Melee Engagement, an AoO variant

[tedcahill2]

The goal of this variant is to make defender builds possible in a way that actually provides tactical options to control enemy movement and protect your back line. These rules are in no way complete, this is just my first draft. In particular I'm sure there are lots of abilities and feats that are AoO oriented and need to be adapted to the engagement rules. I'm hoping you all to poke as many holes as you can into these rules, or think of other abilities I need to adapt, or if you think it's cool and have additional suggestions, I want to hear it all.

The following rules replace attacks of opportunities, when using this variant, attacks of opportunity should not also be used

Melee Engagement
Melee engagement is a state in which two or more combatants lock down each other’s position, making it difficult and dangerous to escape or move past a defender. This system is intended to add some depth to the tactics available to melee fighters in combat, by allowing them to prevent or delay the enemy from reaching their back line, while simultaneously providing additional benefits do facing ranged or magic wielding opponents.

Engaging an Opponent
When an opponent enters the area you threaten (see threatened area section below), and you are not already at your engagement limit, you may choose to immediately engage that opponent. By default, everyone has an engagement limit of one, and is able to engage against one opponent at a time. Monsters may have an engagement limit of higher than one, and some items and abilities can also increase your engagement limit. When you engage an opponent you gain a number of advantages against them, be aware though that if they also wield a melee weapon they can engage you back hindering you as well. When engaged by an opponent, the cost to move within their threatened area is doubled. This is not considered difficult terrain, and abilities that reduce the penalties of difficult terrain do not impact this movement penalty. While engaged by any opponent, you are unable to make full-attack actions with a ranged weapon, you may still make standard attack actions with ranged weapons. While engaged by an opponent, attempting to cast a spell require a Concentration check DC 10+the highest BAB of anyone engaging you. If the Concentration check succeeds, you may continue with the action as normal. If the check fails, the action automatically fails and is wasted. If you were in the process of casting a spell, the spell is lost. If you were concentrating on an active spell, the spell ends as if you had ceased concentrating on it. If you were directing a spell, the direction fails but the spell remains active. If you were using a spell-like ability, that use of the ability is lost.

Threatened Area
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares but certain abilities allow you to threaten an area even when Unarmed Attacks. Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.) In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more. You do not threaten an area while moving.

Disengagement Attacks
Whenever an opponent you’re engaged against attempts to leave the area you threaten you can make an immediate disengagement attack against them, there is no limit to the number of disengagement attacks you can make in a round. You may only make a basic attack with the melee weapon you’re wielding when making a disengagement attack, but gain a +2 to your attack roll. Any abilities or feats you have that would normal provide a bonus or condition to attacks of opportunity, should apply them to disengagement attacks instead.

Onslaught Bonus
When you are engaged against an opponent you gain a +1 bonus to your attack roll for each ally that is also engaged against your target. This can make being swarmed by multiple enemies particularly dangerous, even if individually they’re weak. The onslaught bonus replaces the bonus normally received for flanking.

Changes to Abilities
When using the Melee Engagement variant, you should also apply the following changes.

