radiant Lanced his way through the bad guys, the Fighter seemed......stale, and the only one with any interesting combat applications were the Cleric of Moradin with his Guardian theme and even that was extreamly limited. The rogue, well he got pretty upset and decided to just taunt the bad guys because he felt his presence was not required*.
______________________________________________________________________
*this was before we realized the spring-attack option available to everyone AND the ability to move through your allies squares, attack a monsters, then move out at-will.The thing is that you thought you are unable to do anything that's not specifically written on your character sheet.
You want to kick the wind out of your opponent? Do that! Name a condition you want to bestow on the opponent and roughly describe how do you want to achieve that. DM probably asks for an opposed ability test and off it goes! Fighter can use monstrous strength to push opponents or knock them prone, Rogue can use dexterity to hamstring them, throw things in their way, or dust in their eyes to blind them temporarily, wizard can use his spell effects to daze them perhaps by int vs. will test.
It's really just about talking the things out. And you don't need the map always. Try it without it :)
Ah yes, good ol' Improvised Actions. The problem here is that it clearly stated Improv Actions are a standard action. If I wanted to move and Bull Rush a guy AND make an attack roll for successfully doing so, it's just not possible with the Action Economy. Now, a DM might allow that OR Opportunity Attacks OR for fighters to fly at-will but all of that is outside the rules. And if DM's are going to go outside the rules for all that stuff, but then why have them in the first place? What am I paying for if I go outside them for nearly everything?
Secondly, if the answer is Improv Actions, it really means that the Fighter class is truely dead. Anyone can knock the breath out of somone with a kick. Anyone can Bull Rush someone over a cliff or into lava. Anyone can kick open a door or break a window. Anyone can aim for a person's head to "Daze/Stun" them.
Yet only the wizard gets Magic Missile. Only the Cleric gets Spiritual Hammer. Only the Rogue get's backstab/sneak attack (even though it's current stat is sorta lame). The fighter gets........2 Actions in One Round at 3rd level 1/day. [sarcasm]GEEE, THAT'S SUPER![/sarcasm].
Perhaps the past 12 years or so has taught me to look for answers to the game from my character sheet or with rules or with abilities/powers/spells instead of my RL intellect but I'm pretty OK with that. To me, it's a game to escape RL and to have fun playing make-believe. To me, it's more fun to kick in the face of an orc with a Fighter-specific power that's "legit via Rules" because I picked that style and not the attack/damage/ability be described differently yet making the same rolls over and over. It's just not my cup of tea. And yet it appears D&D:Next is going for that style, some attempt to bring back the 1E, 2E/AD&D feeling and it's quite sad because I left those games in the dust for a reason.
The thing with no OA (or AoO) & a move-attack-move. Doesn't that mean; a slow creature cannot hit a much faster one.
Example. Fast creature (move 10) hides 5 squares away, round a corner. The slow creature (4sq), would have to ready an attack... or else the fast creature could run in, attack and run out suffering no penalty. Of course the readied attack may never go off then.
Diffan: The fighter should really prevail over most other classes in most of such actions through sheer ability score, as they'd be strength/constitution based mostly, but I agree that he should get additional bonus and/or advantage for doing so. Even that much would help. What 5i base needs is p.42-like table and an extensive guide for action adjucation.
Powers, when they enter the game should be more than that. Normally you either attack, or push enemy as needed via improvised action. A power gives you a *special* trick. You can do both at once or something like that. Powers shouldn't enable what's rather ubiquitous for anyone. They should allow you to push above and beyond, hence their limited nature.
Diffan: The fighter should really prevail over most other classes in most of such actions through sheer ability score, as they'd be strength/constitution based mostly,
Ok, before moving on I'd like to comment on the bolded part. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Fighter class. It's based solely on a high Strength score, something a wizard, cleric, rogue, paladin, ranger, warlock, druid, or barbarian might have. What a Fighter can't do is cast Ray of Frost even if he has an Intelligence of 25. Or sneak attack a bad guy if he has Advantage and a Dex of 20. Or cast Spiritual Weapon to aid him in battle even if he's the most devout follower of Pelor. These are just beyond him due to his class. The Fighter, OTOH, has nothing that distinguishes himself from the rest of the group. A Dex-based Fighter using two-weapons or a bow would have the same probability to knock down a door or kick a goblin in the face to knock him down as a Wizard or Rogue.
but I agree that he should get additional bonus and/or advantage for doing so. Even that much would help. What 5e base needs is p.42-like table and an extensive guide for action adjucation.
Agreed with the p.42 table, but it would take a lot more than just Advantage to such stunts to get the Fighter anywhere close to unique or flavorful outside of how I just decribe what he does. Perhaps they're penning this as we speak and the Fighter will have a plethora of options only available to the Fighter (which is ideal) but I have a feeling it'll fall to just more "Themes" (which is what I've been reading) and that's about as bland as you can make it.
Powers, when they enter the game should be more than that. Normally you either attack, or push enemy as needed via improvised action. A power gives you a *special* trick. You can do both at once or something like that. Powers shouldn't enable what's rather ubiquitous for anyone. They should allow you to push above and beyond, hence their limited nature.
Ok, agreed that powers should be more than just Improv. Action + Attack. I believe they should border on the fantastic, the memorable, the unique, and the extraordinary. But what sort of limited nature are we talking about? I hope you don't mean restricting it to a daily resource limit because that would break my verisimilitude (it doesn't but that's what everyone who hates 4E says). And I hope it's not just in the form of Themes, things that anyone can take. That's be even worse.
