D&D 5E What would happen if we got rid of opportunity attacks

[Lanefan]

I ran Castles and Crusades years ago which stripped out attacks of opportunity - but I never did anything with miniatures (why would you when they matter so little?) just theatre of the mind or the occasional locational sketch.

This is basically the main result as far as I can see - to make the game less miniature dependent - so It would seem odd to strip them out and then to keep using miniatures.

The thing to remember is that the grid gives weird results. It's perfectly rules legal for example to disengage, move your speed through a door and then object interaction the door closed. You can also run around three people who are standing still and do something (perhaps pull a level to open a pit or something) which they would logically try to prevent you doing, while they stand perfectly frozen in place.

That's not the grid giving weird results, it's a result of strict turn-based play where one character does its thing and - barring rules-endorsed reactions - everybody else stands frozen.

The only way to beat this is to step back from turn-based play and allow simultaneous actions.

If you can move without any restriction then this becomes more of an issue. If it was theatre of the mind and someone breaks free and turns to run it would tend to be assumed that the PC is immediately following*. Basically if there are no rules for common sense restriction on movement then the GM (if they're any good) has to override the rules and the utility of the grid is further degraded - what exactly is it there for then?

*GM: He turns to close the door in your face.
Player: I leap forward and try to shoulder charge the door preventing it being closed.
GM: ok make a roll.

Even using a TotM-like setup a grid-and-minis is still very useful for, say when the fireball goes off, determining exactly who is where when. It's also handy for quickly eyeballing missile or spell ranges and for determining relative positioning (and, for those who use it, facing).

 

[Lanefan]

View attachment 130602
View attachment 130603
No facing issues. Enemies getting multiple attacks in made breaking off melee horrifically risky. And, back then, involuntary movement like Fear triggered these attacks, unlike D&D 5E.

Heh - I've read that many times but always missed the "or attack routine" bit.

I'll stick to just giving the one attack, I think; it's worked out fine for 35-plus years even if it's been in error.

DMG p73 (revised, 1979):
View attachment 130605
The unarmed combat rules were a nightmare involving consulting a table of percentages. However, here, you get a "free strike" to keep the unarmed person from even getting a roll, and then your real attack. 3rd edition adopted this as an AOO (unarmed foes provoke an AOO from armed foes).

I long ago decided to ignore the grappling rules as written, meaning I've had little reason to notice this. That said, this does seem to give too much of an advantage to the weapon wielder for my liking.

 

[Don Durito]

That's not the grid giving weird results, it's a result of strict turn-based play where one character does its thing and - barring rules-endorsed reactions - everybody else stands frozen.

The only way to beat this is to step back from turn-based play and allow simultaneous actions.

Well yes. But the only solution I've seen which I didn't think ended up being worse was 13th Age's Intercept action.

Even using a TotM-like setup a grid-and-minis is still very useful for, say when the fireball goes off, determining exactly who is where when. It's also handy for quickly eyeballing missile or spell ranges and for determining relative positioning (and, for those who use it, facing).

Yes, as I said, even when running Castles and Crusades I would sometimes sketch out where everyone is relative to each other.

 

[Lanefan]

Well yes. But the only solution I've seen which I didn't think ended up being worse was 13th Ages Intercept action.

Try using unmodified d6 for each person's initiative rather than d20 (re-rolled each round), and where ties occur resolve them simultaneously (e.g. all 6's resolve together). Also, allow people to hold their actions until someone else's init comes up and then act simultaneously.

Right now, for example, it is by-RAW impossible for two or more party archers to co-ordinate their shot timing such that they fire simultaneously. It's also by-RAW impossible for two characters to move in lockstep e.g. so one can use her shield to cover the other as they run across a field under missile fire. In both cases this is because by RAW no two PCs can have the same initiative count.

 

[Quartz]

In both cases this is because by RAW no two PCs can have the same initiative count.

Can you cite that rule?

 

[Lanefan]

Can you cite that rule?

5e PH page 189, under "Initiative", paragraph starting with the words "If a tie occurs..." and goes on to give several means of breaking said tie one of which must be used.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is a post I made in another thread which was a bit off topic so I decided to start it's own thread.

Except for feats like Sentinel or other special abilities, what would getting rid of OA do to the game? Would it encourage more fluid movement rather than the trench warfare that so often seems to occur in melee combat? I would think grappling would become very popular. Thoughts?

My players and I aren’t reluctant to move in combat, so it’s hard for me to say how it’d effect games where people do avoid it.

But I’d definitely have less fun.

We do a few things to help make movement more fun.

• Acrobatics checks can bypass opportunity attacks. The DC is 10+ the enemy’s attack bonus.
• Overrun Action, from the DMG. More fun than Disengage, anyway.
• We give enemies more actions, especially the dirt simple enemies, including a reaction or two. Therefor, more times where the enemy can’t OA, because they already Parried, or Riposted, or Shouted A Warning, or whatever.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My players and I aren’t reluctant to move in combat, so it’s hard for me to say how it’d effect games where people do avoid it.

But I’d definitely have less fun.

We do a few things to help make movement more fun.

• Acrobatics checks can bypass opportunity attacks. The DC is 10+ the enemy’s attack bonus.
• Overrun Action, from the DMG. More fun than Disengage, anyway.
• We give enemies more actions, especially the dirt simple enemies, including a reaction or two. Therefor, more times where the enemy can’t OA, because they already Parried, or Riposted, or Shouted A Warning, or whatever.

An idea I working on is to give some enemies legendary action style abilities using their Reaction.

 

[Rabulias]

That said, this does seem to give too much of an advantage to the weapon wielder for my liking.

Really? Would you try to grapple someone who is armed with a sword? Or a even just a dagger?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Really? Would you try to grapple someone who is armed with a sword? Or a even just a dagger?

It’s pretty much the only way to counter them if you aren’t armed and can’t run away.

Also, I’d rather grapple a swordsman than a dagger wielder, given the choice. I’d not want to do either, but at least I’m not within the optimal range of the longsword.