Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Lindybeige on attacks of opportunity

Galdred

Studio Draconis
Patron
Developer
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
4,346
Location
Middle Empire
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.


He calls them back attacks.
The video is a bit long for the point he makes, but I think he makes a reasonable point:
You remain out of reach of your opponent most of the time in a standard melee engagement. That should give you plenty of occasions to disengage without being hit.
And if you have friends nearby, it makes no sense at all that he would run after you.
Historically, units that broke and ran away were slaughtered by cavalry, not by the attack of opportunity they got while disengaging.

Of course, in a game where it costs movement points to attack, it might be unfair to the "attacker" (ie the guy not running away), because he cannot both catch up with his opponent and hit him, but if there is a way to move and attack (charge), then there is no need for AOO: if the attacker is faster, he will be able to catch up and hit his opponent anyway.

The 5 foot step could be seen as more problematic: taking a 5 foot step between two opponents could leave you open if the hexagons are small enough, but it can be abstracted as you waiting for an opening to step in (and you'd be in a good position to be flanked anyway).

So basically, I agree with him that you should not get an AOO if you are in some other opponent's zone of control.
I think AOO should only occur if the opponent moves from one ZoC to another one, especially if he tried to move more than one tile (or 5 foot).

But at the same time, you still need a way to prevent someone from running past opponents and murder the wizard in the back (or backstab them without they can intercept him).

That is why I liked the penalty in Drums of War (and warbanner?):
moving from a tile in Zoc only costed an extra movement point. I think it represented looking for an opening well enough.
It also works in preventing the dance of Japanese tactical RPG where everyone backstabs everyone every turn in a duel.

Note: I know that D20 already covers it with withdrawal, but many CRPG actually do punish a character for withdrawing from melee even when it makes no sense. In this case too, ignoring the starting tile is a good compromise and helps in limiting withdrawals to sensible situations only.
 
Last edited:

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,941
The video is a bit long for the point he makes, but I think he makes a reasonable point:

Is this the first Lindybeige video you've seen?

That's kind of his thing~

But at the same time, you still need a way to prevent someone from running past opponents and murder the wizard in the back (or backstab them without they can intercept him).

Formation cohesion might be a good skill, a group bad in it will leave such holes open and allow such things to happen while ones with a decent skill in it to prevent it with abstraction covering them having the experience and discipline to keep an eye on their positioning with each other.

Note: I know that D20 already covers it with withdrawal, but many CRPG actually do punish a character for withdrawing from melee even when it makes no sense. In this case too, ignoring the starting tile is a good compromise and helps in limiting withdrawals to sensible situations only.

It annoys me that disciplined withdraws, everyone not panicking, maintaining formation and pulling back all together, can't happen since everyone has to take their stilted turn.
 

Galdred

Studio Draconis
Patron
Developer
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
4,346
Location
Middle Empire
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
The video is a bit long for the point he makes, but I think he makes a reasonable point:

Is this the first Lindybeige video you've seen?

That's kind of his thing~
It is not the first, I made a lot of R&D for my game :)
But I did find this one a bit too lengthy.


But at the same time, you still need a way to prevent someone from running past opponents and murder the wizard in the back (or backstab them without they can intercept him).

Formation cohesion might be a good skill, a group bad in it will leave such holes open and allow such things to happen while ones with a decent skill in it to prevent it with abstraction covering them having the experience and discipline to keep an eye on their positioning with each other.
That is a problem with most RPG. They usually focus on modeling individual fighting and not cohesive fighting.

Note: I know that D20 already covers it with withdrawal, but many CRPG actually do punish a character for withdrawing from melee even when it makes no sense. In this case too, ignoring the starting tile is a good compromise and helps in limiting withdrawals to sensible situations only.

It annoys me that disciplined withdraws, everyone not panicking, maintaining formation and pulling back all together, can't happen since everyone has to take their stilted turn.

That is one of the major drawbacks of initiative systems IMO. That is why I prefer grouped initiative.

