Community

Jun 8, 2012 -- 8:33PM, lousypunk wrote:

Wouldn't the simplest solution here just be to say that if a creature leaves a threatened area and attacks another creature, it gets disadvantage on the attack?  I think it makes sense mechanically (there's a disincentive to gang up on the wizard, but retreat is still a viable option), and also as a simulation (the attacker is distracted because they have to remain aware of a possible counter attack from the creature they disengaged).  I was thinking about houseruling it this way in my own campaign.  Does anyone see any obvious problems that I'm missing?

Yes, this is possibly the simplest solution.  An extra 5' of movement is simple too.  1/2 movement could get complicated, and that's obviously not what this edition wants.

My take on it is this:  I still have yet to see this get abused.  I've played with four different groups.  DM'ed three times and played as a player twice.  I have yet to see how this cripples the game in any way.  If anything, it forces people to be tactical.  So I really don't get all the fuss.

Jun 7, 2012 -- 3:13PM, Arithezoo wrote:

When people play without opportunity attacks when they are used to having the mechanic, what you see is posts like the one above by Shardey.  There have been many such posts.  "The orcs just all ran past the fighter to attack the wizard."  Etc.

So I have a question to any old timers out there who played D&D before the concept of an opportunity attack became a part of the game: what was it like back then?  Did everyone just dance around during combat?  Would all the enemies swarm past the fighter and ignore him?  Or did people have an unspoken agreement that such things were off limits?  Or something else entirely?

I think it would be helpful to get this perspective on this issue.

I'm one of the old timers that didn't get a chance to chime in, and I'm sorry that I was a little bit late on getting my jab in here.

AoO were always there, as Carl pointed out in his latest post, they just weren't as exploited as they became in later editions.

For myself, as the DM in too many OD&D, 2E, etc. games; it was my ignorance of real tactics that kept me from taking full advantage of the monsters ability to "gunch" the wizards, healer clerics, etc. in the party.

Just like actual warefare has progressed through the ages, so too, does a DMs understanding of how fantasy warfare can and should progress as they get more experience running it, dealing with it and adjudicating it.

Cavemen used to charge into melee combat wailing on each other with fists and clubs.  Then we got slings, and then bows, and then catapults, and then cannons, and then guns replaced swords, and then kevlar replaced metal armor, and now we have tanks, artillery and so on and so forth.

D&D has done a lot of the same things - Swords and Bows and catapults were all the real world mechanical vs mechanical.  They also developed their version of Artillery with Area Effect spells like Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Mordenkainens Minute Meteors, Word of Death, etc.

Since I am a soldier, my understanding of Artillery Fire, Counter Artillery Fire, and all types of maneuver tactics to minimize and counter these has increased so has my ability to negotiate all of these elements of combat in D&D.

My gaming group loves it because they love being able to run what turn out to be Battle Drills against the monsters that they have to fight, but it also makes me a fierce DM in combat when it comes to using intelligent monsters in combat, and don't get me started on what a Dragon can and can't do in combat - they're the worst kind of flying tank (tanks are used to destroy their opponent) available and boy are they hard to kill.

So, over time, my understanding of concepts in D&D such as the monster subtypes as they were explained in 4E make perfect sense to me - Lurkers = LRS Teams; Skirmishers = CAV Scouts; Arcane Blasters = Artillery, etc.

The Army uses terrain, combat engineering obstacles, terrain denial tactics and more to keep things like "moving past the infantry front line of defense to hit the supply lines" in real life, and I don't know why, but 5E seems to be very lacking in this regard.  

For this playtest, the only worthwhile solution(s) I could find in the RAW, are that the Wizard should always carry caltrops and use them liberally, or always cast 'Grease' around himself, always ready an action to cast Ray of Frost on round 1 (really boring for the WizO) or always have the Rogue covering his butt so that when something does break past he gets a really nasty whack for his trouble, or use any combination of the above techniques to keep himself alive, or make it worth the Rogues time to help him out in this regard.

I've also come up with numerous houserules and alternatives to the above for 5E (which you've read in other threads), but I think what is abudantly clear is that a large part of the posting community wants something more in the official version of 5E than unlimited Freedom of Maneuver in combat.

Just my 2 cps...