I've DM'ed three times now; twice Caves of Chaos and the other a homemade module. I haven't found a need to tinker with the rules at all. Our wizard has been as useful as everyone else in the party. As far as opportunity attacks go, our group hasn't needed them. Maybe it's because they're mostly experienced players, but the strategy has been top-notch using these simplified rules. Just my 2 copper.
As the players are experienced (using choke points, setting up impassible terrains, using manuevers to push, manipulate, and control), so too is the DM (me) being equally creative.
If my Bugbear wants to get at the Wizard and can't just 'walk' there, he's going to push his way through, or at least attempt to do so. In more open chambers/terrain, standing between two barrels doesn't block creatures from getting through. Just climb over the barrels. For lighter creatures, they can jump and clear someone's head much the same as a player, if not take a couple hops up a wall and land behind them.
The opportunity attacks were added for just this reason - unless my creature is mindless, I don't play it that way. Granted, AoOs come up a lot less often in this mechanical system of options, but where there's a will there's a way, and I don't want to gimp my frontline the opportunity to prevent simply 'slipping' by without them getting a chance to alter this approach.
Its all about how articulately the DM controls the creatures and the types of creatures being addressed. A fine example of this was a Kobold literally running up the Dwarf (who's height allowed plenty of gap between his head and the ceiling) and just jumping over him to charge the Wizard who made shiny bright sparkles in the air to kill his allies. (Opposed Dexterity checks (measuring swiftness and agility over reaction speed)).
The fact the Dwarf could do nothing about this, is too illogical for our games. However, I can understand the system doesn't 'require' this and thus its not in the core mechanics. I even more appreciate varied opinions on the topic.
Its all about how articulately the DM controls the creatures and the types of creatures being addressed. A fine example of this was a Kobold literally running up the Dwarf (who's height allowed plenty of gap between his head and the ceiling) and just jumping over him to charge the Wizard who made shiny bright sparkles in the air to kill his allies. (Opposed Dexterity checks (measuring swiftness and agility over reaction speed)).
The fact the Dwarf could do nothing about this, is too illogical for our games. However, I can understand the system doesn't 'require' this and thus its not in the core mechanics. I even more appreciate varied opinions on the topic.
As an aside, shouln't a Kobold running up the front of a dwarf (or even, say juking and dashing past him through his space) perhaps have involved either at least two checks on the part of the Kobold; say a climb or jump check with a reasonably difficult DC (15-17) to get into position or an opposed Bluff check to throw the dwarf off and then an opposed Dex check to which (unless the result of the first check was overwhelmingly in the Kobold's favor) the Kobold should get Disadvantage? This is not to say that the deranged little bloke's maneuver could not have worked; simply that he was logically much more likely to have wound up on his scaly little bum in front of the dwarf than behind him brandishing its spear at the elf wizard.
Assuming that the Kobold's efforts were proven suitably heroic to overcome the dwarf's position in this way, I think the Playtest rules still provide adequate punishment for it without the need for an AOO: The Kobold suffers Disadvantage on his next attack and grants Advantage to attacks against it until its next turn. This is an utter death sentence for the Kobold, who cannot hope to survive even the feeble melee abilities of the wizard under these circumstances. Do you chafe at the PC's having to "waste" a round's worth of action in snuffing out the suicidal Kobold? That seems pretty balanced in this situation. Now, if the Kobold were replaced by a ninja-like drow assassin: I think the same principles may hold true, but the maneuver would sound a lot more threatening... and appropriate!
They utilized doorways to protect the wizard and cleric of Pelor with the cleric of Moradin's defender ability.
The rogue used held actions to target creatures running to alert others.
The wizard locked down the ogre for several rounds while the melee dwarves darted in and out of his reach making attacks and only facing his thrown spear until the wizard missed a few ray of frost shots. The cleric of Pelor used spiritual hammer to suplement radiant lance, the slayer got dropped but a healing word and a potion got him up for the last round.
They put all but 6 of the goblins in the common room out and cut off access to the other corridors while they dispatched the six using held actions by the rogue and defender to target both those fleeing and those attempting to wake the sleepers.
I ran it as is and only had to make 2-3 calls that weren't directly covered by the rules.
