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

[Don Durito]

So far this is all talking about melee combat only. To me, where losing AoOs (or their equivalent) would be most noticeable is in how it'd make spellcasting in combat even easier than it already is (IMO it should be impossible).

This is because in 5E specllcasting does not provoke opportunity attacks.

 

[Lanefan]

This is becausde in 5E specllcasting does not provoke opportunity attacks.

It did in earlier editions e.g. 3e.

 

[Lanefan]

This is from 2e player options combat & tactics pg 7 8 & 13

Spoiler

View attachment 130596
View attachment 130597
View attachment 130595

I'm not going digging through 1e stuff but happen to know where it was in 2e well enough to trivially pull it. You only needed to face your mini away from an opponent who threatened you & you got your whole attack chain.

From deep in an optional 2e splatbook: you're right, that's obscure.

I'll have to dig though my 1e books to verify, but I don't recall a fleeing foe provoking anything more than a single free attack.

 

[Ancalagon]

You should ask this question in the pathfinder group - they will have actual experience

 

[Don Durito]

You should ask this question in the pathfinder group - they will have actual experience

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.

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.

 

[Rockyroad]

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.

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.

This is a problem with the I Go U Go type of initiative where each combatant gets to complete their entire turn before others get a chance to even start their turn. I address this with a more granular variant initiative system in a thread further down where the round is divided into 6 one second Impulses to simulate a more realistic simultaneous flow to movement. I'm wondering how that initiative system would work without having OA.

 

[Scott Christian]

One of the guest DM tips with Satine Phoenix stated he couldn't stand OAs. He got rid of them and said his table had considerable more fluidity.
Personally, they seem nice when you are fighting at low levels, primarily because you can kill a goblin with one or two shots. But, past level five they just seem to slow the game down.
An option I've never used, but always wanted to was if the creature decides to flee or escape, anyone on the map has a reaction. This would take the place of all the micro-gaming of taking attacks because someone moved five feet. It would be more like, the person turns and is running for their life, you get a reaction because they are not paying attention to you.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I think this only applies if the opponent specifically turns its back and flees. A fighting or parrying withdrawal doesn't give any free swings. I also don't remember anything about getting a full attack sequence, just the one freebie.

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.

And where did you find that rule about unarmed opponents?

DMG p73 (revised, 1979):

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).

 

[Maxperson]

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?

There would be less damage and combat would become even more boring, using less tactics and taking a bit longer to kill things.

 

[Horwath]

I would go opposite.

4E style, 1 opportunity attack per character turn.
Or maybe limit them to prof bonus per round.