"Old School" AoOs

[FilthyLucre]

Howdy All,

My group is composed of seasoned 3.5 veterans and we're always looking to inject more strategic movement into the game as well as using complex/varied terrain for encounters and combats, (not just 20'x20' empty rooms). In 5th edition, AoOs are much more forgiving in that they happen much less often. I don't think this change is a bad thing at all, but I think my group prefers a slightly more complicated rule set.

Has anyone played 5th under these two house rules:
1.) Movement out of a threatened square provokes an AoO
2.) Complex/Distracting actions provoke an AoO when done within a threatened square
3.) Everyone threatens all squares that their basic attack can normally hit, (GMs discretion on which attack is a monster's "most basic"?)

I personally don't see this as an obstacle, at least for my players, but I'd like to see if anyone sees something glaringly bad about this that I don't. Thanks in advance!

[Tanarii]

Changing from threatened area to threatened square will certainly lock things down a lot more, you won't be able to circle around a tanky character to stomp on

Thinking out loud, it seems like this change is far more likely to hurt PCs. They're usually outnumbered, or at least they are if encounters are designed properly. So unless they can find a narrow space to choke point, enemies will swarm around to their squishier and lock them in place more easily. OTOH if they can find a narrow choke point, it doesn't need to be as narrow as it did before. So maybe it's a wash, depending on how often you're in 'dungeons' (or many urban locations) as opposed to wilderness adventuring sites.

Edit: Btw calling 3e old school and players of it veterans is hilarious.

[Mr Adventurer]

In my own extensive 3.5 experience, the AoO rules were the absolute bane of tactical movement. Thank God 5e made them rarer and with more opportunity cost, making tactical movement possible again.

[FilthyLucre]

Edit: Btw calling 3e old school and players of it veterans is hilarious.

It was 20 years ago, after all. It is old school if you're 32.

In my own extensive 3.5 experience, the AoO rules were the absolute bane of tactical movement. Thank God 5e made them rarer and with more opportunity cost, making tactical movement possible again.

Can you give me an example of the ways that 5th has expanded the opportunity for movement/positioning to matter more in 5th edition than it did in 3.5? For example, it would seem to me that knocking a melee combatant prone matters much more in 3.5 than it does in 5e. True, it is a situational penalty, but in man-to-man combat being prone is largely irrelevent. You're not planning on moving anywhere so the 15' penalty to movement doesn't really matter and there are otherwise no penalties from standing up while threatened.

[Tanarii]

It was 20 years ago, after all. It is old school if you're 32.

I know I know but it still made me laugh

[MrCharlie]

Personally, I'd recommend inserting facing in before simply making it a matter of AOO for moving. Let people circle each other all they want-but if they want to face a different direction and turn their back on an enemy, AOO. That's what AOO were originally meant to represent, and 3.5 had issues with this making combat extremely static where people stood in 5 foot squares and politely qued up to fight, but 5e has issues with enemies flanking themselves to attack allies. A middle ground is that the second you turn away from an enemy or leave their reach they get to swipe at you-and any action targeting someone is assumed to involve turning towards them.

There will of course be interpretive issues, but I've never felt that rules like that need to account for every circumstance, and the DM is there for a reason.

One consequence of this is that flanking becomes a whole new beast because you can actually maneuver around people very easily this way and taking offensive action while flanked would trigger an AOO, but that's actually quite realistic to a combat situation where there is enough room to be flanked and you can't just keep backing up indefinitely. I also encourages people to actually position so that they are covering each others back, which is something DnD has lacked for a while (because flanking has largely been a minor benefit unless your a rogue, people just tolerated the conga line rather than guarding each other in any way).

[FilthyLucre]

Personally, I'd recommend inserting facing in before simply making it a matter of AOO for moving. Let people circle each other all they want-but if they want to face a different direction and turn their back on an enemy, AOO. That's what AOO were originally meant to represent, and 3.5 had issues with this making combat extremely static where people stood in 5 foot squares and politely qued up to fight, but 5e has issues with enemies flanking themselves to attack allies. A middle ground is that the second you turn away from an enemy or leave their reach they get to swipe at you-and any action targeting someone is assumed to involve turning towards them.