With the abilities I was kinda referring to the fact that the Fighter is the only class that wants to max these abilities during character creation, which pts him at an andvantage, but I agree, that it's a poor substitute. It gets worse if the abilities are rolled of course.
Actually allowing improvised combat stunt AND attack (or two stunts or two attacks?) is already more than anyone else can do. You can push anyone around if you have the muscle, but only a good fighter can do that while still hacking at the enemy with his axe. Having automatic advantage is rather a quick fix, but having on mind that fighter is again going to be a newb class probably it would help by offering an incite to the player to do something besides swinging the axe. It would also mean that the fighter is automatically at better chance to avoid monster's maneuver. Fighters could also have an aura of disadvantage to anyone not attacking them as well, if you wanted to give them some tanking abilities.
With powers it's more complicated. I would consider encounter-like powers for fighters. Maneuvers for when they want to show off. Normal at-will stuff should be loosely defined with fighters having the advantage, which gives them versatility and superiority at once. Certainly not daily stuff.
As I see monsters now they could benefit from similar treatment. Give them an advantage to certain stunts and suddenly they become more diverse and yet versatile. A choker doesn't need a special power. Merely having an advantage to grabbing and great reach would already make it quite distinctive.
The Dungeon Crawl Classic RPG does it well, imo - you can attempt a "mighty deed" as part of your attack (if you're a fighter). You roll as usual and hit or miss doing whatever damage you would usually do - if the outcome of that attack meets a necessary threshold*, your mighty deed comes off in addition. It gives you tactical options as a fighter in addition to just beating stuff (so you dont have that feeling of a wasted attack opportunity if your maneuver misses). Nonetheless, it doesnt slow things down at all.
(Mighty deeds can be pushing the foe around, blinding them, knocking them prone, etcetera).
.
.
*It's a little more complicated than just rolling high, since fighters get a 'deed dice' added to their d20 to hit, in lieu of a base attack bonus. So you can roll a 14 on the d20 and a 3 on your d3 deed dice - the attack roll is a 17 and, provided that's a hit, the 3 on the d3 ensures your mighty deed comes off. If your roll was 15 on the d20 and 2 on the d3, it would still hit but the deed wouldnt take effect.
Dragon Age also hase similar type of stunts (They roll 3d6 (two same, one different colour) instead of d20 and generate stunt points whenever you get the same numbers on two of the dice - you get as many as is the number on the odd coloured one and can spend these to accomplish aditional effects, like penetrating armour, having another attack, moving about etc.), but I liked the Iron Heroes better for this. For whatever you did you could increase the DC (or take penalty to the roll, I don't recall it that well) and achive greater effects if you've succeeded. Heck even margin of success would be great.
This still doesn't solve much of the problem with the fighter, which shouldn't fall behind the other PCs in power curve and yet remain simplistic for the beginners. I have proposed giving the fighter a broad-termed advantage to maneuvers along with suggestions, but as Diffan said, it's far from sufficient probably. The Authors will probably argue, that the Fighter has the best armours and weapons as well and the best HD, but is that enough and how it will get along with multiclassing? Who knows?
I don't see anything wrong with Encounter-based elements such as Maneuvers and attacks with limited use. The Tome of Battle implemented a great system for v3.5 and if they could at least go back to that, then I'd be more willing to jump aboard the D&D:Next train. Why re-invent the wheel when two strong systems already support this style?
As for the Fighter being the "beginner" class, that's all well and good but sometimes advanced players like utilizing the fighting potential of Fighters and want to see far more elaborate mechanics and Toys (so to speak) and not just the borning +1 to attacks, +2 damage scale or some such.
Also, while someone mentioned Fighters and armor, I think that if a Fighter is going to get proficiency with Fullplate/heavy armor, he should be able to use that feature right from the get-go. We don't make mages buy every single spell they can use, why should we make the fighter wait levels upon levels to get better armor they're already proficient with?
Well, these encounter based things and other such things will be probably present, but not in the basic system (although the daily thing was there...). I'm expecting some kind of tactics module to appear, but within basic system I wouldn't expect much beyond bland, but steady bonuses, which have been stapel of the class for quite some time (I don't find that offensive personally - additional kits can propel the class more to your liking)
It could be that they can squeeze more from their armours and weapons - giving them DR on later levels or something. Nice thing could also be that space within weapons reach could be a difficult terrain that does damage upon failed acrobatics check if you want to get through quickly. Perhaps they could also unlock some specialities based upon weapons used. Axes doing brutal damage, hammers stunning opponents, or other such. HEre's again where the difference between core and add-ons comes in the equation again. I think that in basic core the classes won't be doing much in any case. One or two broader features, or spellcasting and here we go plundering tombs of the ancients. Added complexity will be in other books.
I would like some mechanic to allow fighters to prevent their opponents from disengaging and swatting the weaker party members. It could be a pretty simple class ability--for example, anyone in melee with the fighter must make a DC 13 strength check or be immobile for the round.
I'm not a fan of 3E's AOOs, though, and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing them retired in favor of something a bit more situational.
the rogue has been very effective in DND next
move / fire from hidden+sneak,
move and hide behind table / another player
pop up from hidden and sneak atack
rinse and repeat. very good skirmisher
....and if you cant catch up with someone to bash them, dont chase them!!
move + hustle away
hit them with range
move + hide
move and fine cover
As i said earlier the mind set of how to play combat in 3.0-4.0 isnt easy to remove from hardwiring, and it requires a different train of thought for dnd-next, as fair as my experience thus far goes
time will tell