• Conditions: the following conditions cause you to not threaten an area, and thus cannot engage; blinded, comatose, dazed, flat-footed, frightened, grappled, panicked, paralyzed, petrified, prone, stunned
• Combat Reflexes: increase engagement limit by +1, if the character has at least four levels in the fighter class their engagement limit is increased by an additional +1 (for a total engagement limit increase of +2).
• Stunning Fist: even if you fail to stun the target of your attack you succeed in breaking their engagement against you, leaving you free to move out of their threatened area.
• Shields: wielding any shield, except for a buckler, increases your engagement limit by +1.
• Juke: when making a move that would provoke a disengagement attack you may attempt a bluff check to juke your opponent. The DC of the bluff check is 10+your opponent’s attack bonus, if you succeed you avoid the attack entirely, even if it would have otherwise hit your AC, if you fail and your opponent hits you with their attack, you lose your remaining movement for that action.
• Goad: as a standard action you can convince an opponent that you are their biggest threat, forcing them to immediately engage you, this requires an intimidate check DC 10+your opponent’s attack bonus. If they are at their engagement limit, they must choose someone to disengage from, possibly allowing an ally to move out of their threatened area without provoking a disengagement attack on their next turn. Your opponent is free to change their engagement target at the start of their next turn as normal.
• Tumble: you may avoid melee engagement entirely if you succeed at making a tumble check DC 20+your opponent’s attack bonus. If you are still in their threatened area at the start of their next turn they may engage you as normal.
• Sneak attack: with flanking positioning not being used with these rules a rogue instead gains their sneak attack bonus against any enemy their engaged against, but that is not engaged against them in turn.
• Charge: if an opponent provokes a disengagement attack as part of the movement of a charge action, and the defender is wielding a weapon that can be set against a charge, resolve damage for the disengagement attack as though it was set against the charge.

[Saintheart]

Onslaught Bonus
When you are engaged against an opponent you gain a +1 bonus to your attack roll for each ally that is also engaged against your target. This can make being swarmed by multiple enemies particularly dangerous, even if individually they’re weak. The onslaught bonus replaces the bonus normally received for flanking.

The first thing that springs to mind is that this substantially nerfs positional attacks mainly because flanking has another component: the fact the enemy cannot add its DEX bonus to its AC while flanked. This rule would favour high Dexterity opponents: whereas previously you could shut down Errol Flynn by getting two guys on either side of him, you now can't. And since Errol likely has ranks in Bluff, he can use the Juke maneuver to get clear of your Disengagement Attack anyway.

[tedcahill2]

The first thing that springs to mind is that this substantially nerfs positional attacks mainly because flanking has another component: the fact the enemy cannot add its DEX bonus to its AC while flanked. This rule would favour high Dexterity opponents: whereas previously you could shut down Errol Flynn by getting two guys on either side of him, you now can't. And since Errol likely has ranks in Bluff, he can use the Juke maneuver to get clear of your Disengagement Attack anyway.

Flanking doesn't affect DEX to AC. It just provides a +2 bonus to attack rolls. The onslaught rules lower that bonus to +1 but remove the positional requirement, you just have to have two people engaged on the same target, and if you have more than one ally on the same target you get an additive +1 per ally.

[exelsisxax]

If spells and ranged attacks don't exist, this is good. But it basically just lets casters and archers ignore one of the few vulnerabilities they have in normal combat.

[tedcahill2]

If spells and ranged attacks don't exist, this is good. But it basically just lets casters and archers ignore one of the few vulnerabilities they have in normal combat.

Can you elaborate on this? I rarely found attacks of opportunities to prevent an archer or caster from doing their thing. Between defensive casting and 5ft steps they can do whatever they want and not provoke an AoO anyway. These rules lock them into melee range and provokes an attack against them if they try to leave the area, even if they do so with only a 5ft step. I find this to be superior to AoO rules because a melee fighter can lock down archers and casters more easily to stop from being kited around the battlefield.

[The Kool]

Well this really changes nothing in that regard. In the AoO system, it's an eternal meandering of 5ft steps and no attacks being caused by spellcasting or ranged attacks. Under the new system, everyone stands in place and there's no attacks being caused by spellcasting or ranged attacks.

You might want to include something to fill in that gap? Not sure if that was you intention or not.

[Castilonium]

When an opponent enters the area you threaten (see threatened area section below), and you are not already at your engagement limit, you may choose to immediately engage that opponent. If you choose to engage, their movement immediately stops, but they may still use any remaining actions they have for the turn; if they have another move action available for example, they could move past you and out of your threatened area, provoking a disengagement attack in the process (see disengagement attack below).
*snip*
some weapons, such as spears, threaten the area 10ft around you

This makes it impossible to move up to and attack anyone with a greater reach than you in the same round. A character moves up to an enemy with reach, has their movement and action stopped, gets attacked, and uses their standard action to move the rest of the way up, leaving them with nothing left. The full round action charge attack is rendered obsolete, too.

