Changing Attacks of Opportunity to Trigger on Approach Rather Than Retreat

[Deepbluediver]

I have a question: how do you think it would change the game if you provoked attacks on opportunity when you ENTERED the space a hostile creature threatens instead of when you LEFT it?

But why?
Ok, some background- for a while it's bugged me that it seems really hard to retreat from fights. It's the kind of thing that often happens in a story (some stories anyway) but in gameplay it's very hard to do successfully. In other words, it's not just Paladins who lack a flight-response, but most PCs in general.
In 3.5 AoO would trigger any time you left a threatened square, meaning you could invite a flurry of attacks simply by circling AROUND an enemy. In 5E they changed it so you only provoke when you leave the threatened SPACE, which is better, but they also changed the action economy to make it harder to spend a full turn running away. Either you expend an Action to Disengage, or you eat an AoO. And if you're already doing badly enough to want to fall back, that's often an unattractive option.
In either event, monsters and enemies are often as fast as or faster than the players, meaning they'll simply follow and catch up to you on the next turn, and the process repeats. Without magic or special abilities, getting away from a fight is often near-impossible, making practically every hostile encounter a battle to the death.

My preference for D&D is that it's more about planning and strategy and resource-management and less about rocket-tag, but I've been struggling to come up with ways to bring that across in the mechanics some times.
The original proposal above would make retreating much easier while putting the risks on pursuit, but it doesn't really pass the verisimilitude test. You're probably much better prepared to fend off attacks when approaching an enemy with your weapons drawn then when you turn your back to them to flee (and historically, armies often suffered some of their worst losses when the soldiers broke and ran).
Other alternatives I've considered include stuff like: only provoking an AoO if you both enter AND leave a creature's threatened space; that way you could avoid AoO with a more measured approach but still provoke attacks if you recklessly sprint past someone. That kinda depends on the initial spacing though; if you start exactly your movement in distance away from an enemy may have no noticeable impact.
Another possibility is treating threatened space as hazardous terrain to avoid AoO, but that kinda has the same effect as above and doesn't really help with the whole "running away" thing.
And then there's the possibility of making Disengage (or whatever you call it in 3.5 & Pathfinder) a Swift or Bonus action, but depending on your class you may have actions to spare or be very action-restricted, making it's power and utility highly variable.

So I'm sort of curious what other people think about this, and if you have any thoughts on it, or if this is something that only I consider a problem worth devoting discussion and brain-space to.

[GeoffWatson]

That means that waiting for the other side to engage gives a free attack, and you can freely back off for another free attack if they follow.

Seems terrible.

[animorte]

I don't think attacking on approach should replace attacking on retreat. Keep that just the way it is.

However, I think that is an excellent idea as an available reaction for a few classes or subclasses specifically. There are plenty of real world fighting styles (martial arts) that train one to read and predict the opponent's attack in such a way that you can make such an attack before they get much a chance to do anything.

Of course, some of those styles just resemble a defensive approach that could just as easily be described as a part of why Dex and shields contribute to AC.

[Greywander]

Another issue with this is that it makes your front line very not-sticky. After the fighter runs up to the werewolf and hits them with their silvered longsword, the werewolf can decide to just run past the fighter and attack the mage.

I would, however, like to see this aspect of PAM get turned into a general feature of polearms, possibly requiring an action or bonus action to brace yourself. Maybe combine it with the speed reduction of Sentinel. I just feel like polearms being effective against cavalry isn't represented well, and gating it behind feats makes it inaccessible to most people. It would make more sense for the feat to allow you to not need to use an action to set it up, or to give additional reactions for OAs.

[Deepbluediver]

That means that waiting for the other side to engage gives a free attack, and you can freely back off for another free attack if they follow.

Seems terrible.
You mean a person being patient and holding their ground while readying an attack gets an advantage over someone who recklessly charges in? Seems reasonable to me. :smallamused:

In all seriousness though, you make a good point, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing- it's just different. It emphasizes the importance of ranged attacks, reach-weapons, and ambush tactics over a simple frontal assault. If you surprise someone you can get a free round while they are flat-footed, then at least a few more attacks in while they run up, and the fight may be half-over before the enemy can even respond.
Where that stops being "rewarding good gameplay" (or punishing bad gameplay if used against the players) and starts being "overpowered & gamebreaking" I'm not sure I can say exactly- it sounds like something you might need to work out group by group.

It's definitely a perspective to keep in mind though.



I don't think attacking on approach should replace attacking on retreat. Keep that just the way it is.

However, I think that is an excellent idea as an available reaction for a few classes or subclasses specifically. There are plenty of real world fighting styles (martial arts) that train one to read and predict the opponent's attack in such a way that you can make such an attack before they get much a chance to do anything.

