Topic: Opportunity Action

[Jinor]

I am once again clearing my head about a rule, this time the subject being opportunity action.

The rule says that when it is your turn to resolve your declared action you can choose to put it into an opportunity state, which means it is resolved during any of the following action phase when you wish to resolve it. Now the rule being such I have a few questions.

1) Does an opportunity action grant you automatic first strike in a normal melee situation e.g. you are waiting an enemy to come close enough? Even when the enemy knows you are about attack i.e. hostile and sees you?

2) Can you opt to delay a declared melee attack when already engaged in melee e.g. you have declared a full melee attack in snap, but then choose to wait until a later phase to resolve it?

3) Do the minuses or bonuses of the original phase follow to later phases e.g. you choose to make a missile attack in snap, but the intented target becomes unavailable so you declare opportunity action? In a later phase you fire an another target, so do you fire with the original -20 despite the phase or with the basic phase modifications?

Any ideas? Thanks in advance!

[Kristen Mork]

1) Does an opportunity action grant you automatic first strike in a normal melee situation e.g. you are waiting an enemy to come close enough? Even when the enemy knows you are about attack i.e. hostile and sees you?

I think the rules are a  bit fuzzy on this.  There seem to be two interpretations.  You can resolve your attack during a later phase (but with the same initiative result).  Or, you resolve your attack at any future time.  I don't think it's a problem to give the prepared party first strike (he won initiative after all).  The opponent should probably not enter into the prepared party's kill zone without some serious parry.  Thus, I use the latter interpretation: an opportunity attack interrupts any other actions.

2) Can you opt to delay a declared melee attack when already engaged in melee e.g. you have declared a full melee attack in snap, but then choose to wait until a later phase to resolve it?

Sure, I don't see any problem with that (neither in terms of the RAW, nor in terms of abuse of the system).

3) Do the minuses or bonuses of the original phase follow to later phases e.g. you choose to make a missile attack in snap, but the intented target becomes unavailable so you declare opportunity action? In a later phase you fire an another target, so do you fire with the original -20 despite the phase or with the basic phase modifications?

Yes, the penalties follow you.  At the end of a round in which an opportunity action is left dangling, I let the character carry the held action over to the next round as a deliberate action (i.e., if you spend a round doing nothing but holding a prepared attack, you get the +10 bonus).

[providence13]

Not exact about RAW, I'll try to dig up some info tonight after work.

Here's how I do it. If I'm wrong, one of these friendly and knowledgeable people will correct us. 

1) No. I have played like you describe, but found it too powerful. RAW is that movement lowers Init by -1/10% moved (RMSS pg 74). So if you wait until the guy runs up to get closer, his init will suffer, but it's not guaranteed that you have init.  IMHO, Opportunity Actions change the phase you act, not the init.

2) Changing Action is -40 OB. I believe the Opportunity Action must be declared.Then it can occur on the next phase. 
RMSS:
"Example: Dral has already moved 20' (20% activity)
during the Snap Action Phase. Dral has a declared
melee attack normal action (80% activity)
against Morg the Orc. However, Darien knocks
Morg unconscious with a spell early in the Normal
Action Phase. Having no active foe, Dral decides to
cancel his declared action. His canceled actions are
more than 60%, so he can move over to another foe
using half his normal movement (50' at a run)."
-But can't make an attack. The example is not an Opportunity Action but I included it to be more descriptive.

Keep in mind RMSS pg 75;
"Note: If part of a character’s OB has already been
used to parry a foe (see Section 23.2.6), he may not
cancel the related attack action."
If you're already in Melee, then you probably have declared an OB/DB split. If you parry (use DB from OB) you can't cancel the action.

3) I'm pretty sure that penalties from acting in a "phase" only apply to that phase. Since you didn't actually make the missile attack in snap, you don't get the -20 for firing in snap.
Now depending on the phase you act, it will limit the %Act for movement and can modify OB as normal for that phase.

