D&D 5E Changing OA/disengage rules

What do you think of the following houserules for OAs/disengage:

• There is no disengage action.
• There is no limit on OA reactions in one round.

The idea is to make positioning more important, and to make it more risky to escape melee once you're in it. Combatants could use Dodge to increase their chances of avoiding damage when fleeing/repositioning elsewhere.

With no limit on OAs and no disengage action I would argue that positioning would become less relevant, rather than more.

shidaku said:

With no limit on OAs and no disengage action I would argue that positioning would become less relevant, rather than more.

Click to expand...

how so?

Psikerlord# said:

how so?

Click to expand...

Sorry, would have expanded, needed to start dinner.

Here's a few reasons:
Dodge is a full action. You can move, but otherwise you get no attacks, no spells, nothing. Doing nothing is usually the worst choice you can make in a first. Making Dodge even worse is that it is not a fixed bonus to defenses ala "Total Defense" in 4th. It imposes a dexterity check. This is fine for Rogues, dex-fighters, rangers and monks (and anyone else lucky enough to have a high dex), but it's not going to help your barbarians, your paladins, your fighters who are going to be your meat up front. If a Str-Fighter has the choice between doing nothing and making 3 attacks, their better choice is 3 attacks since Dodge would not significantly benefit them.

Being able to move quickly in and out of combat are signature features of at least two classes and are great features to pick up when multiclassing. Removing disengage makes the skirmisher melee classes much less appealing. You're more likely to see archer rogues/monks/rangers than their melee versions if you remove disengage. If being in the fray sucks, it's easier to never join than to figure out how to escape.

Psikerlord# said:

• There is no disengage action.
• There is no limit on OA reactions in one round.

The idea is to make positioning more important, and to make it more risky to escape melee once you're in it. Combatants could use Dodge to increase their chances of avoiding damage when fleeing/repositioning elsewhere.

Click to expand...

No disengage: not a bad idea. Disengage is pretty meta anyway, since it focuses entirely on opportunity attacks, which are pretty meta. (Fighting is simulated by attack actions and unlimited defenses, but opattacks are more attacks that fall outside this framework).

No OA limits: I'd call that a step away from tactics. Instead, I'd look at adding limits to defenses (AC) before removing limits.

You also might consider that melee isn't as hazardous as you might think. All smart combatants have headgear on, which adds limits to their sight and hearing in addition to the physiological sight problems and din of war. Basically, many melee combatants can't see or hear anything anyway.

shidaku said:

Here's a few reasons:
Dodge is a full action. You can move, but otherwise you get no attacks, no spells, nothing. Doing nothing is usually the worst choice you can make in a first. Making Dodge even worse is that it is not a fixed bonus to defenses ala "Total Defense" in 4th. It imposes a dexterity check. This is fine for Rogues, dex-fighters, rangers and monks (and anyone else lucky enough to have a high dex), but it's not going to help your barbarians, your paladins, your fighters who are going to be your meat up front. If a Str-Fighter has the choice between doing nothing and making 3 attacks, their better choice is 3 attacks since Dodge would not significantly benefit them.

Click to expand...

Taking the dodge action grants advantage on DEX saves but more importantly- all attacks against you are rolled with disadvantage. Nowhere in that does having a low or average DEX make it a worse option or a high DEX make it a better option. A great AC makes it an awesome option if the character is in a position to prevent enemies from getting through a choke point.

As to the suggested changes by the OP- I wouldn't want that because its just incentive to stay planted. In 5E combats people are running all over the place doing cool stuff. I don't want fighters to stay planted in their square and all the time those multiple OAs would add to combats taking longer.

I find it hard enough to encourage players to make their characters run away. This would make it impossible.

I think letting people take more than 1 reaction is a bad idea.

I wouldn't alter disengage myself but what if you changed it to.

Disengage: As your action you focus your attention on one enemy and and do not provoke attacks of opportunity from that creature, in addition you gain the benefits of the dodge action if that creature attacks you before the start of your next turn.

This keeps people from using Disengage to move through groups of enemies, Dodge would be best for that, but does allow for someone to escape one on one combats.

ExploderWizard said:

Taking the dodge action grants advantage on DEX saves but more importantly- all attacks against you are rolled with disadvantage. Nowhere in that does having a low or average DEX make it a worse option or a high DEX make it a better option. A great AC makes it an awesome option if the character is in a position to prevent enemies from getting through a choke point.

Click to expand...

You're right I misread it, I thought it was saying that it allowed you to make a dex check to dodge attacks. A cool alternate I suppose for some classes, but not what Dodge does, my bad.

As to the suggested changes by the OP- I wouldn't want that because its just incentive to stay planted. In 5E combats people are running all over the place doing cool stuff. I don't want fighters to stay planted in their square and all the time those multiple OAs would add to combats taking longer.

Click to expand...

One of the nice things about limited OAs is that you can feint your enemy pretty well. Have a Monk take the Dodge action then have them Dash and just run a circle around the enemy taunting them. After they waste their OAs on the annoying fly around their heads, party members in danger of dying if they moved are now not!

Psikerlord# said:

What do you think of the following houserules for OAs/disengage:

• There is no disengage action.
• There is no limit on OA reactions in one round.

The idea is to make positioning more important, and to make it more risky to escape melee once you're in it. Combatants could use Dodge to increase their chances of avoiding damage when fleeing/repositioning elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I wouldn't kind playing under these rules once or twice. It will tend to make teleportation abilities like Misty Step more important. This is basically the AD&D rule for disengaging, anyway.

Most important ramification: it eliminates the goblin conga line as a tactic. So it benefits the players.