Of course, some of those styles just resemble a defensive approach that could just as easily be described as a part of why Dex and shields contribute to AC.
Yeah I'm not really in a hurry to change anything yet myself- that's very much why I'm just soliciting feedback at this stage. Making it an option for a class-feature or feat does sound appealing- I'm always looking for ways to emphasize different fighting styles. I'll have to decide if it's something that could go in a Sword-n-Board feat chain or a more general feat that anyone can dip.

As an aside, I don't really like feat-chains, I have stuff arranged more like feat-bushes so you can get to the interesting options without needing to take a whole bunch of feats in a specific order.



Another issue with this is that it makes your front line very not-sticky. After the fighter runs up to the werewolf and hits them with their silvered longsword, the werewolf can decide to just run past the fighter and attack the mage.
That's true, but the front-line is already pretty not-sticky in D&D, just by virtue of creatures with a high speed being able to run around them for a slight added distance. Plus, closing with the mage or healer instead of just going toe-to-toe with the party's melee-specialist may be worth risking an AoO anyhow. I prefer to resolve this with more options to assist allies under attack and/or taunt the enemy.
Alternatively though, if I did swap the AoO (or remove it altogether) I could easily add back in the "provoke-AoO-on-retreat" as part of a feat or fighting style, just like the above.


I would, however, like to see this aspect of PAM get turned into a general feature of polearms, possibly requiring an action or bonus action to brace yourself. Maybe combine it with the speed reduction of Sentinel. I just feel like polearms being effective against cavalry isn't represented well, and gating it behind feats makes it inaccessible to most people. It would make more sense for the feat to allow you to not need to use an action to set it up, or to give additional reactions for OAs.
That's a good point, although my counterpoint is that cavalry and charging enemies don't seem to be well-represented in D&D either. Getting a horse down into a dungeon and blasting through tight corridors with it would be impressive, but most PCs don't seem to think its worth the effort. Nor keeping track of and dealing with the hassle of a mount, unless it's magically summoned.
If a player really wants to use one, I kinda picture "Cavalier" being something like a short PrC or maybe a feat-chain that makes it actually useful and not just a PitA.


@everyone
If I'm thinking about making options to provoke AoO as parts of various Feats or Fighting Styles, specifically Sword-n-Board and Polearms, with one being geared to attacks-on-approach and the other towards attacks-on-retreat, which do you think is a better fit? For example, should polearms give you attacks when the enemy approaches and SnB when the enemy retreats, or vice-versa? Keeping in mind that Polearms may threaten more territory.
Purely hypothetical, if you had to pick one or the other.

[animorte]

As an aside, I don't really like feat-chains, I have stuff arranged more like feat-bushes so you can get to the interesting options without needing to take a whole bunch of feats in a specific order.

Thank you for saying this. Feat chains make a lot of concepts extremely undesirable because of how much stuff you may not plan to really use getting in the way of a specific niche you intend to make a part of your play style, combat or otherwise.

[Deepbluediver]

\

Thank you for saying this. Feat chains make a lot of concepts extremely undesirable because of how much stuff you may not plan to really use getting in the way of a specific niche you intend to make a part of your play style, combat or otherwise.
You're welcome. I generally prefer "power" to come from something simple and straightforward like weapons and armor, and have most feats increase options or add new tricks instead. And then that usually means there's a less obvious sequence that stuff should go in anyway.


@everyone
If I'm thinking about making options to provoke AoO as parts of various Feats or Fighting Styles, specifically Sword-n-Board and Polearms, with one being geared to attacks-on-approach and the other towards attacks-on-retreat, which do you think is a better fit? For example, should polearms give you attacks when the enemy approaches and SnB when the enemy retreats, or vice-versa? Keeping in mind that Polearms may threaten more territory.
Purely hypothetical, if you had to pick one or the other.
When I first asked this question, I was in a hurry and hadn't really thought about it, but now after further consideration the answer seems obvious.

If you make it so that the SnB players can attack someone whenever they are approached, no one will want to go near them. Which is good for keeping yourself alive, but then you fail as a tank. Because tanks WANT to be attacked- every attack aimed at a tank is one not aimed at a striker or mage or whatever. I can make it so that once the tank gets into range of someone, they find it hard to get away- in Greywander's terms, they are "sticky".
And then the the polearm users get the "AoO when approached", and with the large area they can cover it becomes "you don't want to come anywhere near me", which is basically area-denial and might be seen as a form of tanking in it's own way, but I think is more CC-focused. And it works on polearm users because the larger an area you threaten the more the enemy has to either bite the bullet and eat an AoO or sacrifice a lot of movement to take the scenic route around.