There will of course be interpretive issues, but I've never felt that rules like that need to account for every circumstance, and the DM is there for a reason.

One consequence of this is that flanking becomes a whole new beast because you can actually maneuver around people very easily this way and taking offensive action while flanked would trigger an AOO, but that's actually quite realistic to a combat situation where there is enough room to be flanked and you can't just keep backing up indefinitely. I also encourages people to actually position so that they are covering each others back, which is something DnD has lacked for a while (because flanking has largely been a minor benefit unless your a rogue, people just tolerated the conga line rather than guarding each other in any way).

I think that there's definitely something to that idea.

[prabe]

For example, it would seem to me that knocking a melee combatant prone matters much more in 3.5 than it does in 5e. True, it is a situational penalty, but in man-to-man combat being prone is largely irrelevent. You're not planning on moving anywhere so the 15' penalty to movement doesn't really matter and there are otherwise no penalties from standing up while threatened.

It kinda depends on the initiative order, but if you knock someone prone, subsequent attacks until they get up are at Advantage, which opens them up for a lot more hits (and better chance of crits). There's an argument that if you kill them before they get up it doesn't matter whether you get to hit them if they stand.

[Willie the Duck]

Personally, I'd recommend inserting facing in before simply making it a matter of AOO for moving. Let people circle each other all they want-but if they want to face a different direction and turn their back on an enemy, AOO. That's what AOO were originally meant to represent

That's certainly a thing they did. Meant to represent, I'm not sure. To my mind it also acts to emulate the zone of control one would actually have to prevent an opponent from rushing past to attack the rear line if the game didn't work such that one side moved and acted, then froze in place to let the other individuals act (you cannot move to intercept, as you could IRL or in something like Runequest). Again it doesn't do it well (nor is emulating reality a clear and obvious goal for the game), but it is there.

To the OP, along with concerns about combat complexity, you should consider exactly what kind of playstyle you are trying to incentivize. AoO on Complex/Distracting actions does indeed make tripping (or disarming) a more tactically rich option, but it also means that certain playstyles will be encouraged, while others will be discouraged (of course, if everyone ends up playing STRogues, monks, and warlocks with Crossbow Expert and Repelling blast, you know the experiment failed).

Edit: Btw calling 3e old school and players of it veterans is hilarious.

It was 20 years ago, after all. It is old school if you're 32.

FL, you are obviously correct, but you will be surprised how hard it is to change one's conception of when 'a long time ago' is. For me, 'Classic Rock' will always be stuff made before Altamont, Friends is still a modern sitcom, and the running gag is that high school history texts don't cover anything past MLK Jr.

[FilthyLucre]

To the OP, along with concerns about combat complexity, you should consider exactly what kind of playstyle you are trying to incentivize. AoO on Complex/Distracting actions does indeed make tripping (or disarming) a more tactically rich option, but it also means that certain playstyles will be encouraged, while others will be discouraged (of course, if everyone ends up playing STRogues, monks, and warlocks with Crossbow Expert and Repelling blast, you know the experiment failed).

My 'combat playstyle'/genre is essentially trying as hard as possible to imitate the grid-based SRPG genre that was so wildly influential on me when I was little, (Shining Force, Disgaea, Fire Emblem).

[JackPhoenix]

In my own extensive 3.5 experience, the AoO rules were the absolute bane of tactical movement. Thank God 5e made them rarer and with more opportunity cost, making tactical movement possible again.

I'd say the true bane of tactical movement was the fact you've lost iterative attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Howdy All,

My group is composed of seasoned 3.5 veterans and we're always looking to inject more strategic movement into the game as well as using complex/varied terrain for encounters and combats, (not just 20'x20' empty rooms). In 5th edition, AoOs are much more forgiving in that they happen much less often. I don't think this change is a bad thing at all, but I think my group prefers a slightly more complicated rule set.

