Remove the stupid opportunity attacks on moving.

[p0mpous]

It not only makes no sense but basically just makes moving pointless.

[p0mpous]

Originally posted by Glyph:

Originally posted by p0mpous:

You can fulfil this by altering movement speed in close proximity.

You know, I can't knock that. You don't like a mechanic and replaced it with something else in your game that sounds neat. Dunno if a mod exists yet that does similar in BG3.

To go go into more detail what I do is I add back stepping and side stepping. they are both half speed and dont lead to an opportunity attack.

[Sonic Titan]

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Originally posted by Glyph:

You know, I can't knock that. You don't like a mechanic and replaced it with something else in your game that sounds neat. Dunno if a mod exists yet that does similar in BG3.

To go go into more detail what I do is I add back stepping and side stepping. they are both half speed and dont lead to an opportunity attack.

I, for one, am in support of adding advanced dance into DnD.

[Aldaris]

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Originally posted by Aldaris:

And if you're taking a step backwards, you're disengaging from that opponent. For which there's an action to use. Any other movement 5 feet away from them, within the mechanics of the game, is you moving in a non-defensive way, hence why your opponent gets a free shot at hitting you.

No. What if I took and step backwards and attacked at the same time? This happens a lot. You dont have to step forward to engage and opponent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKjWTyNFRQ&ab_channel=LinoRoberto

Not really. Humans have very good balance and even if you do trip backwards it doesnt mean the other person gets a chance to attack you. Very often you will stumble backwards and gain your footing before they can react.

But it wouldn't happen in the game, making it an irrelevant point to be making.

Not really what? What does human balance have to do with what I just said? Zero.

[Silyon]

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Originally posted by TamTroll:

so one might say you're... Disengaging?

otherwise, pathfinder and the 5ft step mechanic.

or perhaps some levels in assassin rogue, think they get disengage as a bonus action.

No stepping backwards is not disengaging. You can attack and step backwards at the same time.

This says everything that needs saying, your definition of "Disengage" is not the same as the rulebook's definition. So you homerule it to make more sense to you/your play group. Which is fine if it works for you, but trying to force your definition onto other people isn't. Hence the pushback.

So far as the rulebook and common knowlege are concerned, disengagement is an action that allows you to move out of melee weapon reach of one or more enemies with your guard up. This is similar to the "Dodge" action (not appearing in BG3) that is the newer form of a full-defense action, except you also retain your movement. This lets you withdraw from one engagement in a combat, not nessasarily combat as a whole.

[LordOfTheBread]

Lol, no!

[p0mpous]

Originally posted by Silyon:

Originally posted by p0mpous:

No stepping backwards is not disengaging. You can attack and step backwards at the same time.

This says everything that needs saying, your definition of "Disengage" is not the same as the rulebook's definition. So you homerule it to make more sense to you/your play group. Which is fine if it works for you, but trying to force your definition onto other people isn't. Hence the pushback.

So far as the rulebook and common knowlege are concerned, disengagement is an action that allows you to move out of melee weapon reach of one or more enemies with your guard up. This is similar to the "Dodge" action (not appearing in BG3) that is the newer form of a full-defense action, except you also retain your movement. This lets you withdraw from one engagement in a combat, not nessasarily combat as a whole.

Maybe this is because I actually have experience fighting. In general in sword fights you tend to stand outside of each others range by default. The rule is just made by people who had no understanding.

[The_Dipl0mat]

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Originally posted by Silyon:

This says everything that needs saying, your definition of "Disengage" is not the same as the rulebook's definition. So you homerule it to make more sense to you/your play group. Which is fine if it works for you, but trying to force your definition onto other people isn't. Hence the pushback.

So far as the rulebook and common knowlege are concerned, disengagement is an action that allows you to move out of melee weapon reach of one or more enemies with your guard up. This is similar to the "Dodge" action (not appearing in BG3) that is the newer form of a full-defense action, except you also retain your movement. This lets you withdraw from one engagement in a combat, not nessasarily combat as a whole.

Maybe this is because I actually have experience fighting. In general in sword fights you tend to stand outside of each others range by default. The rule is just made by people who had no understanding.

Almost like its a fantasy game, where the stakes are exaggerated. And isnt just one on one where you can duel and get out of range

[an entire Roman legion]

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Maybe this is because I actually have experience fighting. In general in sword fights you tend to stand outside of each others range by default. The rule is just made by people who had no understanding.

do you also fight on a turn-based system?

