Attacks of Opportunity

[Falling Icicle]

Do you think that attacks of opportunity should be part of the core rules in 5e?

AoO are one of those things that were first introduced in 3.0. I've been thinking alot about them, and I'm not sure if I want to see them in 5e. They do add a bit of tactical complexity to combat, but they also tend to slow down play, especially when you have to look up whether a certain action provokes or not.

To be honest, they've never made much sense to me from a simulationist point of view. (The guy standing next to me starts casting a spell, so I just suddenly get an extra attack that round, from out of nowhere? Huh?) Yes, yes, I know. This is a game, and it isn't supposed to perfectly simulate reality. I get that. I just find the concept of AoO to be a bit... odd, for lack of a better way of putting it. I've played many RPGs and I've never seen AoO in any game other than 3e and 4e DnD (and of course Pathfinder).

AoO are supposed to simulate people dropping their guard, being distracted, etc., and their opponent taking advantage of that opening. But there's also other ways of representing that in the rules. Maybe most spells take a full round to cast, so it's possible for people to attack a spellcaster to try and disrupt him before he finishes his spell, for example. Opportunity attacks could even be a special ability available to rogues and other sneaky types, rather than a standard rule for everyone.

I'm not dead set against AoO, don't get me wrong. I'm just wondering if the game is really better off having them, and if there might be better ways of representing the kind of vulnerability that they represent in the rules.

 

[enrious]

They've always struck me as an attempt to model reality (hello, grappling rules) in a game that doesn't try to model reality (hello, hit points).

In my Pathfinder game, we've ditched them as they are too cumbersome to be fun.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think it was ever a huge issue for casters. Maxed Concentration made the thing a breeze very quickly, and most casters avoid melee anyway. The big application was in movement. It made it difficult to switch enemies, "kite" a single foe, or run away. Since I hate characters moving around instead of doing stuff, I'm cool with AoOs.

I actually advocate a broader system along the lines of Trailblazer's combat reactions, but I do like AoOs to be available.

For the record, I don't think they necessitate battlemap play, which I also hate.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I felt that AoOs for everyone slowed game play too much, but I wanted something there for people who wanted to control the battlefield, protect their friends, and the like.

I kept them in my (unrecognizably modified) SRD-based RPG, but I made them a feat. If you want the advantage of reach weapons, take the feat. If you want the advantage of protecting your allies, take the feat. If you want the extra attack just to get more damage through, take the feat.

Then again, my game is point-buy (and classless), and feats cost 3 points (you get 15 per hit die). If you want a base attack, it's 3 points (capped at hit die +1). If you want a feat, it's 3 points. If you want a base save (Fort, Ref, or Will), it's 1 point (capped at hit die +1). If you want a spell-like ability (level 1 spells of one thread [school of magic]), it's 8 points.

Just some prices to put things into perspective. If a feat is only 1/5th of a level, it's not a huge investment (like feats were in 3.X). I think that AoOs serve a very good purpose, but it'd be nice if every level 1 guard or soldier didn't get an AoO when you moved past them. Some, sure. But I see looking for openings in combat as a skill, and a feat is a good representation of that skill.

Not sure how I'd implement it in other systems, honestly. Feats are just too few and far between sometimes. Whether you're feat starved or not just depends on the character concept. As always, play what you like

 

[trancejeremy]

They were actually kind of in AD&D, they just just only occurred when someone tried to break out of melee

 

[mach1.9pants]

Your poll is missing the only feasible option for an inclusive 5E, make them optional

 

[Falling Icicle]

Your poll is missing the only feasible option for an inclusive 5E, make them optional

I didn't include the "make it optional" choice in the poll because I feel it is a copout. I'm interested in knowing whether or not you'd like to have them in your game. If I had the "make it optional" choice alot of people would choose that, and then we wouldn't get to find out whether or not they like AoO and would like to include them in their games.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Make it optional.

But for the rules, I think fighters need to have this ability to keep spellcasters on their toes and monsters from jsut wlaking past them. So make it a fighter ability and word it carefully. But as an overall rule, I say skip it, but I can live with it being an opptional module, like in advanced battleamt usage or some such.

 

[Wormwood]

I love 4e, but out of turn actions are the sargasso sea of smooth gameplay.

Allow defenders some sort of aura to block actions and I'd be fine.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I didn't include the "make it optional" choice in the poll because I feel it is a copout. I'm interested in knowing whether or not you'd like to have them in your game. If I had the "make it optional" choice alot of people would choose that, and then we wouldn't get to find out whether or not they like AoO and would like to include them in their games.

Fair enough, should really mention your actual question is not:
"Do you think that attacks of opportunity should be part of the core rules in 5e?"
but:
"I'm interested in knowing whether or not you'd like to have them in your game"
which is different