Tumble: you may avoid melee engagement entirely if you succeed at making a tumble check DC 20+your opponent’s attack bonus. If you are still in their threatened area at the start of their next turn they may engage you as normal.

Tumble check DC 20+your opponent’s attack bonus is way too high. A level 1 rogue with 18 dex and 4 ranks would have to roll a 16 on the d20 to move past a level 1 orc warrior. DC 10 + attack bonus is more reasonable.

[tedcahill2]

This makes it impossible to move up to and attack anyone with a greater reach than you in the same round. A character moves up to an enemy with reach, has their movement and action stopped, gets attacked, and uses their standard action to move the rest of the way up, leaving them with nothing left. The full round action charge attack is rendered obsolete, too.

Correct. If you have a reach weapon you are essentially protected from being closed on in a single round, however you become even more vulnerable when they get next to you because moving back so you can hit them will provoke a disengagement attack. This is intentional and it sort of replaces the need to "set against a charge" which is something I have never once seen happen in a game.

This also means that ganging up on enemies will usually be a superior strategy, because by default only the first attacker is stopped in this way, and a second attacker could slip past their threatened area to attack them. Unless of course they have an engagement limit of higher than 1.

Tumble check DC 20+your opponent’s attack bonus is way too high. A level 1 rogue with 18 dex and 4 ranks would have to roll a 16 on the d20 to move past a level 1 orc warrior. DC 10 + attack bonus is more reasonable.

The tumble DC to move through a threatened area without provoking attacks of opportunity is already 25. A level 1 rogue probably isn't rolling a DC 25 either. DC 20+attack bonus of defender seems to scale about right, the idea is that it's harder to tumble past a skilled defender than an unskilled one. As a side thought maybe it should just be 20+defender base attack, since base attack is the number that represents skill and training.

[tedcahill2]

Well this really changes nothing in that regard. In the AoO system, it's an eternal meandering of 5ft steps and no attacks being caused by spellcasting or ranged attacks. Under the new system, everyone stands in place and there's no attacks being caused by spellcasting or ranged attacks.

You might want to include something to fill in that gap? Not sure if that was you intention or not.

Sorry I'm not following this. Fill what gap?

[The Kool]

Sorry I'm not following this. Fill what gap?

Under your system, there is no penalty whatsoever for casting a spell or shooting a bow while standing nose to nose with someone swinging a sword at you. Is this intentional?

[tedcahill2]

Under your system, there is no penalty whatsoever for casting a spell or shooting a bow while standing nose to nose with someone swinging a sword at you. Is this intentional?

Yes it is. The justification for provoking AoO according to their description in the PH is that certain actions cause you to drop your guard. The assumptions of the melee engagement system is that you are not dropping your guard no matter the action you take, but retreating from melee does provoke. I don't think this puts archers at an advantage, they would essentially be stuck in melee engagements but they themselves are unable to get any sort of bonuses related to engaging because you can't engage while wielding a ranged weapon. I think I see casters having an advantage. Maybe requiring defensive casting checks if they want to cast a spell is the way to go. This would make them choose between retreating and provoking a disengagement attack or casting defensively and potentially losing their spell entirely.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

This would have some interesting effects on thrown builds and Improved Unarmed Strike/natural weapons. Either would allow you to make ranged attacks/cast spells with impunity even though engaged. Also, could be somewhat abused by wizards holding a dagger (better yet, a spiked shield) or something and just casting with their other hand.

It seems like Tumble becomes the main way to escape engagement without being trapped in a cycle of being smacked by melee enemies. I actually like this; it eliminates some of the SAD of traditionally top tier classes. OTOH, gishes and clerics get significantly stronger, not really losing anything and also not having to invest in anything new.

[frogglesmash]

Correct. If you have a reach weapon you are essentially protected from being closed on in a single round, however you become even more vulnerable when they get next to you because moving back so you can hit them will provoke a disengagement attack. This is intentional and it sort of replaces the need to "set against a charge" which is something I have never once seen happen in a game.