[providence13]

Yes, the penalties follow you.  At the end of a round in which an opportunity action is left dangling, I let the character carry the held action over to the next round as a deliberate action (i.e., if you spend a round doing nothing but holding a prepared attack, you get the +10 bonus).

Since you don't actually act in Snap, for example, I don't see how acting in a later phase (ie. applying penalties from snap) should follow you. You're not actually rushing the maneuver. But that's just my opinion. 

[Kristen Mork]

Not exact about RAW, I'll try to dig up some info tonight after work.

Here's how I do it. If I'm wrong, one of these friendly and knowledgeable people will correct us. 

1) No. I have played like you describe, but found it too powerful. RAW is that movement lowers Init by -1/10% moved (RMSS pg 74). So if you wait until the guy runs up to get closer, his init will suffer, but it's not guaranteed that you have init.  IMHO, Opportunity Actions change the phase you act, not the init.

First, I think that "declared movement" doesn't include Pressing or React melee attacks.  So, your opponent can avoid the initiative penalty simply by declaring a Pressing attack.  But, that doesn't really impact opportunity attacks.

Based on this interpretation (which I have tried, and found to be wanting), if you win initiative and have declared an action in the normal phase (movement or melee, for example), you cannot wait until later in the phase to resolve the action.  Thus, winning initiative is a liability when it comes to jockeying for position.

With respect to attacks, once you declare an opportunity melee attack, you are forced to act in a later phase.  Thus, your opponent could Press & Melee, and then be Long Doored away (later in the phase), while you're still standing around twiddling your sword.  More generally, when you declare an opportunity attack, you are forfeiting your ability to attack first.

Thus, I find this interpretation (act on your initiative in a later phase) to be so stifling that players almost never use it.  (As a final example, consider an archer waiting until his target shows itself.  On the target's turn it runs from behind one wall to behind another wall.  The archer never gets a shot off!)

2) Changing Action is -40 OB. I believe the Opportunity Action must be declared.Then it can occur on the next phase. 
RMSS:
"Example: Dral has already moved 20' (20% activity)
during the Snap Action Phase. Dral has a declared
melee attack normal action (80% activity)
against Morg the Orc. However, Darien knocks
Morg unconscious with a spell early in the Normal
Action Phase. Having no active foe, Dral decides to
cancel his declared action. His canceled actions are
more than 60%, so he can move over to another foe
using half his normal movement (50' at a run)."
-But can't make an attack. The example is not an Opportunity Action but I included it to be more descriptive.

Keep in mind RMSS pg 75;
"Note: If part of a character’s OB has already been
used to parry a foe (see Section 23.2.6), he may not
cancel the related attack action."
If you're already in Melee, then you probably have declared an OB/DB split. If you parry (use DB from OB) you can't cancel the action.

I think you're conflating opportunity attack with canceling an action.  You can certainly declare an opportunity attack during the snap phase (canceling any actions in the normal or deliberate phases) and resolve the attack in a later phase.  For example, you might decide to wait until after your ally casts an instantaneous spell.

3) I'm pretty sure that penalties from acting in a "phase" only apply to that phase. Since you didn't actually make the missile attack in snap, you don't get the -20 for firing in snap.
Now depending on the phase you act, it will limit the %Act for movement and can modify OB as normal for that phase.

I find this interpretation to be way too powerful.  Once in melee, my best option is to declare a full snap attack.  When it gets to my turn, if my opponent has already attacked, I can go into opportunity mode until the deliberate phase.  Thus, by playing games with the rules, I can guarantee that either a) I attack first or b) I attack with a net +30 modifier.

In other words, if the penalty doesn't "follow" you, then it's in your best interest to declare snap actions and then to switch to opportunity mode if you aren't ready to complete your action.

[Jinor]

The answers so far reflect almost perfectly the differences between our players including me as one.

If you interpret opportunity action to interrupt other action automatically then every dagger-wielding halflings declares an opportunity action when facing a charge from a spear-wielding orc. I am of course exaggerating the example, but I see this as a worse abuse of the rules than applying a modification to the action based on the phase it is resolved in. It is in essence an auto win for initiative.

