D&D 5E Acrobatics and AOs

[KahlessNestor]

So here's a question I had pop into my head:

Other editions had ways to avoid attacks of opportunity via Acrobatics (tumbling through the threatened square, etc). There's nothing like this in 5E. 5E allows you to "disengage", but you lose your attack unless you're a rogue. What if you wanted to get away from your current engaged target to save the wizard from the beastie that just got up in his grill?

So would something like this work:

Roll Acrobatics: use higher of roll or current AC against the attack.

Or is that too powerful and unbalancing?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Acrobatics as defense is mainly a cinematic affect, since you certainly don't see people defensively tumbling at HEMA tourneys, that existing feats and class skills already fill without necessarily requiring an attribute check. As a DM I have allowed Dex (Acrobatics) checks to attempt to move through a hostile-occupied square but with AoO still in effect if triggered.

 

[iserith]

So here's a question I had pop into my head:

Other editions had ways to avoid attacks of opportunity via Acrobatics (tumbling through the threatened square, etc). There's nothing like this in 5E. 5E allows you to "disengage", but you lose your attack unless you're a rogue. What if you wanted to get away from your current engaged target to save the wizard from the beastie that just got up in his grill?

So would something like this work:

Roll Acrobatics: use higher of roll or current AC against the attack.

Or is that too powerful and unbalancing?

It sounds fine for those times when the character getting away from the monster has an uncertain outcome. In some cases, the character might succeed or fail outright, no roll.

 

[ad_hoc]

So here's a question I had pop into my head:

Other editions had ways to avoid attacks of opportunity via Acrobatics (tumbling through the threatened square, etc). There's nothing like this in 5E. 5E allows you to "disengage", but you lose your attack unless you're a rogue. What if you wanted to get away from your current engaged target to save the wizard from the beastie that just got up in his grill?

So would something like this work:

Roll Acrobatics: use higher of roll or current AC against the attack.

Or is that too powerful and unbalancing?

I think it is already covered by the disengage action and adding your Dex to AC.

Rogues get it as a bonus action and Battlemasters have a special maneauver.

I wouldn't give away abilities like that to every class.

 

[jayoungr]

Maybe make it a homebrew feat, or part of one. I don't think it would be too unbalancing if a player had to spend a feat to get it. But feats in 5E usually include more than one benefit, so add at least one more feature to make it "big enough." Advantage on all Acrobatics checks made to cross difficult terrain, maybe?

 

[DEFCON 1]

The other thing to remember is that more often than not, once you get past 1st or 2nd level the type of attack you get hit with for an OA hurts, but is not really close to being fatal. So taking an OA to rush over to help the wizard is a cost of doing business that you should be willing to pay.

What I find irritating sometimes as I DM is that my players who play the back line characters are so unused to being attacked that even the idea of absorbing an OA freaks them out, despite having more than enough HP to take it without any issue. It's like as soon as they decide to play back line characters, there's a switch in their brains that goes off to make them say "Well, I'm dead!" as soon as a creature shows up to attack them in melee. You just want to shake them and scream "YOU'RE A G*DDAMN RANGER! YOU HAVE D10s FOR HIT POINTS! WHY THE FRACK ARE YOU FREAKING OUT ABOUT THESE ORCS THAT CAME OUT OF THE BUSHES?!?"

Oy. Every time. Every freaking time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So here's a question I had pop into my head:

Other editions had ways to avoid attacks of opportunity via Acrobatics (tumbling through the threatened square, etc). There's nothing like this in 5E. 5E allows you to "disengage", but you lose your attack unless you're a rogue. What if you wanted to get away from your current engaged target to save the wizard from the beastie that just got up in his grill?

So would something like this work:

Roll Acrobatics: use higher of roll or current AC against the attack.

Or is that too powerful and unbalancing?

Mostly this is what "add your Dex bonus to your AC" and the dodge and disengage actions represent. The rogue being able to disengage for cheap and the monk being able to dodge for cheap are pretty significant powers for those classes.