The vast majority of combatants with reach have it due to their size meaning they don't have to move when attacking enemies who've come too close, so having engagement end movement seems to favour the NPCs far more than the players.

Personally, I'd remove the clause about ending movement, and instead have something along the lines of "disengagement attacks made against charging opponents are considered to be 'set against a charge,'" as this both preserves the effects of setting against a charge, and, as seems to be your aim, makes it a more relevant option. You could also have a line clarifying that initiating engagement can happen in the middle of an opponents movement.

[The Kool]

Alternative idea: When you engage a target, that target must spend twice as much movement to exit a square which you threaten. This effect is cumulative, so if the target is engaged by two combatants who threaten the same area, they must spend (three times? four times?) as much movement as normal to leave each square. If they leave your threatened area entirely, you may make a disengagement attack.

This is subtly different from treating the threatened area as difficult terrain, because by the time you engage the target they are already in your threatened area. If you charge a character with a reach weapon, they get a free shot. If you want to move past someone who is playing lockdown, you move really slow and probably can't get past at all for a turn or two. If you want to really shut down chargers, have it "as if the next square were difficult terrain".

[tedcahill2]

The vast majority of combatants with reach have it due to their size meaning they don't have to move when attacking enemies who've come too close, so having engagement end movement seems to favour the NPCs far more than the players.

Personally, I'd remove the clause about ending movement, and instead have something along the lines of "disengagement attacks made against charging opponents are considered to be 'set against a charge,'" as this both preserves the effects of setting against a charge, and, as seems to be your aim, makes it a more relevant option. You could also have a line clarifying that initiating engagement can happen in the middle of an opponents movement.

Alternative idea: When you engage a target, that target must spend twice as much movement to exit a square which you threaten. This effect is cumulative, so if the target is engaged by two combatants who threaten the same area, they must spend (three times? four times?) as much movement as normal to leave each square. If they leave your threatened area entirely, you may make a disengagement attack.

This is subtly different from treating the threatened area as difficult terrain, because by the time you engage the target they are already in your threatened area. If you charge a character with a reach weapon, they get a free shot. If you want to move past someone who is playing lockdown, you move really slow and probably can't get past at all for a turn or two. If you want to really shut down chargers, have it "as if the next square were difficult terrain".

I like both of these ideas.

I didn't really think about the impact on melee types when fighting large monsters. My primary vision for this variant is as follows: Picture a wide hall, 15ft. In the center of that hall stands a member of the dwarven vanguard, protecting his companions as they try to pick the lock on the door to their escape. Rushing down the hall toward them are a few orcs.

Under the AoO rules, the orcs can ignore the dwarf entirely, he's build for defense, and the orcs can't pierce his plate armor, so they take the AoO (of which he probably gets only one) and run right by him to attack the rogue trying to open the door.

Under melee engagement rules our dwarf, at the very minimum, is able to engage against both of the orcs (his engagement limit is 2 because he's wielding a shield), preventing them from getting past him and attacking in a single round. Bear minimum he's bought his allies a round of reprieve from attacks.

So I'm trying to mechanize that scenario using the melee engagement rules. Making it cost extra movement is a good option, but I'm not totally sure. Maybe stopping movement entirely doesn't apply to natural attacks, which would exclude many monsters with reach from that rule.

[tedcahill2]

I think I may have come up with a possible solution to monster reach and stopping movement with engagement. I'm thinking the charge action can be modified as follows:

Charge (add the follow rules): when making a charge attack an opponent is not able to stop your movement by engaging you. If an opponent engages you while attempting to charge past them you provoke a disengagement attack as normal, if the disengagement attack deals you damage your movement stops, and your charge ends.

This adds some additional use to the charge action, allowing you to close on an enemy with a large threat area or to attempt to charge past a defender and break into their back lines.