There is a problem with the rule as it creates problems with both interpretations. Delayed init or automatic win? Modifications from original phase or from the phase it is resolved? Mind-boggling.

In my opinion the phase when the action gets resolved is determines modifications. The flip side for "get first attack or +30" is losing your first strike and risking becoming stunned. Maybe a solution would be limiting the use of that by not allowing it if any parry has been used i.e. your attack sequence is already in motion or something similar. This way you would risk a zero parry against an attack in snap. This not a full-fledged idea though.

[Kristen Mork]

If you interpret opportunity action to interrupt other action automatically then every dagger-wielding halflings declares an opportunity action when facing a charge from a spear-wielding orc. I am of course exaggerating the example, but I see this as a worse abuse of the rules than applying a modification to the action based on the phase it is resolved in. It is in essence an auto win for initiative.

Personally, I think you should take charge out of the mix.  Determine which approach works best for you without considering charge attacks.  Then, add in a special rule that the longer weapon always attacks first.  In my games, we just consider long weapons (pole arms) and short weapons (everything else).  Thus, the spear will always beat the dagger.

The real question is, assume two fighters each have swords.  One fighter (A) wins initiative (either through better Qu, better luck, or better phase choice).  His opponent (B) is 10' away, but A doesn't want to break ranks (believe me, he'll never hear the end of it if he does!).  So, he declares an opportunity attack, waiting for B to approach.  Who, in this case, has "earned" the right to attack first?

(Charging is often the bane of a round-based system.  Even second-by-second systems have to grapple with whether or not you can make an attack at the end of a move (if so, why not move every round and if not, how do you handle two people running past each other while swinging claymores (it happens more often than you might expect)).)

[Jinor]

Poor choice of words. Take away charge and replace it with closes in. Charging truly is an exception and I did not want to bring it to this conversation - my mistake. Sorry.

[Cory Magel]

The important things that have potential for abuse: If you ALWAYS declare in SNAP then say you are delaying for an "opportunity action" there are two concerns...

Do you now automatically beat other actions in later phases even though you might have a worse initiative?
Do you still have your penalties from making a snap action?

To be fair you will either need to suffer the penalties from a snap action or you will need to beat their initiative, one or the other.  Giving the beneficial side of both leads to a significant potential for abuse.  i.e. If I declare snap, then have the potential to beat all initiatives in normal or deliberate if I make a delayed action, but my penalties are based on the phase I'm actually taking the opportunity action in there's no reason for me to not ALWAYS declare in snap then delay my action.

I'd prefer to allow them to beat others in later rounds, but they are required to use the bonus/penalty for the phase they were originally declared.

Actually... my PERSONAL preference would be to use either something VERY similar to the BattleTech* round or just use a second by second system.

BattleTech type round is: No phases/one big round.
Roll initiative
Movement/Declaration - Worst initiative moves first and on down the line.  Player/GM declares what their visible actions are.
Actions - Best initiative acts first and on down the line.
(Instant actions are actually instant, you perform them whenever you want).

You get a quicker round and you still allow movement to take into account reacting to others.

[providence13]

Actually... my PERSONAL preference would be to use either something VERY similar to the BattleTech* round or just use a second by second system.

BattleTech type round is: No phases/one big round.
Roll initiative
Movement/Declaration - Worst initiative moves first and on down the line.  Player/GM declares what their visible actions are.
Actions - Best initiative acts first and on down the line.
(Instant actions are actually instant, you perform them whenever you want).

You get a quicker round and you still allow movement to take into account reacting to others.

This is very similar to how we play with a no phase system.
Slowest declares, fastest acts first. Almost all actions (except combat) can be multi-round actions.

Also, we mod init by borrowing from your next action or take a penalty to init by getting a bonus to your action; +/- 20 pts max. Init must be at least 1. Quick and sloppy or slow and precise.
Players decide the phase bonus/penalty.
Declare 1-3 actions that add up to 100%Act.
Go around the table resolving all 1st declared actions, then go around the table resolving the second, then third. Not everyone declares 3 actions. The spell casters generally declare 2 and save some %Act for instants.

