Attacks of Opportunity in an outnumbered situation

[Dellis]

Good day!

It's been two days since my last session, and my players keep nagging me about a proposed rule tinkering.

To them, it seems highly counterintuitive that a monster or an NPC, being surrounded by two three four PCs, gets an AoO against any of them backing up. Their reasoning is this: if he takes the chance to hit me, who am just backing up and thus have my guard down, he exposes himself to my other two three four friends which surround him, which should IN TURN give them AoO on him.

The simplest solution, for them, is: an outnumbered enemy does NOT get AoO.

Now, I really dislike tinkering with the AoO rules. AoO have important roles in giving meaning to tactical positioning, there are feats about them. More than anything, D&D has plenty of fights with a single, much stronger opponent, in which it's NORMAL that he be outnumbered. This would mean every single enemy fight would be without occasion for the Bad Evil Guy to do AoOs.

Yet, they feel very strongly about this. On some level, it makes sense: I do not know what to object when they bring it up.
I may counter, at least for monsters with lots of natural attacks and a big size (think dragons), that they're keeping the surrounding PCs at bay with different limbs and appendages while taking the chance to strike. But it works... Uhm, for dragons and maybe aberrations, can't think of much else.

What should I do? Accept their request? And if so, how much "outnumbering" should be required to negate the AoOs? How many people are "too many" to keep at bay while still being able to do AoOs?

Yours truly,

Concerned GM.

[Gruftzwerg]

The monster still gets the AoO. The reason is simple. The player who wants to leave the target has 3 options to do so: (maybe just remind them their options)

1) take a 5ft step (no AoO)
2) tactical retreat (spend full action to not provoke AoO from leaving the square where you start your movement)
3) turn mindless around and try to walk/run away (provokes AoO)

So if your players are mindless/careless enough for option 3, they deserve the AoO, no debate.
The outnumbered is already taken into account with flanking modifiers. It's much more likely that the target will get hit, but it doesn't expose itself mindlessly when it attacks, not even when it makes a AoO.

PS: Option 3 may sound & feel stupid, and yeah it is stupid if you do so. But D&D doesn't prevent you from doing stupid things, it gives you rules for it xD


edit:
option T) Tumble away. forgot it and just wanted to add it for completeness.

edit 2:
take an example Bruce Lee movie fight. B.Lee gets surrounded by thugs who underestimate his power and let their guards down (provoke AoO). Lee has Combat Reflexes and thus can attack em all even it's not his turn.
If your players are careless enough to underestimate the fighting ability of an enemy (even if it's only one surrounded), it's their decision. The target may not have Combat Reflexes but still has the regular one AoO per round. And every experienced combatant should know about that.

if things should still be unclear for your players, show em this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXaPnXxhMnU ^^

[Snow-blind]

...
To them, it seems highly counterintuitive that a monster or an NPC, being surrounded by two three four PCs, gets an AoO against any of them backing up. Their reasoning is this: if he takes the chance to hit me, who am just backing up and thus have my guard down, he exposes himself to my other two three four friends which surround him, which should IN TURN give them AoO on him.
...
By that same reasoning, shouldn't any attacks by the outnumbered monster provoke an AoO? Why are its attacks of opportunity such a special case? Either all attacks from the monster should provoke AoOs, or none should. By RAW, none provoke, and from what you have written I don't see even a slightly compelling argument to change that.

[Zanos]

Melee combat isn't actually two people just staring at eachother and swinging once every six seconds, it's a delicate interplay. The actual attack rolls simply represent the decisive attacks. Pretty sure it says that in the books.

When you decide to turn your back and bail on some dude who's prepped for a fight, he gets a free swing at you because you aren't taking the time to defend yourself from him. If you were, you'd take a 5ft step or withdraw. Also, this is mechanically a really bad idea. Attacks of opportunity is one of the few ways that melee characters can actually hold the line.

[sleepyphoenixx]

This isn't really a problem because most people only get one AoO per round anyway.
The people who get more have both Combat Reflexes and high dex, meaning they're fast, agile and specifically trained for that exact situation. The kind of guy that's a martial arts master dancing through the blows of his enemies while striking at any openings or a master fencer.

There are also plenty of options to avoid movement-based AoO's. Tumbling, 5ft step, withdrawing, tactical teleports and various others. If your players chose not to use them that's their problem, but it really doesn't warrant changing the rules.

[Psyren]

By that same reasoning, shouldn't any attacks by the outnumbered monster provoke an AoO? Why are its attacks of opportunity such a special case? Either all attacks from the monster should provoke AoOs, or none should. By RAW, none provoke, and from what you have written I don't see even a slightly compelling argument to change that.

This.


Melee combat isn't actually two people just staring at eachother and swinging once every six seconds, it's a delicate interplay. The actual attack rolls simply represent the decisive attacks. Pretty sure it says that in the books.

Also this. Creatures in combat are in constant motion - ducking, weaving, circling, slashing, parrying and such. That's just really hard to represent in a turn-based game, so it looks like everything is static.

[Mordaedil]

This isn't really a problem because most people only get one AoO per round anyway.
The people who get more have both Combat Reflexes and high dex, meaning they're fast, agile and specifically trained for that exact situation. The kind of guy that's a martial arts master dancing through the blows of his enemies while striking at any openings or a master fencer.

There are also plenty of options to avoid movement-based AoO's. Tumbling, 5ft step, withdrawing, tactical teleports and various others. If your players chose not to use them that's their problem, but it really doesn't warrant changing the rules.

This. If they want to move away for shorter distance than withdraw but further away than a 5ft step, allow it at the cost of their standard action, on the account that it still forces them to be on guard to move away. Then they still have a move action to spend on something else (but they still had to withdraw in a straight line using their standard action).

[KillianHawkeye]

This. If they want to move away for shorter distance than withdraw but further away than a 5ft step, allow it at the cost of their standard action, on the account that it still forces them to be on guard to move away. Then they still have a move action to spend on something else (but they still had to withdraw in a straight line using their standard action).

Small note: Withdrawing doesn't require moving in a straight line.

[Mordaedil]

Small note: Withdrawing doesn't require moving in a straight line.

Man, after being forced to do that in ToEE, I thought that was how it applied in 3.5 as well. Nevermind then!