[liquidformat]

I think you are making things too complicated with the changes to charge. Go with The Cool and frogglesmash's ideas of 'set against a charge' and changing movement through threatened areas. That is a more powerful and less complex way to handle this, it gives people with reach weapons extra bang for their buck without giving natural reach or spiked chains any bigger advantage and makes it a headache for anyone to run past your dwarven defender. It also gives really cool interaction with things like Acrobatic Charge.

Am I understanding correctly that someone charging you would provoke a disengagement attack? if so that makes trippers super powerful at shutting down chargers.

Currently by omitting natural weapons from 'Engaging an Opponent' rules but specifically calling out how unarmed strike functions you are making it ambiguous how natural weapons affect engagement. Also does IUS make unarmed strikes affect engagement? Would TWF add engagement like a shield does?

You are completely detaching combat reflexes and your AOOs/DAs from dex, I feel like this might be a mistake but am unsure.

If I am reading correctly Juke is a bluff version of tumble? Why isn't it also 20+bab, you are giving a huge bonus to bluff which is already super easy to buff...

Your system eliminates the need for concentration, this is a huge mistake. You are making melee less of a threat to ranged, they can still pop off their full attack then use their move action to tumble away from you with no worries. and making melee combat irrelevant to magical users. I mean seriously all they have to do is cast a teleportation spell and they don't have to worry about your silly engagement rules, end of story.

If anything I would keep the standard AOO rules and add engagement rules on top. In the case of ranged attacks this doesn't really change anything as the workarounds have already be identified, elven craft and tumble for example. For casters I think this is reasonable, as a caster your rule of thumb is avoid melee combat and this would highlight that, they now struggle to cast spells while being attacked and struggle to escape from their attacker. Also your rules for melee engagement pretty much ruin tripping as they currently are which is currently mundanes only BFC and one of mundanes most powerful options....

[tedcahill2]

I think you are making things too complicated with the changes to charge. Go with The Cool and frogglesmash's ideas of 'set against a charge' and changing movement through threatened areas. That is a more powerful and less complex way to handle this, it gives people with reach weapons extra bang for their buck without giving natural reach or spiked chains any bigger advantage and makes it a headache for anyone to run past your dwarven defender. It also gives really cool interaction with things like Acrobatic Charge.

I updated my original post with a number of changes in this direction.

Am I understanding correctly that someone charging you would provoke a disengagement attack? if so that makes trippers super powerful at shutting down chargers.

Unlike AoO, which can be any standard attack such as a trip, disengagement attacks must be standard melee attacks.

Currently by omitting natural weapons from 'Engaging an Opponent' rules but specifically calling out how unarmed strike functions you are making it ambiguous how natural weapons affect engagement. Also does IUS make unarmed strikes affect engagement? Would TWF add engagement like a shield does?

Non-issue now. Revamped how threatening works to not stop movement, so natural weapons will interact perfectly fine. TWF does not add to your engagement limit. This is intended as a specific buff to shield bearers.

If I am reading correctly Juke is a bluff version of tumble? Why isn't it also 20+bab, you are giving a huge bonus to bluff which is already super easy to buff...

Probably needs some tweaking, the difference was supposed to be that juke is just a means of escaping the attack, while tumble avoids ever being engaged at all.

Your system eliminates the need for concentration, this is a huge mistake. You are making melee less of a threat to ranged, they can still pop off their full attack then use their move action to tumble away from you with no worries. and making melee combat irrelevant to magical users. I mean seriously all they have to do is cast a teleportation spell and they don't have to worry about your silly engagement rules, end of story.

Corrected this issue. Ranged wielders can no longer make full attack actions while engaged, and casters are considered distracted and all spell use will require concentration checks while engaged.

[liquidformat]

So the main issue with the setting a weapon against a charge is that charges happen most often in the surprise round of combat making setting a weapon against a charge highly dependent on winning initiative and the enemy being stupid enough to still charge you when you have a weapon set against their charge. So in the end it is rarely seen outside of military campaign games. Anyways seems like adding the additional benefit of being able to use this function against an opponent who tries to pass through your threatened area while charging is a nice addition to the weapon ability.

I am concerned that your concentration check DCs are too low. Standardly the concentration check dc is based on one the damage from an AOO for casting in melee which should always be higher than bab for any competent melee character or a DC of 15+ spell dc to cast defensively which is a higher dc earlier on but your dc becomes slightly higher around level 10 and on for a melee attacker with full bab.

As it stands a level 1 caster with no con bonus should make the check 65% of the time. It might be good to look at the DCs to make them a bit more difficult and scale better if you are changing things anyway. In general I have always thought RAW concentration checks are a bit too easy and don't scale well. maybe 15 + enemy's attack bonus + str/dex mod + spell level?

[tedcahill2]

So the main issue with the setting a weapon against a charge is that charges happen most often in the surprise round of combat making setting a weapon against a charge highly dependent on winning initiative and the enemy being stupid enough to still charge you when you have a weapon set against their charge. So in the end it is rarely seen outside of military campaign games. Anyways seems like adding the additional benefit of being able to use this function against an opponent who tries to pass through your threatened area while charging is a nice addition to the weapon ability.

Thanks, I agree, I have never seen a spear successfully set against a charge. To me this addition feels like it gives purpose to things like spears, which are frequently under used in D&D but are historically incredibly common weapons.

I am concerned that your concentration check DCs are too low. Standardly the concentration check dc is based on one the damage from an AOO for casting in melee which should always be higher than bab for any competent melee character or a DC of 15+ spell dc to cast defensively which is a higher dc earlier on but your dc becomes slightly higher around level 10 and on for a melee attacker with full bab.

As it stands a level 1 caster with no con bonus should make the check 65% of the time. It might be good to look at the DCs to make them a bit more difficult and scale better if you are changing things anyway. In general I have always thought RAW concentration checks are a bit too easy and don't scale well. maybe 15 + enemy's attack bonus + str/dex mod + spell level?

I will definitely look at rescaling my DCs. The point of using base attack over damage is that it's definitely a matter of your attackers skill with their weapons, a reflection of base attack, and their ability to threaten you and distract you while casting. The concentration check that is required while engaged is intended to be an exception to casting defensively, so I will need to clarify that.

[liquidformat]

Ya it is good to highlight weapon abilities a bit more, it makes them a bit more unique and interesting. Maybe even look at a feat that allows setting a weapon against a charge as an immediate action? mundanes rarely get to use any immediate actions and that seems like it would be worth a feat.

I would also suggest having weapon focus and similar feats work to increase the concentration DCs, heck even stuff like favored enemy might be reasonable to apply there....

The final thing that seems to be a hole in ME replacing AOO is how do your ME rules interact with tripping, falling prone, and getting up again? This seems to be a large hole inside of these rules. Currently if AOO is replaced by ME tripping as a whole falls apart...

[frogglesmash]

The final thing that seems to be a hole in ME replacing AOO is how do your ME rules interact with tripping, falling prone, and getting up again? This seems to be a large hole inside of these rules. Currently if AOO is replaced by ME tripping as a whole falls apart...

A potential solution for this is to have three categories of counter attacks


Category 1: These are normal Disengagement Attacks as written by tedcahill2.

Category 2: Moving into an occupied square, tripping, grappling, bullrushing, and anything similar are covered by this category, engagement is not a necessary condition for provoking this category of attack. You may or may not want to limit the number of these available per round. Whether this category of attack grants a +2 to attack depends on how much you want to favour the defender, I'd personally grant it, as there are many ways to avoid these counterattacks entirely eg. improved trip, grab, tumble, etc.

Category 3: This category requires engagement, does not get the +2 attack bonus, and is limited to 1 per round (1+Dex mod with Combat Reflexes) and covers everything normally covered by AoOs that isn't covered by the above categories.



If you limit the number of category 2 counterattacks available per round, I'd put them on the same counter as the category 3 attacks for simplicity's sake

You could further simplify by simply having Disengagement attacks apply to all actions included in categories 1, and 2, though I personally would prefer to have stuff like tripping and grappling provoke attacks regardless of engagement.

[tedcahill2]

A potential solution for this is to have three categories of counter attacks


Category 1: These are normal Disengagement Attacks as written by tedcahill2.

Category 2: Moving into an occupied square, tripping, grappling, bullrushing, and anything similar are covered by this category, engagement is not a necessary condition for provoking this category of attack. You may or may not want to limit the number of these available per round. Whether this category of attack grants a +2 to attack depends on how much you want to favour the defender, I'd personally grant it, as there are many ways to avoid these counterattacks entirely eg. improved trip, grab, tumble, etc.

Category 3: This category requires engagement, does not get the +2 attack bonus, and is limited to 1 per round (1+Dex mod with Combat Reflexes) and covers everything normally covered by AoOs that isn't covered by the above categories.



If you limit the number of category 2 counterattacks available per round, I'd put them on the same counter as the category 3 attacks for simplicity's sake

You could further simplify by simply having Disengagement attacks apply to all actions included in categories 1, and 2, though I personally would prefer to have stuff like tripping and grappling provoke attacks regardless of engagement.

I'm wary to add so many categories of actions. Additionally, from the theater of the mind perspective (specifically my perspective) the trip chain AoO combo was always incredibly lame to me. The melee engagement variant is intended to fundamentally change to tactical purpose of a melee fighter type. The intent of this system is to give melee fighters positional advantages, either protecting your own archers/casters, or disrupting the enemy archers/casters by engaging against them. Trips, and disarms, continue to have a use here because both would result in the enemy either losing their weapon or falling prone, both conditions cause them to lose all engagements and not threaten and area.

[frogglesmash]

I'm wary to add so many categories of actions. Additionally, from the theater of the mind perspective (specifically my perspective) the trip chain AoO combo was always incredibly lame to me. The melee engagement variant is intended to fundamentally change to tactical purpose of a melee fighter type. The intent of this system is to give melee fighters positional advantages, either protecting your own archers/casters, or disrupting the enemy archers/casters by engaging against them. Trips, and disarms, continue to have a use here because both would result in the enemy either losing their weapon or falling prone, both conditions cause them to lose all engagements and not threaten and area.

I mean, not liking trip combos is one thing, but as it stands, using potions, bullrushing, initiating trip attempts, disarming, grappling, bull rushing, entering an opponent's space, sundering, overrunning, retrieving/using items, unarmed attacks, stabilising allies, etc. are all actions that used to provoke AoOs, but now can be performed within melee range with zero risk. If you're okay with this that's fine, but if you're not, you obviously need to find some way of addressing it within your system.

Edit: Also the proposed categories I presented aren't as complicated as they seem. It basically breaks down into disengaging, aggressive actions, and everything else.

[tedcahill2]

I mean, not liking trip combos is one thing, but as it stands, using potions, bullrushing, initiating trip attempts, disarming, grappling, bull rushing, entering an opponent's space, sundering, overrunning, retrieving/using items, unarmed attacks, stabilising allies, etc. are all actions that used to provoke AoOs, but now can be performed within melee range with zero risk. If you're okay with this that's fine, but if you're not, you obviously need to find some way of addressing it within your system.

Edit: Also the proposed categories I presented aren't as complicated as they seem. It basically breaks down into disengaging, aggressive actions, and everything else.

I suppose your right. The main purpose of this variant is to give melee types some positional control of the battle. So I suppose the only thing this should replace is attacks of opportunity based on movement, which is covered by disengagement attacks, and attacks of opportunity from casting spells, which is covered under under the constant through from engagement and the need for a concentration check to cast at all, and attacking with a ranged weapon, which is covered by limiting the action to standard only.

It probably would still make sense to provoke standard attacks of opportunities when combat maneuvers are used.