Change of Action is -40 to action or OB. (except for instants; ie. Bladeturn)

This is simple but solved some problems for us.


Thanks for the corrections, Peter. 

[Jinor]

I'd prefer to allow them to beat others in later rounds, but they are required to use the bonus/penalty for the phase they were originally declared.

This is very amusing because my preference is not to allow anyone automatically beat others, but to use the bonus/penalty from round the action is resolved. This difference is the exact reason why I started this topic.  Both sides have pros and cons, but I am still looking for the golden compromise that resolves everything and doesn't allow abuse. Wishful thinking 

[Cory Magel]

I'd prefer to allow them to beat others in later rounds, but they are required to use the bonus/penalty for the phase they were originally declared.

This is very amusing because my preference is not to allow anyone automatically beat others, but to use the bonus/penalty from round the action is resolved. This difference is the exact reason why I started this topic.  Both sides have pros and cons, but I am still looking for the golden compromise that resolves everything and doesn't allow abuse. Wishful thinking 

The reason I would lean in the direction I do is because often times our players are delaying their action to do something like prevent an ally from being attacked/intercepted.  If they couldn't still take their action first (with penalties) it would defeat the purpose of the maneuver.  But... I admit I'm a fairly lenient GM too.

[Ynglaur]

"Thus, I find this interpretation (act on your initiative in a later phase) to be so stifling that players almost never use it.  (As a final example, consider an archer waiting until his target shows itself.  On the target's turn it runs from behind one wall to behind another wall.  The archer never gets a shot off!)"

Perfectly legitimate.  If the archer's initiative were high enough, he would.  If too low, that could represent a moment's hesitation, or not quite moving quickly enough to get a good bead on the target (which is, after all, moving).  Opportunity Actions shouldn't substitute entirely for quick reflexes, imo.

[Jinor]

I need to add that I do allow an automatic win in most cases when the action performed is not contested. For example an archer waiting for a target to appear between boulders would usually be able to shoot if the target wasn't aware of being targeted. If he was aware of being a target and tried to move fast and suddenly enough to avoid it, then of course it would be different.

After said all this I have to admit that I am not currently a GM, only a player  , so I can't make the final call, which is why my quest for valid points continues. 

[MariusH]

We play that ORDINARY opportunity actions cannot INTERRUPT an action, but can come between any action after it's been declared. I think that's actually RAW, too. I guess penalties from phases should follow you, to avoid everyone from declaring attacks in snap and then use opportunity action. Note that you can do almost nothing else when on opportunity (except move 10' or so at the end of deliberate phase, I think).

Not beeing able to interrupt an action has the effect that an enemy declaring "react and melee" will still be able to close in on you and attack you before you can fire your bow at him - or before you can attack him in melee, meaning he gets first attack. This is why we have added another form for opportunity attack. In this "house rules" version, you declare a trigger for your action. You can NOT have BOTH this and ordinary opportunity action, you must choose which one. And the trigger must be very specific. Like "If an enemy gets within 50', I fire at him". And just as for ordinary opportunity action, you can do nothing else (except cancelling action) while you wait for the trigger.

If declaring a melee attack against "a foe that gets within melee range", we'd let initiative decide which one gets to attack first, when the enemy attacks with react and melee. Usually, you might as well chose "react and melee" yourself, which would also allow you to attack a foe attacking you (and now you wouldn't even need to declare the OB/DB split in declaration phase). This would in our game give the attacker first strike, but it gives you way more flexibility. Above all, if nobody were to attack you, you can still resolve your "react and melee" in deliberate phase.

[pastaav]

I think it is logical that the sacrifice of OB mean you get benefit of interrupting what is done is later phases. The alternative that you get the bonus of the phase you are really using and your normal init would mean you with right declaration could make it so that you uses snap if the enemy uses snap, but otherwise the later phase. Doesn't sound like a good idea.

The only tricky situations with opportunity action is charging with a longer weapon. This  is a rule that I think should have precedence.