I don't tend to think in terms of "unbalancing" as much as I think in terms of trade-offs, so if you were to do this option (and not require an action for it) I think the main trade-off is that Acrobatics will be a more important skill and that the Rogue class might feel a bit like one of their class features is no great shakes. You also might eat up some time in rolling and number comparison - not a lot, but if a PC trained in acrobatics makes a habit of zipping around the battlefield, it could add up. Only real question is if that's a consequence you can live with!

Personally, I don't think I would do this, since it just encourages a player to pump Dex and over-values Acrobatics in comparison to other skills (I don't want a character who chose Perform or Medicine to feel like they're weakened by not choosing Acrobatics). Dex is already one of the most over-valued ability scores, and this enhances that. I also feel like existing mechanics do a fine job here. So it's not something I'm really interested in.

But if you like the feel of it and you don't have a Rogue and don't mind Acrobatics being a great skill and Dex being a GREATER stat, it's not like it'll break the game or anything. Your PC's will be more mobile and less locked down by melee. Not the end of the world.

 

[McFly2355]

Maybe make it a homebrew feat, or part of one. I don't think it would be too unbalancing if a player had to spend a feat to get it. But feats in 5E usually include more than one benefit, so add at least one more feature to make it "big enough." Advantage on all Acrobatics checks made to cross difficult terrain, maybe?

Acrobatic Attacker:
Increase you DEX score +1, no more than a 20
You gain proficiency with the Acrobatics (DEX) skill. If you already have proficiency, you gain expertise in this skill.
This Feat allows you to roll an acrobatics (dex) check against the attacker's Investigation (INT) or Persuasion check, whichever is higher. Of the player or defendant rolls a higher roll, then you can 'tumble' out of the attacker's reach, up to 10 feet. Each threatened square adds a +2 bonus. This bonus includes an enemy with more than 5' of reach. For instance, each 10' would be a +2 to the attacking creature's roll, and every 5' beyond that, of applicable, would further increase it's roll by +2 and so on. This bonus also includes other creatures around you when you take this action.

 

[ECMO3]

So here's a question I had pop into my head:

Other editions had ways to avoid attacks of opportunity via Acrobatics (tumbling through the threatened square, etc). There's nothing like this in 5E. 5E allows you to "disengage", but you lose your attack unless you're a rogue. What if you wanted to get away from your current engaged target to save the wizard from the beastie that just got up in his grill?

So would something like this work:

Roll Acrobatics: use higher of roll or current AC against the attack.

Or is that too powerful and unbalancing?

There are many ways already in the game to move away from an enemy without using all your attacks - cunning action, step of wind, nimble escape, mobile feat, misty step, zephyr strike, shove, grapple and metamagic.

As such I don't see the need for an extra mechanic to do it.

If you really need to move and don't have one of these abilities you can get another party member to steal his reaction before your turn or just take the AO. Unless they have some sort of extra ability, being hit by an AOO does not stop you from moving.

I also think anything that gives more to dex-based martials is pushing things in the wrong direction.

If you want something balanced make it a feat:

Tumbling Dervish Feat
You have learned to tumble through combat, making it harder for enemies to hit you. As a bonus action add acrobatics to your AC against opportunity attacks on your turn.

IF you have a high acrobatics and a high AC this will make you almost immune to OAs, and nearly the equivalent of step of the wind, nimble escape or cunning action-disengage. At lower ACs and with lower athletics it would add to your AC, but you would still be hittable. Compared to the mobile feat, this would work against more enemies, but it would use a bonus action, and would not give the extra movement. Compared to Misty Step through Fey Touched it is less effective, but not limited in uses.

 

[Blue]

There are a number of class and subclass features as well as a feat that let you do things like this. Giving something that normally takes either an action or a special feature to everyone really cheapens their power. And avoiding using an action by a free check seems too powerful as well. Especially without a repercussion for failure.