The group hid the halfling in an empty keg and rolled him over a squad of goblins to create confusion and put a hidden rogue in the backfield.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
Since there are no opportunity attacks, I see zero point in requiring the bluff to divert the Dwarf's attention. The Dwarf could be scowling, hacking, slashing, and swinging directly at the kobold; this changes nothing mechanically. So his attention being right on the idjit foils nothing in the attempt.
Secondly, with this system, there's also zero point in the multiple checks when all the checks represent abstract representation, as by design. The Kobold used Dexterity, modified by (though it had none) skill bonuses is either jump, climb, or tumble (to represent all three of the mechanics included here). Only one skill bonus applied, clearly.
Finally, I gave the Dwarf Advantage on the opposed roll, as opposed to the Kobold having disadvantage. Reasoning: Firstly, the Dwarf has an awful dexterity, so I thought I'd let him feel more heroic by getting to roll twice despite a low score. Second, it was at first the attempt to represent opportunity attacks against 'through' movement (limiting the mechanical application of opportunity attacks.)
The underlying principle is, Kobolds have always represented this darting, annoying, agile pest that while not the brightest, could hop in and about dangerous situations with the scurrying capacity to somehow always survive. This was represented in 4e with a minor action shift. In 3.5, an entire portion of the dragon races handbook was devoted to this industrious, agile little folk. In 2e, they were pretty bland like they were represented here, but my Dungeon Master back then always created interesting traits of all the creatures, outside of mechanics. If it had been a human instead of Dwarf, woulda gone right through his legs.
I mean, a 'square' on a battle grid represents 5 feet, and no one takes up that much room - the abstract nature of this alone allows no need to reject players when they wish to 'tumble' or 'hero' their way through an enemy trying the same tactics (clogging a doorway, phalanx-positions, etc). Heroes don't win by just their brains, so we don't make them heroes because they 'can' attempt something and monsters 'can't'. They are heroes through perseverence, teamwork, and coopoeration.
@Valdark
As to the doorway clogging, the above statement applies. While highly hard of a check, the ramifications of attempting to simply dart through/around/under any defender are none. So the check has very tiny chance of success - why does this deter any creature from trying? Failure = you wasted an action. Success = you do as you're told and eliminate the 'dangerous' one.
Perhaps, from the attempter's standpoint, the loss of an action is determent enough, but not really - not when you're a swarm-tactic-minded creature following the orders of 'Get the shiny.' However, from the defender's standpoint, he didn't have enough control over the situation to properly feel like a 'defender.' Shield of Faith was cast on our wizard at this particular point right at the get-go of battle when they accidentally summoned this swarm, so protection from damage wasn't the issue.
It boiled down to: The Cleric-M didn't feel like his positioning in this system was useful, due to not being able to stop the attacker due to a low dexterity. We tried his check again using Wisdom instead (which can measure instinct, intuition, and also reaction speed), and he succeeded (which represented effectively an opportunity attack to throw the creature to the ground).
After all the situations occured however (between wider hallways, random encounters, and the carefully laid ambushes), all the positioning in the world only limited exposure, not prevented it. Most of my group is 20+ years of experience strong, so the creativity and defensive structuring will never be the issue. The options were: Play monsters stupid that my players never feel threatened unless my 'Hulk Smash' does ridiculous damage and it all turns into a war-game of Hit Points being the only relative feature, or we use opportunity systems.
Now, in regards to it all, we've also been researching into a completely different opportunity system.
1.) An opportunity attack only occurs if a creature tries to ignore you. Example 1.) A caster casting shocking grasp on -you- does not provoke from you, only someone he's adjacent to that isn't the target. Example 2.) An enemy moving past you to target someone else with an attack but not target you, provokes an opportunity attack. Example 3.) Any attempt to move through your space (whatever method) provokes an opportunity attack. This one was a toss-up for many discussions between the defender gaining advantage to represent this, or the aggressor having disadvantage, and then one of the players attempting to tumble through a creature's space and absolutely hated the mechanic (and I agreed whole-heartedly from the monsters' standpoint). Simply moving away doesn't provoke, so withdrawing or running away is very valid - hack the damned dwarf's knees then take off running little kobold!