[Silyon]

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Maybe this is because I actually have experience fighting. In general in sword fights you tend to stand outside of each others range by default. The rule is just made by people who had no understanding.

Except people with fencing/dueling experience have also weighed in and called you out, including myself now. Might be a surprise, but D&D is not 100% analogous to RL duels, in significant part because in a duel you're not waiting for "Your turn" and letting the opponent do whatever. You're constantly testing, feinting, gauging reaction times, trying to set them into a rhythm to disrupt.

The closest analogue to doing all of that are reaction actions like Attacks of Opportunity, where if you're not specifically guarding yourself as you withdraw from an engagement you're going to get a stab to the side or a lash across the back from a sudden lunge or slash to your unguarded side. And again, if you are guarding yourself properly, that's what's defined as a disengagement by the rulebook.

[Hugh de Salle]

Get Mobility Feat its amazing.

[The 13th Ghost Bunny]

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Originally posted by Silyon:

This says everything that needs saying, your definition of "Disengage" is not the same as the rulebook's definition. So you homerule it to make more sense to you/your play group. Which is fine if it works for you, but trying to force your definition onto other people isn't. Hence the pushback.

So far as the rulebook and common knowlege are concerned, disengagement is an action that allows you to move out of melee weapon reach of one or more enemies with your guard up. This is similar to the "Dodge" action (not appearing in BG3) that is the newer form of a full-defense action, except you also retain your movement. This lets you withdraw from one engagement in a combat, not nessasarily combat as a whole.

Maybe this is because I actually have experience fighting. In general in sword fights you tend to stand outside of each others range by default. The rule is just made by people who had no understanding.

Well, it's just an abstraction of combat, it was never supposed to simulate the real thing.

This reminds me of the kind of weird arguments people come up with as to why firearms often don't exist in their fantasy games. "Guns are too powerful!" or "A single shot should kill!" and yet they never apply the same thinking to swords, bows, and being struck by a meteor conjured by magic. lol.

[Gregorovitch]

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Originally posted by Pan Darius Loveless:

That's exactly what using the 'Disengage' action does.

But it gets rid of actions, its not what I am talking abut. It makes no sense that because I move backwards you get a free attack. There is no sound logic in it.

There is absolute logic to it: you can move backwards, side to side, around, were you like - so long as you don't move outside the weapon range of your opponent, aka running away. If you just run away you will get swiped for free.

If you want to disengage from an enemy you must spend an action to do it (unless you are a rogue in which case you can use a bonus action). The action consumed represents what you have to do to avoid becoming defenceless while you attempt to disengage from your melee attacker.

Remember this works both ways. Your mage can't just walk away from a brute of an ogre and then zap it between the eyes with whatever - but then neither can an enemy mage do that to you.

I for one am very happy that I can get in an enemy mage's faces and they have to spend their action on trying to disengage rather than cast Hold Person or w/e on me in a vain attempt to preserve their miserable existences. Especially as they usually can't move far enough away to stop me reaching them to whack the bejesus out of them next turn and finish the blighters off for good.

[bzz]

Nah. Learn the game

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Maybe this is because I actually have experience fighting. In general in sword fights you tend to stand outside of each others range by default. The rule is just made by people who had no understanding.

LMAO. Yeah, your imaginary sword fights are the real deal. Everyone should listen and learn from you. What a guy loool i can't

[✙205🍉🐆→]

opportunity attacks are the best thing that fighters have, it's a pity they don't hit when you cast magic or shoot a bow at point blank range

[Kafik]

Originally posted by p0mpous:

Originally posted by Supply Slut:

First of all it makes sense. Second, and more importantly, it would be so easily exploitable if you could just freely move past any creature that could melee strike you.

If they removed opportunity attacks you would see a build just a few hours later designed to speed up to enemies, attack them, and speed out of range behind cover.

But it does make sense, walk backward with your guard up and you are now walking backwards while focusing on something else, even if you’ll block it I would easily find that an opportune moment to strike. Even if you block it could throw you off balance or cause you to trip up.

It doesnt because it assume that in battle I would turn around and move while someone was infront of me with a weapon. No one would do that, you would take a few step backwards.

Having your guard up isnt a action. In 90% of the cases it is the default fighting stance, basically everyone fights from a guard. There are different types of guards but every fights from a guard.

But just reading what you say tells me you have no understanding of any form of combat.

Just because you "have your guard up" doesn't mean that moving makes you immune to your opponent having the opportunity to attack you. If you understand any combat sport you can easily see that when watching.