Has anyone played 5th under these two house rules:
1.) Movement out of a threatened square provokes an AoO
2.) Complex/Distracting actions provoke an AoO when done within a threatened square
3.) Everyone threatens all squares that their basic attack can normally hit, (GMs discretion on which attack is a monster's "most basic"?)

I personally don't see this as an obstacle, at least for my players, but I'd like to see if anyone sees something glaringly bad about this that I don't. Thanks in advance!

Oh, I was expecting a thread about old-school AoOs: a full attack sequence as a reaction, at +4 to hit, plus the ability to follow the retreating creature at half speed. That's how attacks on fleeing creatures works in AD&D.

I don't quite follow your rule #1, but I think you're basically trying to make it so a dragon with a 20' tail attack still gets an OA with its 10'-reach bite when someone 5' away backs up a step. I haven't played with this rule, but there are no hidden gotchas that I can think of: it neuters some stupid tactics that should never have worked in the first place, like ranged PCs backing away from the dragon to get a clear shot with no disadvantage, with no downside. This rule change is definitely good.

I *have* played with a version of rule #2: being incapacitated or casting a spell (if you don't have Warcaster) provokes a reaction attack. Works fine, but makes paralyzation even more deadly, which was my intention. You may want to slightly increase the CR on monsters that can paralyze or incapacitate.

[Democratus]

Oh, I was expecting a thread about old-school AoOs: a full attack sequence as a reaction, at +4 to hit, plus the ability to follow the retreating creature at half speed. That's how attacks on fleeing creatures works in AD&D.

Where did you find that rule? I'm looking at the 'melee combat' section of the AD&D PH and it doesn't list that as a consequence of fleeing melee combat. It does say that it opens the character to an attack from the rear and that "subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow the fleeing character at equal or greater speed." (p.105).

Is this something from the DMG?

[MaxWilson]

Where did you find that rule? I'm looking at the 'melee combat' section of the AD&D PH and it doesn't list that as a consequence of fleeing melee combat. It does say that it opens the character to an attack from the rear and that "subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow the fleeing character at equal or greater speed." (p.105).

Is this something from the DMG?

AFB, I'll check my books when I get home and edit this post accordingly.

Okay, it's (2nd edition) PHB pg 97 under "Retreat".

Retreat:

To get out of a combat, characters can make a careful withdrawal or they can simply flee.

Withdrawing: when making a withdrawal, a character carefully backs away from his opponent (who can choose to follow). The character moves up to 1/3 his normal movement rate.

If two characters are fighting a single opponent and one of them decides to withdraw, the remaining character can block the advance of the opponent. This is a useful method for getting a seriously injured man out of a combat.

Fleeing:

To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing character drops his defenses and turns his back to his opponent.

The enemy is allowed a free attack (or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round) at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees: it doesn't count against the number of attack that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrelevant.

The fleeing character can be pursued, unless a companion blocks the advance of the enemy.

Apparently the +4 to attack is me misremembering though--Thieves get +4 on their backstabs, but according to PHB pg. 90 a normal rear attack is only +2 (although the target doesn't usually get Dex bonuses to AC against rear attacks, according to PHB page 14, and something tells me that shields aren't applicable on rear attacks either. Anyway, I should apparently have said "+2" instead of "+4."

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the Withdrawal text but it sure sounds to me like the enemy follows immediately if a buddy doesn't block, which makes perfect sense because that's the AD&D model of combat: WEGO, not IGOUGO. The text for Fleeing doesn't say how far the enemy can move but the general rule in AD&D is that

(PHB pg 96) ...the character approaches quickly but with caution. When closing for combat, a character can move up to half his allowed distance and still make a melee attack.

That's where I got "half speed" from, but I guess in 5E terms that really should be "full non-Dashing speed".

[Willie the Duck]

My 'combat playstyle'/genre is essentially trying as hard as possible to imitate the grid-based SRPG genre that was so wildly influential on me when I was little, (Shining Force, Disgaea, Fire Emblem).