AoO is fine. No need to make changes.
Indeed, AoO in D20 is fine, as it lets you reposition a little or withdraw if you have an open retreat route, and is completely compatible with his point. But in many games, disengaging is as good as commiting seppuku.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Good way to implement AoO would be to only trigger them when moving past or towards enemy - entering their zone or staying in it, not leaving it.
It would be interesting to see an indirect control game (because it's sort of the norm in FPS hybrids and the like) keeping combatants just outside each other ranges most of the time only stepping in to attack - it would allow weapon range to really matter if a spear or greatsword dude could first AoO anyone trying to tag them with a dinky dagger (OTOH minimal ranges could also be implemented), although it would probably require continuous space instead of hexes or squares ( :incline: ).

As for pursuit, maybe (in an AP based system) have separate movement and action pools (with some actions drawing from both)?
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,405
Location
Djibouti
One minor thing that he might possibly be missing is when he talks about how people running away will typically do some defensive manoeuvre to it, like a feint or just putting your weapons up or whatever, and not just turn their backs and run. In gaem terms, all that stuff is equal to queuing up a bunch of different actions, sort of.

In non-stupid games that have AoOs, you'll typically have a "disengage" move that spends part or all of your action on all those defensive measures just like he says, while trying to gtfo without that is p. much putting your arms into the air and running away screaming like a little girl with no consideration for personal safety.

So in other words - Mordheim master race reporting in once again. If you wanna disengage safely, you gotta pay up movement and offence points, and depending on how gud your character is, he'll have only enough of his full action left to run away, or he'll be able to reposition and still attack another git.
 

Severian Silk

Guest
One minor thing that he might possibly be missing is when he talks about how people running away will typically do some defensive manoeuvre to it, like a feint or just putting your weapons up or whatever, and not just turn their backs and run. In gaem terms, all that stuff is equal to queuing up a bunch of different actions, sort of.
You mean IRL? Who gets into sword fights IRL?
 

Lostpleb

Learned
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
380
You mean IRL? Who gets into sword fights IRL?


Also, some Darth Vader wannabe went berserk on a Swedish school a few years ago, although that was more like a massacre than a fight.

And weren't AoOs originally implemented to discourage cheesy combat tactics? Kiting with a melee weapon seems silly.
 

SCO

Arcane
In My Safe Space
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
16,320
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
It annoys me that disciplined withdraws, everyone not panicking, maintaining formation and pulling back all together, can't happen since everyone has to take their stilted turn.
Phase based bro. Or really, in TB just having a visible turn order bar and delays is enough not to get muddled with opponent moves (if possible).
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616


He calls them back attacks.
The video is a bit long for the point he makes, but I think he makes a reasonable point:
You remain out of reach of your opponent most of the time in a standard melee engagement. That should give you plenty of occasions to disengage without being hit.
And if you have friends nearby, it makes no sense at all that he would run after you.
Historically, units that broke and ran away were slaughtered by cavalry, not by the attack of opportunity they got while disengaging.

Of course, in a game where it costs movement points to attack, it might be unfair to the "attacker" (ie the guy not running away), because he cannot both catch up with his opponent and hit him, but if there is a way to move and attack (charge), then there is no need for AOO: if the attacker is faster, he will be able to catch up and hit his opponent anyway.

The 5 foot step could be seen as more problematic: taking a 5 foot step between two opponents could leave you open if the hexagons are small enough, but it can be abstracted as you waiting for an opening to step in (and you'd be in a good position to be flanked anyway).

So basically, I agree with him that you should not get an AOO if you are in some other opponent's zone of control.
I think AOO should only occur if the opponent moves from one ZoC to another one, especially if he tried to move more than one tile (or 5 foot).

But at the same time, you still need a way to prevent someone from running past opponents and murder the wizard in the back (or backstab them without they can intercept him).

That is why I liked the penalty in Drums of War (and warbanner?):
moving from a tile in Zoc only costed an extra movement point. I think it represented looking for an opening well enough.
It also works in preventing the dance of Japanese tactical RPG where everyone backstabs everyone every turn in a duel.

Note: I know that D20 already covers it with withdrawal, but many CRPG actually do punish a character for withdrawing from melee even when it makes no sense. In this case too, ignoring the starting tile is a good compromise and helps in limiting withdrawals to sensible situations only.

Wrong on all counts. This video may as well be in the dictionary under "straw man".

-He uses the wrong term repeatedly. Attacks of opportunity are not "back attacks".

