Compromise and Conceit

Infernal adventuring…

recent posts

about

An Australian statistician and role-player living in Japan, interested in the theory and practice of role-playing…

Attacks of opportunity and weapon reach

When I first returned to D&D through the 3.5 edition rules, I was quite impressed by the idea of attacks of opportunity, though as a game mechanic they add a lot of work and could perhaps be simplified without difficulty. I particularly liked their use to discourage spell-casting and missile weapon use in melee combat, encouraging the eminently sensible tactic of keeping archers and wizards behind a wall of warriors, and reducing the use of healing magic in the thick of battle. I think they can be used as well to address that old canard of D&D, the uselessness of pole-arms, quarterstaves and great axes. No-one in D&D would ever actually bother specialising in pole-arms as a weapon because they’re heavy, they do less damage than comparable two handed weapons, and yet you still have to forego the use of a shield. Even worse is the quarterstaff, which is weak and requires you forego the shield bonus. Sure, you can set a pole-arm against a charge, but how often do you have to do that?

Over at Middenmurk I found a suggestion for improving the pole-arm based on initiative order, which is nice but I don’t think is sufficient to overcome their deficiencies. This post reminded me of an idea I have toyed with for a while, which can be implemented in pretty much any system (I think), and uses attacks of opportunity to make pole-arms and spears a fearsome weapon, to improve the value of daggers for dexterous fighters, and to make the quarterstaff a useful weapon, particularly for mages. Here is how it works:

  • In any combat where the combatants start at greater than melee range, L-sized puncturing weapons (i.e. pole-arms and spears but not two-handed swords or battle-axes) win initiative, so always strike first, against any other weapon class
  • Any M or S-sized weapon user fighting against an L-sized weapon of any sort[1] incurs an attack of opportunity when they attempt to strike
  • In order to prevent this attack of opportunity from occurring, the user of the smaller weapon has to exchange their attack for a combat manoeuvre roll, which if successful indicates they have closed range sufficiently to be able to attack subsequently without incurring the attack of opportunity. Failure, of course, means that they incur the attack of opportunity as well as losing their own strike
  • Once the user has closed successfully in this way, the pole-arm wielder can reverse the procedure, dropping their own strike and making a combat manoeuvre roll to widen the range again without incurring an attack of opportunity
  • If a person using an S-sized weapon closes successfully against a user of an L-sized weapon using this method, they’re considered to be inside the range of the big weapon, and then the big weapon user incurs an attack of opportunity every round that they attempt to strike the lighter fighter, until they widen the range again[2]
  • A quarterstaff can be used as a pole-arm at range (the Chinese kung-fu-y style of staff fighting) but can also be treated as an M-sized weapon (the Robin-Hood style of fighting) so quarterstaff users get the benefit of the pole-arm without its deficiencies against light weapons
  • Users of S-sized weapons do not gain the attack of opportunity advantage when fighting against Great Axes, but do suffer the attack of opportunity disadvantage when fighting at range against Great Axes
  • All combatants have to make their decision about what they’ll do at the beginning of the round, before initiative is rolled for

The last rule is explicitly to benefit wizards. If you’re a fighter up against a wizard with a staff, you have a choice – you can opt to drop your attack and close range to dispense with subsequent attacks of opportunity from the wizard, but this means that the wizard gets to cast a spell without incurring an attack of opportunity from the fighter; but if you worry about this possibility and choose instead to strike from range, the wizard will get an attack of opportunity. Not particularly threatening, unless the staff has a paralysis effect built in…

Also, this rule is intended to explicitly encourage the use of tumbling and daggers by rangers and thieves, and to make this dexterous style of fighting more interesting. It also means that a thief with a weak weapon can still be dangerous if they have a good tumble skill, since they can close on a fighter with a big weapon and gain attacks of opportunity until the fighter is out of range again. Ultimately they’ll still lose the fight but by pressing the fighter in this way they stay alive longer, enabling another party member to use a wider array of spells and/or missile weapons. You could even allow for the use of feats to extend the sneak attack to this situation, making the in-close thief a really nasty combatant[3].

Also, I would rule that widening the range from a light-weapon fighter involves moving backwards, and can’t be done if there is no backward distance to move. So if fighter engages thief, thief closes in, fighter widens range but backs up to a wall, and then thief closes in again, it’s slice-and-dice time for the fighter[4].

Just as Middenmurk draws on his experience of mediaeval reenactment fighting to construct the initiative rule he proposes, I am drawing here on my experience of knife-fighting and staff martial arts. Once a knife-fighter is inside a longer weapon’s range, the longer weapon becomes a significant hindrance to the user; but closing on a staff with a shorter weapon is all but impossible unless you are very agile.

Attacks of opportunity don’t have to be a significant hindrance to game flow either if, instead of making them an extra roll, you represent them as a bonus on a single combat roll. So everyone declares their actions at the beginning of the round, and anyone who gained an attack of opportunity from someone else gets a +2 on their roll against that person (or grants a +2 on the roll of anyone who is attacking that person). I don’t think this rule is necessary but it can help to reduce the number of rolls in combat, always a good thing. Also, feats can be expended to increase the bonus, which would again benefit thieves and monks.

—

fn1: you could restrict this to “pole-arms”

fn2: you could extend this to S-sized versus M-sized weapons

fn3: this could be a useful way of making the monk’s unarmed combat nasty

fn4: or, for an unarmed person against this fighter, the unarmed person has grabbed the fighter’s head and is bashing it against the wall

Posted in ,

6 responses to “Attacks of opportunity and weapon reach”

  1. Tom Fitzgerald Avatar
    Tom Fitzgerald

    I like what you are doing here. I’ll have to read it again to properly imagine the ramifications but it seems to me that it will go a long way towards modelling that dynamic where short weapon guys are always surging forward and spearmen are always backing the hell up to bring their spearhead back into range. I’m not sure how to take into account formation fighting in this system, the only thing that prevents spearmen from having to retreat is the other spearmen behind them.

    It’s tough being a spearman, you’ve got to take that attack of opportunity and make it count or your backtracking and trying desperately to defend. Often you’ll get an opportunity to crack your opponent over the head with the haft but, failing that, you better have a back up weapon.

    It’s a whole lot of fun having that short weapon when you get in close, you can stab to your heart’s content.

    Great post.

  2. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    I would imagine formation fighting would simply mean that you incur an attack of opportunity even once you’ve closed, from the rank behind – maybe in most RPG scenarios only one attack of opportunity, because stabbing into combat when your ally is right there probably doesn’t work.

    I also thought that a spear could be the same as a quarterstaff – so you can use it at both ranges in a versatile way. But I am only familiar with the Kung fu spear, which is generally too long and fragile for that sort of thing.

    My purpose in this kind of rule is to force a couple of (what I think are) realistic combat options:
    1) fighters carry spears even if they’re not the main weapon of choice, because in my system holding off an opponent is always better
    2) against a fast, lightly armoured but more highly skilled opponent, a fighter will have to drop his/her preferred heavy weapon in order to avoid the slice-and-dice
    3) if you meet someone with a quarterstaff or a spear, you don’t just sneer and draw your longsword

    The downside is all those extra attacks of opportunity and combat manoeuvres slow down combat. This is best handled by turning the attack of opportunity into a combat bonus for the appropriate person. Then each round the same number of rolls happen – the long weapon wielder rolls to hit (first) at +2; or the short weapon wielder rolls to hit (first) in order to penetrate the guard, but does no damage. In my game +2 will translate into extra damage (on average) so it works like an attack of opportunity over many combats.

    But obviously if you like your games highly tactical, then do all the rolls in detail.

  3. Tom Fitzgerald Avatar
    Tom Fitzgerald

    No, too tactical is not fun for me. I came to the conclusion that D&D abstract combat is actually not bad in it’s current form and will probably continue with something like this;

    1)Polearms (incl. spears) automatically win initiative first round against 1 handed weapons.

    2)If a combatant scores an unanswered strike with 1-handed weapon against a polearm wielder without being hit back then they automatically win intitiative in the next round i.e. they are at close range

    3)If a polearm wielder scores an unanswered strike against a 1-handed weapon then they get initative automatically i.e. they’ve kept their opponent at long range.