I'm not asking for specifics, I just mean think about what you actually want out of this, and if this makes the PCs (and well-run monsters) act that way. One of the lessons learned from 3e D&D is that if you add ways for martial (or melee martial with weapons, etc.) combat have points of failure/punishment, you create a disincentive to engaging in it. For 3e the no full attack if >5' movement was the big one, but also disarms, sunders, and AoO. Mind you, monks and archers were pretty weak in that game, but there was an incentive to stand back and kite or use undisarmable/sunderable melee builds (glaivelocks and psychic warriors with claw powers and of course shapechanged druids), or of course just be a spellcaster instead. I'm of course not saying never put in consequences for actions (lest someone just choose never to do them), just look over the scene and try to predict how that will change the behavior of your players.

"Withdrawing: when making a withdrawal, a character carefully backs away from his opponent (who can choose to follow). The character moves up to 1/3 his normal movement rate.
If two characters are fighting a single opponent and one of them decides to withdraw, the remaining character can block the advance of the opponent. This is a useful method for getting a seriously injured man out of a combat.
Fleeing:
To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing character drops his defenses and turns his back to his opponent."
…
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the Withdrawal text but it sure sounds to me like the enemy follows immediately if a buddy doesn't block

quote chopped and reformatted to reduce size
It is certain a reasonable interpretation. Another is simply that the ally is there, and thus the opponent can't push past them (on their turn) to attack the withdrawing individual (who is only 1/3 movement away, and thus likely still in range to be attacked) without themselves being subject to a fleeing attack (because they would be, in effect, fleeing the person in the front line to get to the withdrawing individual).

[Democratus]

The enemy is allowed a free attack (or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round) at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees: it doesn't count against the number of attack that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrelevant.

Wow. The origin of the Opportunity Attack.

Been so long since I even looked at a 2nd Edition book. This is an important difference between AD&D 1e and 2e.

[MrCharlie]

Fleeing:

To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing character drops his defenses and turns his back to his opponent.

The enemy is allowed a free attack (or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round) at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees: it doesn't count against the number of attack that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrelevant.

The fleeing character can be pursued, unless a companion blocks the advance of the enemy.[/I]
That's where I got "half speed" from, but I guess in 5E terms that really should be "full non-Dashing speed".

Wow, nice, I knew there was something about turning your back there that got lost in 3.5.

The most I think on it, the more I'm not seeing this working with the (nearly) discrete turns that 5e has without some interpretation of characters reacting to each dynamically, such as with facing or some modification to the core system for more simultaneous turns. I think 3.5 has shown that if you impose a strict AOO system with 5e's turn structure things end up being relatively static, although from experience I can absolutely confirm that this is mostly due to full attacks, not AOO.

Playing at lower levels people moved a lot more and tried stuff like acrobatics to avoid AOO and such; at higher levels melee combat broke down into either charging each other for alpha strikes/fringe rules where you could make a full attack on a charge, pure cheese involving teleportation, or sitting in one place. I think the canary in the coal mine for me was when the Rogue said that he wasn't willing to lose his iteratives to backstab (but that also had to deal with sneak attack only working on every other enemy, so eh).

This thread has inspired me at least to try my facing system and post about it later, although it may be several months before I have any real data.

[MaxWilson]

It is certain a reasonable interpretation. Another is simply that the ally is there, and thus the opponent can't push past them (on their turn) to attack the withdrawing individual (who is only 1/3 movement away, and thus likely still in range to be attacked) without themselves being subject to a fleeing attack (because they would be, in effect, fleeing the person in the front line to get to the withdrawing individual).

AD&D doesn't have separate turns for each creature. It only has rounds, and 10-minute "turns" for exploration.

Wow, nice, I knew there was something about turning your back there that got lost in 3.5.

The most I think on it, the more I'm not seeing this working with the (nearly) discrete turns that 5e has without some interpretation of characters reacting to each dynamically, such as with facing or some modification to the core system for more simultaneous turns. I think 3.5 has shown that if you impose a strict AOO system with 5e's turn structure things end up being relatively static, although from experience I can absolutely confirm that this is mostly due to full attacks, not AOO.