-Game systems model his comments on disengagement, and they are a good idea which is why people use them in real life.

-If two people have the same land speed and one does 5-foot-step + move, the other person is not able to reach them with just a move. (Unless they have a reach weapon!) The point he is trying to make simply doesn't exist.

-The reason one person doesn't charge after a retreating foe into a group of enemies is, ironically, the attacks of opportunity they would incur.

-Basically, this guy doesn't understand the RPG rules he wants to talk about and then argues that they would be better if X, when X has existed all along.
 
Last edited:

Galdred

Studio Draconis
Patron
Developer
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
4,346
Location
Middle Empire
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.


He calls them back attacks.
The video is a bit long for the point he makes, but I think he makes a reasonable point:
You remain out of reach of your opponent most of the time in a standard melee engagement. That should give you plenty of occasions to disengage without being hit.
And if you have friends nearby, it makes no sense at all that he would run after you.
Historically, units that broke and ran away were slaughtered by cavalry, not by the attack of opportunity they got while disengaging.

Of course, in a game where it costs movement points to attack, it might be unfair to the "attacker" (ie the guy not running away), because he cannot both catch up with his opponent and hit him, but if there is a way to move and attack (charge), then there is no need for AOO: if the attacker is faster, he will be able to catch up and hit his opponent anyway.

The 5 foot step could be seen as more problematic: taking a 5 foot step between two opponents could leave you open if the hexagons are small enough, but it can be abstracted as you waiting for an opening to step in (and you'd be in a good position to be flanked anyway).

So basically, I agree with him that you should not get an AOO if you are in some other opponent's zone of control.
I think AOO should only occur if the opponent moves from one ZoC to another one, especially if he tried to move more than one tile (or 5 foot).

But at the same time, you still need a way to prevent someone from running past opponents and murder the wizard in the back (or backstab them without they can intercept him).

That is why I liked the penalty in Drums of War (and warbanner?):
moving from a tile in Zoc only costed an extra movement point. I think it represented looking for an opening well enough.
It also works in preventing the dance of Japanese tactical RPG where everyone backstabs everyone every turn in a duel.

Note: I know that D20 already covers it with withdrawal, but many CRPG actually do punish a character for withdrawing from melee even when it makes no sense. In this case too, ignoring the starting tile is a good compromise and helps in limiting withdrawals to sensible situations only.

Wrong on all counts. This video may as well be in the dictionary under "straw man".

-He uses the wrong term repeatedly. Attacks of opportunity are not "back attacks".

-Game systems model his comments on disengagement, and they are a good idea which is why people use them in real life.

-If two people have the same land speed and one does 5-foot-step + move, the other person is not able to reach them with just a move. (Unless they have a reach weapon!) The point he is trying to make simply doesn't exist.

-The reason one person doesn't charge after a retreating foe into a group of enemies is, ironically, the attacks of opportunity they would incur.

-Basically, this guy doesn't understand the RPG rules he wants to talk about and then argues that they would be better if X, when X has existed all along.

Actually, it works in DnD indeed, but in many computer games, disengaging is heavily penalized (Path of Eternity... But there are many other that murder you for trying to disengage, even with lots of friends around).
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
One minor thing that he might possibly be missing is when he talks about how people running away will typically do some defensive manoeuvre to it, like a feint or just putting your weapons up or whatever, and not just turn their backs and run. In gaem terms, all that stuff is equal to queuing up a bunch of different actions, sort of.

In non-stupid games that have AoOs, you'll typically have a "disengage" move that spends part or all of your action on all those defensive measures just like he says, while trying to gtfo without that is p. much putting your arms into the air and running away screaming like a little girl with no consideration for personal safety.

So in other words - Mordheim master race reporting in once again. If you wanna disengage safely, you gotta pay up movement and offence points, and depending on how gud your character is, he'll have only enough of his full action left to run away, or he'll be able to reposition and still attack another git.
What if you have a bunch of pals with you to cover your retreat with their own AoOs?

The main problem with TB is that it quickly snowballs all sort of complex, contrived mechanics to compensate for the fact that IRL actions are not neatly sequential, and yes, in that regard phase based is the king, although at the price of having much more complex resolution phase.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom