Opportunity Attacks

[mbeacom]

Ok,
Stilly pretty new around here and I'm trying to bone up for the C&C game I'm about to run.
Can someone explain how they work in C&C? Do they even exist? I've seen the withdrawal rules, basically you run and take a -2 to AC or your use a turn to "fighting withdrawal" and do not.

Is that all there is to it? It seems like OAs don't exist. (I'm fine if that's the case)

Just want to make sure I"m not missing something somewhere.

[Mark Hall]

I allow them. Basically, if you withdraw, you get to move your speed. If you just leave the fight, you get to move twice your speed, but have to suffer an attack of opportunity. Sometimes, I will also let people know that getting to a specific part of the fight will draw them an attack, or give them one due to actions by the enemy.

[mbeacom]

Cool thanks. Is this how you run it, or is this the official rules?

[Mark Hall]

It's how I run it, so it's the official rules.

[Go0gleplex]

Page 132 in the 4th print PHB; Disengaging from Combat talks about opportunity attacks. This seems to be the only discussion I can find, including looking through the CKG.

Therefore...it's a call it as you see it sort of affair.

[mbeacom]

Perfect.

I like the idea of withdrawal allowing an OA INSTEAD OF the AC change just because it's instant and then requires no tracking. I'll probably try it both ways.

[Relaxo]

I always read it as no attacks of opportunity RAW. But ... so easy to add / houserule if you want to.
It's one of those old skool, you rule things that was codified in a hard rule for 3e (for better or worse, YMMV).

I mean, it makes sense, if you just duck and run while some guy is trying to kill you, they're going to, duh.

[Joe]

The lack of AOE and how it seemed to control how "heroes" would behave in a fight is one of the main reasons why I quit 3.x.

There were never the Erol Flyn moves from old school gaming such as swinging on a chandelier over 20 thugs to the big bad boss.
Instead it was just a quick kill as your pc got hacked to bits with AOEs for such a foolish tactic like trying to be heroic.

The beauty of C&C is in its simplicity. The fastest way to ruin the game is to import and project 3.x onto it.

[Mark Hall]

I disagree, Joe. There are actually several ways to make that happen without (or with few AoOs) in 3e, and AoO have been with D&D since 1e, at least.

For the "Swing to the main bad guy on a chandelier", you could either resolve that with a Tumbling check (with what would quickly be a prohibitively high DC if there are 20 of them) or by simply saying "You're out of their threatened square" and/or "your special maneuver caught them flat-footed and they can't act". Both are well within the RAW for 3e. For C&C, I've had people accomplish similar things with Dex checks, based on the skill of their opponent.

As for AoOs in earlier games, I'll point out that someone retreating from melee has been exposed to a free attack at least as early as the 1e DMG, and C&T (for 2e) had a wide variety of AoOs. Personally, I let people pick between twice their movement and taking a free attack and their full movement and avoiding one.

[alcyone]

You did take a heavy penalty for retreating from melee in 1e, like a free attack at +6, but that was I think for the peculiar idea of running away and ending the encounter.

I have been running with the C&C RAW, and the players don't really internalize them well, but they did understand AoO. I am considering either switching to AoO for the specific situation of disregarding someone in melee with you, or just taking out those rules altogether.

One problem I have with the C&C withdrawal rules, I also play Dark Dungeons, Labyrinth Lord, and other games that have maddeningly similar/different rules and even I can't keep them straight.

[alcyone]

I always wonder what other people do with withdrawal rules. Do you just use them for leaving the combat (i.e. fleeing the entire encounter), or for turning your back on a foe (to switch targets, to run away and shoot your bow, to just get away from someone and get a better position).

What do you think "disengage from combat" means?

I suspect most people just let someone take a swing at you if you are passing through an area they are obviously defending, or when you decide to move more than your combat movement away from a foe. Or, they don't penalize it in any way.

What's more interesting to me, and now I am really drifting off topic, is enforcing this:

Melee: Move-then-attack, never attack-then-move, and certainly never move-attack-move-some-more.
Missile: Either way, move-then-attack, or attack-then-move, or move-attack-move.

If I don't enforce the first one, what I get are hit-and-run maneuvers that don't really make much sense. But since that is sort of limited by 1/2 movement in combat anyway, maybe I am being too strict?

[ThrorII]

I've only ever allowed move-then-attack (at half base movement, as RAW). I'd never allow attack-then-move and only allow a move-attack-move a charging mount. Hell, I even limit my spell casters to a 5' move when casting that round.

If an opponent moves past a defender, and moves more than 1 square away, the defender gets a free attack, as the opponent technically is fleeing combat.
(ie: PC is 3 squares [15'] from an orc, and runs directly past him (running within 1 square of orc), if the PC stops within 'fighting distance' [5'], then no AoA. If the PC keeps running, he is then 'retreating from combat' and the orc gets his AoA).

I also always allow an opponent with a reach weapon, or at least 1 size difference larger, the first attack when either they or their opponent is closing distance, but I believe that is RAW anyway...

[mbeacom]

This is a great discussion. Thanks to everyone who has replied.

I think, with regard to move then attack and vice versa, I'd be inclined to allow either, as long as the person roleplayed it out and it sounded like it made sense. Part of my desire to move to C&C is to avoid the need for a battle mat or grid. So, all combat will be played out in theatre of the mind style description. If someone has a great description of what their character does, I think that would be enough for me to say that they could attack during a move.

In general though, I don't think I have a problem with attack THEN move (unless it's melee in which case you'd be withdrawing), although, I think if you attack DURING the move, or as you start a move then a -2 situational modifier might be appropriate since you're not focusing on the attack so much as moving after it.

[Mark Hall]

I've incorporated 3e's Move-standard action scheme, so people can attack then move, but they face penalties for doing so.