We also added a penalty mechanic allowing a truly skilled person to take disadvantage on an attempted manuever to avoid opportunity attacks. That is, if the rogue wants to run and slide between the ogre's legs without provoking an opportunity attack, he tries it with disadvantage. Success, negates the opportunity attack.
Final point (God this took ages to type) remains the same - I understand this is not a 'must-have' for everyone, nor do I imply any group is inferior for needing opportunity attacks or that any DM is inferior for not making a group need opportunity attacks; my players expect battlefield control within even our free-form DnD experiences and I expect smart monsters, provided they can at least rub two braincells together and get a spark. Moreover, my players expect me to challenge their sharp wit with sharp wit of my own. If all they had to do was stand in a doorway to prevent monsters from hitting the Wizards, they'd check me into a mental institute and find another DM.
Since there are no opportunity attacks, I see zero point in requiring the bluff to divert the Dwarf's attention. The Dwarf could be scowling, hacking, slashing, and swinging directly at the kobold; this changes nothing mechanically. So his attention being right on the idjit foils nothing in the attempt.
Secondly, with this system, there's also zero point in the multiple checks when all the checks represent abstract representation, as by design. The Kobold used Dexterity, modified by (though it had none) skill bonuses is either jump, climb, or tumble (to represent all three of the mechanics included here). Only one skill bonus applied, clearly.
Finally, I gave the Dwarf Advantage on the opposed roll, as opposed to the Kobold having disadvantage. Reasoning: Firstly, the Dwarf has an awful dexterity, so I thought I'd let him feel more heroic by getting to roll twice despite a low score. Second, it was at first the attempt to represent opportunity attacks against 'through' movement (limiting the mechanical application of opportunity attacks.)
The underlying principle is, Kobolds have always represented this darting, annoying, agile pest that while not the brightest, could hop in and about dangerous situations with the scurrying capacity to somehow always survive. This was represented in 4e with a minor action shift. In 3.5, an entire portion of the dragon races handbook was devoted to this industrious, agile little folk. In 2e, they were pretty bland like they were represented here, but my Dungeon Master back then always created interesting traits of all the creatures, outside of mechanics. If it had been a human instead of Dwarf, woulda gone right through his legs.
I mean, a 'square' on a battle grid represents 5 feet, and no one takes up that much room - the abstract nature of this alone allows no need to reject players when they wish to 'tumble' or 'hero' their way through an enemy trying the same tactics (clogging a doorway, phalanx-positions, etc). Heroes don't win by just their brains, so we don't make them heroes because they 'can' attempt something and monsters 'can't'. They are heroes through perseverence, teamwork, and coopoeration.
@Valdark
As to the doorway clogging, the above statement applies. While highly hard of a check, the ramifications of attempting to simply dart through/around/under any defender are none. So the check has very tiny chance of success - why does this deter any creature from trying? Failure = you wasted an action. Success = you do as you're told and eliminate the 'dangerous' one.
Perhaps, from the attempter's standpoint, the loss of an action is determent enough, but not really - not when you're a swarm-tactic-minded creature following the orders of 'Get the shiny.' However, from the defender's standpoint, he didn't have enough control over the situation to properly feel like a 'defender.' Shield of Faith was cast on our wizard at this particular point right at the get-go of battle when they accidentally summoned this swarm, so protection from damage wasn't the issue.
It boiled down to: The Cleric-M didn't feel like his positioning in this system was useful, due to not being able to stop the attacker due to a low dexterity. We tried his check again using Wisdom instead (which can measure instinct, intuition, and also reaction speed), and he succeeded (which represented effectively an opportunity attack to throw the creature to the ground).
After all the situations occured however (between wider hallways, random encounters, and the carefully laid ambushes), all the positioning in the world only limited exposure, not prevented it. Most of my group is 20+ years of experience strong, so the creativity and defensive structuring will never be the issue. The options were: Play monsters stupid that my players never feel threatened unless my 'Hulk Smash' does ridiculous damage and it all turns into a war-game of Hit Points being the only relative feature, or we use opportunity systems.
Now, in regards to it all, we've also been researching into a completely different opportunity system.