Playing at lower levels people moved a lot more and tried stuff like acrobatics to avoid AOO and such; at higher levels melee combat broke down into either charging each other for alpha strikes/fringe rules where you could make a full attack on a charge, pure cheese involving teleportation, or sitting in one place. I think the canary in the coal mine for me was when the Rogue said that he wasn't willing to lose his iteratives to backstab (but that also had to deal with sneak attack only working on every other enemy, so eh).

This thread has inspired me at least to try my facing system and post about it later, although it may be several months before I have any real data.

Agreed, 5E-style IGOUGO initiative doesn't mesh well with this rule for withdrawal/fleeing, because as Willie points out, 5E tries to neatly separate things out into separate "turns" and in this case you have two creatures acting together: one guy retreating, another guy following and possibly also attacking (on his initiative roll).

It's also worth noting that in AD&D, there isn't just one initiative system, and much is left up to the DM's judgment. In AD&D everybody declares their actions cooperatively, and then for resolution it's 100% valid for the DM to rule that no initiative roll is needed e.g. for creature A to close a door and lock it before creature B can run 60' and attack them, because closing a door is clearly faster than running 60'. In 5E that ruling would probably generate some pushback (even if you were using 5E's DMG Speed Factor Initiative or similar) because players think of initiative as something fundamental to play, instead of just a way of adjudicating ties when the order of actions is unclear.

You can and I have run 5E this same way, relying on DM judgment more than dice, but it's more idiomatic in AD&D.

[Willie the Duck]

AD&D doesn't have separate turns for each creature. It only has rounds, and 10-minute "turns" for exploration.

I'm not catching the point. When it is their sides' turn (turn as in 'turn to act,' not unit of time), they could pursue the retreating individual, but doing so would be fleeing from the guy still in the front line. How is separate turns for each creature, or the fact that AD&D yes does use the word turn as a unit of time, relevant?

[MaxWilson]

I'm not catching the point. When it is their sides' turn (turn as in 'turn to act,' not unit of time), they could pursue the retreating individual, but doing so would be fleeing from the guy still in the front line. How is separate turns for each creature, or the fact that AD&D yes does use the word turn as a unit of time, relevant?

How is that a different interpretation then from "the enemy follows immediately if a buddy doesn't block" (as opposed to pursuing next round)? What were you disagreeing with?

[Willie the Duck]

How is that a different interpretation then from "the enemy follows immediately if a buddy doesn't block" (as opposed to pursuing next round)? What were you disagreeing with?

If it is in the middle of the player-side WEGO, and a PC withdraws, it seems like the opponent might not follow 'immediately,' but instead on their group's WEGO. It was not clear if that's what you meant.

[MaxWilson]

If it is in the middle of the player-side WEGO, and a PC withdraws, it seems like the opponent might not follow 'immediately,' but instead on their group's WEGO. It was not clear if that's what you meant.

What's the practical difference, if the movement happens later in the WEGO, as long as it's the same round? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by separate WEGOs? (Currently I'm imagining that everybody including monsters declares, and then you seem to be using group initiative to decide whether all the PC actions go off first or all of the monster actions go off first. But maybe you're thinking that all of the PCs declare and then act, and then all of the monsters declare and then act, which I would characterize as a form of IGU-UGO instead of WEGO.)

[Zetakya]

I absolutely endorse restoring the 3.5 threatened area/AoO rules; their removal is a large part of what has weakened Martial classes in 5e, as it took out their ability to control hostiles.

[Tanarii]

If it is in the middle of the player-side WEGO, and a PC withdraws, it seems like the opponent might not follow 'immediately,' but instead on their group's WEGO. It was not clear if that's what you meant.

That's not WEGO. That's IGOUGO with side initiative determining 'turns'.

In WEGO if you retreat and the other follows, it happens simultaneously. And you're likely to resolve things at different times to boot, e.g. all movement, followed by all missile, all melee, all magic.