Good things in 4e

[OgreBattle]

I keep having ideas that a decent d20 combat system should have some general high level opposed mechanics that work like BAB vs. AC. Stealth vs. Perception would be one of these, and uh... "Tankness" vs. "Slipperiness" another. Kind of how Tumble works, but using some kind of scaling DCs to avoid making things trivial past lvl 5 or so.

It's what opportunity attacks are suppose to do.

[ModelCitizen]

In 3e the AoO is not meant to stop anything. Things that damage might stop are given ways to avoid the AoO, and it doesn't stop most things anyway. The point of it is to slap people for running about like idiots and doing stupid things in the melee, without actually preventing them doing so, especially not if they're PCs.

AD&D has rules to stop the monsters running past the front line and make melee a bit sticky. Those rules are absolute and they work. Newer editions have a pale shadow of those rules; monsters can run about as they please and the front line can't do much about it unless the GM cooperates. The reason for this change is to make it easier for the PCs to run around and act like idiots, because players like that sort of thing.

If anything what they need is a fixed rule to stop the monsters fucking about, then give most PC classes an exemption to it when they're playing their shtick.

What is the value in "slapping people" for something if it doesn't reliably discourage them from doing it? Wouldn't the mechanic be better if it directly punished the action without relying on secondary effects or independently high damage numbers? And anyway wouldn't a simpler and faster mechanic be better? (Seriously half the rules arguments I have had during actual sessions have involved AoOs in some way.)

I kind of agree about your second point that PCs should get exemptions (gish types should be able to get off spells in melee, swashbuckly types should be more able to move freely, at least), but that's a separate thing. You can give PCs exceptions to the AoO mechanic whether AoOs are weapon damage or action denial.

[tussock]

What is the value in "slapping people" for something if it doesn't reliably discourage them from doing it?

3e started out all about letting players try things, never saying no. DC 20 if it's amazing, 40 if it's literally impossible, 60 if it's free mid-level magic; but never "no". So you don't say no to players wandering past the front line, just slap them for a few hit points, and then give them ways to avoid that slap if they want to do it all the time (tumble, mobility).

Also, it's not magic, so anyone can try it. The monsters too on general principle.

Why slap them at all? It's a toll: a real limit on doing it repeatedly for no reason, without saying "no" or stealing away a creative player's thunder mid-gambit.

Eventually the front line complained and got a few ways to block all that movement, but the original idea was to let players do stupid things if they saw a reason to try.

[ModelCitizen]

3e started out all about letting players try things, never saying no. DC 20 if it's amazing, 40 if it's literally impossible, 60 if it's free mid-level magic; but never "no". So you don't say no to players wandering past the front line, just slap them for a few hit points, and then give them ways to avoid that slap if they want to do it all the time (tumble, mobility).

That's why I suggest keeping AoOs, but changing them from a weapon attacks to a single simple combat maneuver. I don't have any interest in flat-out telling people "you can't leave threatened spaces." When you make an AoO you roll Strength vs Fortitude, CMB vs CMD, or whatever edition specific equivalent. If and only if you hit, target's turn ends.

I honestly can't tell if you're defending the 3e method of doing AoOs or suggesting getting rid of AoOs entirely. What exactly is your position here?

[tussock]

I seek understanding and enlightenment. I see clear benefits of the early-3e system where you functionally say "yes, but" to everything and slap a tax on the stupid stuff (with various ways of avoiding that tax built into the system).

I also see the problems with that. A lot of what Fighters do, traditionally, doesn't work if the game says yes like that. It still doesn't work if you only patch the "Defenders", because they often need help from other classes in getting a front line set up in the first place.

It depends on if you place any value on having a vulnerable back row; soft Wizards that suffer and die in the melee. If you get rid of that and have every character be able to stand getting pounded on by a Storm Giant, as 4e does, then you may as well let everyone run around for free. Opportunity Attacks are just a waste of time, there shouldn't even be a Defender role there, all warriors should just be Strikers.

If you want the classic glass cannon and meat shield divide, the game has to be structured to form a big sticky melee that you simply can't wander past. That validates the classic meat shields that people keep trying to play, gives them a reason to be.

3e secretly got rid of the soft Wizards, they work just as well in melees as anyone else does, but it left Fighters with nothing to do, no reason to exist. There's a tax on ignoring them, but the smart thing to do is pay it and go kill the Wizard. No one wants to play a Fighter in that system though, especially not in heavy armour. You want highly mobile Fighters there, dishing out big damage as they go.



What's my position? AD&D works well with a front line and spell artillery game of setting them up and knocking them down. 3e/4e works well as a high-mobility skirmish game of action denial (which some classes suck at). I can't tell how your tweak will play out, depends on if you can attack-then-move, how many loopholes you add for mobile characters, how much the CMB can vary, how many monsters can just ignore all that, and so on. Will it tip into mobility rules, or into lockdown. Try it, find out for us.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'd actually like to add a few more 'lessons learned' from 4E D&D.

[*] People will never trade combat power for noncombat power if combat is such a huge portion of the game. Rituals fell right down on the job.
[*] All things being equal, players overvalue the worth of a 'permanent' magical item. This is technically not a 4E D&D insight, 3E D&D made it obvious, but by this point any writer who does not realize this is too stupid to work on an official D&D product.
[*] There are worse systems out there than Wealth - By - Level.
[*] Fixed attack/damage tradeoffs just plain do not work, because in D&D as envisioned they're asymmetric stats.
[*] There's a limit as to how much horizontal advancement any character can get before A. people stop caring and B. people can keep track of it.
[*] No matter how fancy or puffed-up you make a resource, if it's player-controlled then players will take it for granted.
[*] Magical items that function worse for characters that are higher in level are exceptionally lame and immersion-breaking.
[*] Universal horizontal advancement across a character's options generally tend to be an extremely bad idea if allowed more than once or twice.