1.) An opportunity attack only occurs if a creature tries to ignore you. Example 1.) A caster casting shocking grasp on -you- does not provoke from you, only someone he's adjacent to that isn't the target. Example 2.) An enemy moving past you to target someone else with an attack but not target you, provokes an opportunity attack. Example 3.) Any attempt to move through your space (whatever method) provokes an opportunity attack. This one was a toss-up for many discussions between the defender gaining advantage to represent this, or the aggressor having disadvantage, and then one of the players attempting to tumble through a creature's space and absolutely hated the mechanic (and I agreed whole-heartedly from the monsters' standpoint). Simply moving away doesn't provoke, so withdrawing or running away is very valid - hack the damned dwarf's knees then take off running little kobold!
We also added a penalty mechanic allowing a truly skilled person to take disadvantage on an attempted manuever to avoid opportunity attacks. That is, if the rogue wants to run and slide between the ogre's legs without provoking an opportunity attack, he tries it with disadvantage. Success, negates the opportunity attack.
Final point (God this took ages to type) remains the same - I understand this is not a 'must-have' for everyone, nor do I imply any group is inferior for needing opportunity attacks or that any DM is inferior for not making a group need opportunity attacks; my players expect battlefield control within even our free-form DnD experiences and I expect smart monsters, provided they can at least rub two braincells together and get a spark. Moreover, my players expect me to challenge their sharp wit with sharp wit of my own. If all they had to do was stand in a doorway to prevent monsters from hitting the Wizards, they'd check me into a mental institute and find another DM.
You are assuming a house rule which allows movement through an enemy square.
Not currently in place as a rule so it isn't currently relevant to the 5e system as it stands.
Also if my defender truly is that concerned with this approach he can simply ready an action to thwap the idiodic kobold. In addition to the action loss of the kobold he has placed himself in the way of Moradin's mighty hammer and deserves a stern talking to.
If you want to include flipping kobolds as part of your low level campaigns that isn't a tactics issue that is a playstyle issue. It has nothing to do with the mechanics as presented.
Wider hallways are a problem but what is keeping your wizard from using his move to maintain distance?
If you want a shield wall you need to build a shield wall, if you have done so and don't want anything inside of it then you wait until something tries before you attack.
It is far less complicated than you are attempting to make it.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
Really? Complicated? Hell, in all honesty, I find a lack of non-turn actions boring. Its the biggest reason we, too, included opportunity attacks.
Readying an action does work, but see my above boredom comment. Why should someone wanting to play an actual defender in a bulwark-like fashion, have to sacrifice to play that role? Makes zero sense. He's already sacrificing his own health for the sake of others, as well as limiting his own combat options by needing to remain near-stationary to be tactical. *shrug*
And yes, moving through squares is currently introduced in the rules segment.
The only limits to the actions you can take are your imagination and your ability scores.
Sums it up as 'in the core mechanic' just fine.
If you want to include flipping kobolds as part of your low level campaigns that isn't a tactics issue that is a playstyle issue. It has nothing to do with the mechanics as presented.
You're absolutely right, and if that didn't exist, I'd hate the playstyle. Idiotic 'run at the party like a 1990s hack and slash videogame' fights are as boring as it gets.
@Zhandra
I'll take your perfectly complex playstyle any day of the week, do you play online perhaps? *hopeful grin*
Also if my defender truly is that concerned with this approach he can simply ready an action to thwap the idiodic kobold. In addition to the action loss of the kobold he has placed himself in the way of Moradin's mighty hammer and deserves a stern talking to.
Already addressed this; yeah, there's some penalty to the aggressor of losing an action. But no immediate ramifcations that would create a realistic fear to prevent such actions from being attempted.
If you want to include flipping kobolds as part of your low level campaigns that isn't a tactics issue that is a playstyle issue. It has nothing to do with the mechanics as presented.
I never once indicated anything was wrong with the system, just that we desired more, so we added it. It wasn't a debate saying I'm right and you're wrong, again as already addressed. And its far from a playstyle 'issue' its a playstyle preference. We don't like not being penalized for doing stupidly challenging things or a sense of danger. I'll take this playstyle over anything else, any day.
Wider hallways are a problem but what is keeping your wizard from using his move to maintain distance?
Spell ranges to be effective; not overly an issue, but if just 'move 30 feet, cast a spell' works over and over again, that becomes kiting; the most boring mechanic ever invented. Thus, the double-move or charge mechanic to close (once you're past the meat wall.)
If you want a shield wall you need to build a shield wall, if you have done so and don't want anything inside of it then you wait until something tries before you attack.
Goes back to as Xaelvaen eloquently put it, why penalize a defender? If anything, they should be rewarded for the sacrifices already made. To counter future counter-points, readying an action doesn't always feel like a penalty, but if on that particular round no one attempts to bypass the barrier, you've wasted the action and been penalized.
It is far less complicated than you are attempting to make it.
Well of course it can be less complicated, Valdark. I never implied opportunity attacks were necessary to make 5e a great core system. I'm perfectly fine with this being a tactical option included as an 'overlay,' the post was merely about what we liked. I felt some of your comments were personal attacks, where as I made no such derogatory comments. Perhaps I'm reading more into some of your comments? If so, I apologize, but there's no need to attack differences of opinions - yours is just as valuable as mine, and vise versa.
@Xaelvaen Yes, we do some online gaming - alas, can't with the playtest material (CoC for the playtest and all). Thanks for your kind words =)
And in the section concerning space it states that creature with a space of 5ft owns that space and if anything wants through that space it has to let them.
This isn't a hack and slash video game.
You can choose other tactics to protect your wizard.
This one is just particularly effective.
You want to use an improvised action to pass him? Fine, the kobold passes and has spent his action.
Now the defender gets his before it can attack the wizard even without holding his action.
And holding the action isn't a penalty it is player choice.
If he used his attack anyway then obviously the kobold wasn't his primary concern.
With AoO all you have to do is have more kobolds make the attempt on the same round and you have completely negated the use of the AoO except to give that defender an extra action for standing in the doorway.
Sounds to me like you want to reward hack and slash play.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
- Rogue: lowered his INT to 12, increased his WIS to 10
- Rogue: Knack works on attacks
- Wizard: Ray of frost gives the restrained condition to the target, however the target can attempt to free himself if he hasn't acted yet this turn.
- Cleric: Healing word heals only 1d4 hp
Basic Rules changes:
- Intoxicated only reduces dmg by 1d4
- Shooting while in melee disadvantage applies to ranged spells that need a ranged attack (searing light, ray of frost, arc lightning, radiant lance)
- Improvised combat maneuvers: roll to hit then roll a contest (str for grappling, dex for trip) instead of rolling dmg.
- Long rest only heals up to half HP, still replenishes full hit dices.
- healing while current HP are below 0 doesn't bring you back to 0 but "eats" negative HP. Example: -7 HP Char receives a 6 HP heal, he's now at -1 HP.
- Fumbles: 1 is always a miss/fail with bad consequences (DM's call).
Cave of chaos changes:
- Copied Initiative values of the monsters from the bestiary
- corrected the attack and AC values of monster to match the bestiary (Orc leader for instance)
- adapted the magic items loot to my PC party.
DM's work:
- drew a readable map. :s
- Found motivations, strengths, weaknesses for the various monster/NPC factions, and defined the power struggle among them. (rivalry between the two orc clans, hobgoblins stealing from goblins while pretending to be allies, war between the medusa queen and the adepts of evil chaos, etc...) Defined a schedule for monster/NPC activities during day and night, prepared encounter charts according to that.
- added a troll ally to the orc faction.
- Removed the bugbear lair, transforming bugbears into a random encounter in the nearby woods (hunters roaming in the dark woods attacking PC while they rest)
- Removed the gnoll and the kobold lairs.
- Added traps (net and pit) in the goblin lair.
- Added the prison from the bugbear lair to the orc lair.
- Freed the Medusa and made her the queen of a big magical labyrinth (Fusion of the shunned cavern and the Minotaur lair) that can be entered from area 51.
- created a small fortified inn 2 days from the cavern where PCs can trade, rest, meet important NPCs.
These aren't personal attacks I am just confused by the need for AoO when all they do is reward people with actions for not using the tactics of positioning correctly.
And using the tumble rule is a poor choice for the case to have AoO since tumble was used to prevent them.
So the kobold who succeeded his check in 3e would have made it through anyway.
The difference is that if he failed he would have been hit on the way through.
If failure means staying in front on this turn then your defender is actually better off than before because if his attack doesn't kill the creature then he has still been prevented from reaching the target where the AoO system would have let him pass an attack the wizard if he survived.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