    This might work better in duelling combat rather than in mass brawls with a variety of different combatants. However, I’d be inclined to allow more polearm wielders to attack an individual in one round than 1-handed weapon wielders.

    I’m not such a fan of extra attacks. This solution is essentially the same as that which I published on my blog, you’ve just helped me to clarify it.

    How it’d work with oozes and air elementals and dragons is another thing altogether.

  4. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    a good plan! If you give the pole-arm wielder an initial +2 it’s probably the same as an opportunity attack (since increased chance of success on one attack = normal chance of success in 2 attacks). But it doesn’t really matter.

    I think ideas of reach and initiative with monsters are dodgy under any existing D&D rules, and probably need to be adjudicated individually.

  5. Warhammer 3 Attacks of Opportunity « Compromise and Conceit

    […] combative, but in essence I think it’s an excellent idea. I’ve adapted it for use in enhancing the effect of weapons with long reach, and I think it’s generally an excellent idea. I’ve noticed in reading the Warhammer 3 […]

  6. John Blackthorne Avatar
    John Blackthorne

    Just because someone has a pole-arm doesn’t mean that they are ready to use it, or that they could move faster than their combatants who don’t have pole-arms. Nor are pole-arms puncturing weapons. Sure, spikes and spearheads were put on the end of pole-arms, but so were hammers, axe-heads, hooks and all manner of implements. Thus needlessly simplifying pole-arms, and then turning around trying to give them a benefit to make them more realistic?

    Allowing someone with a pole-arm to act before other combatants negates what bonuses, feats, abilities and whatnot that have allowed them to buy a faster initiative. The fact that a pole-arm gives someone reach, to threaten a square some distance away (i.e. 10ft. away) so that the enemy has to move 5ft. out of their current position, and thus provoking an attack of opportunity, for them to close the distance with their foe should be sufficient to detail the combat situation. No need to allow the pole-arm wielder to somehow automatically win initiative.

    Perhaps it is simple enough to say that you cannot close the distance between yourself and your combatant that has a pole-arm if they manage to hit you while you are trying to close that final 5 ft. You want to hit with that sword? Well, brave the attack of opportunity they get for you leaving their threatened square. But is it realistic that you should be able to move that 5 ft. if that attack against you hit? Rather like the Fighter’s Mark in 4th Edition. After all, as you said “Once a knife-fighter is inside a longer weapon’s range, the longer weapon becomes a significant hindrance to the user; but closing on a staff with a shorter weapon is all but impossible unless you are very agile.”

    Just the fact that someone has a smaller weapon, against someone with a bigger one, shouldn’t incur an attack of opportunity. Again, it should be a matter of being weapon-ready, initiative and reach. The larger-weapon wielder should be able to threaten a range bigger than that of the other combatant, and thus giving the needed perceived advantage. What if the situation were fighting a monster with incredibly long arms, using a medium-sized sword? Shouldn’t the monster get reach, despite the weapon they are using? Shouldn’t the monster have extra reach if they were to use an even longer weapon?

    Once the advancing combatant closes the distance with the pole-armer, they make a combat maneuver to see that they don’t incur an attack of opportunity, and then the pole-armer gets the same to see if they can widen the range again? Sounds like we’re just complicating the situation. Just don’t let the advancing combatant close the distance if the initial attack of opportunity was successful in hitting. No extra rules, no extra dice-rolls.

    Then I would include a few new feats, kinda like Close-Quarters. One that allows you to fight with a large, or unwieldy weapon in close-quarters (normal being -4 to strike?). As well as a feat that allows others to close distance on reaching weapons without provoking attacks of opportunity, or even allow them to close the distance even though they are hit by the initial attack of opportunity they provoked.

    Pole-arms were most effective when a phalanx of soldiers would use them all collectively, like some deadly hedgehog. But for the sake of D&D combat, I think I would allow combatants that have pole-arms to be able to use them as impromptu staves(quarterstaffs) to smash/trip/bonk anyone who is in close quarters that doesn’t allow them to use their pole-arm to full effect. I might not be able to stab you with the pointy end of my glaive guisarme, but I should be able to drive the shaft into your face.

Leave a comment