Attacks of Opportunity

[Elf Witch]

I like the idea of them. They make combat more interesting. I will use them if we play 5E and if they don't have them I will house rule them in.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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

That's true, I should have worded that better.

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem with OAs is that although they were a decent option for 3E and 3.5, 4E introduced the "no extra distance diagonal move" and their utility decreased significantly.

In the earlier versions of the game, it wasn't as easy to move past the front line of PCs (or move past the front line of NPCs). Not only did diagonal movement require additional distance, but charging also required that all movement in the round be in the same direction, and one couldn't do a charge in the same round as a 5 foot step.

In 4E, they changed all 3 of these rules and OAs became a bit of a joke. I rarely see them in 4E because both the players and the DM are tactically capable enough to avoid them more often than in 3E/3.5.

So, I'm leaning a bit towards removing them unless they change at least the charge rules back to what they were.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I love the concept for a tactical combat system; it's less the curious attack out of nowhere but the concept of battlefield control and threat it represents. And I love it when a monster's power concerning OAs and movement wreaks havoc with the players' plans.

 

[SensoryThought]

I like the idea of them in theory but in the 4e game I DM, I'm still the only one who really understands them (even after countless tactical combats).

There has to be a better way to facilitate tanking and discouraging ranged attackers in melee.

I agree with the original poster that it is an odd nod to simulation in a tactical combat system that decided to make friendly fire from archers and magic users largely impossible.

 

[Li Shenron]

AoO are supposed to simulate people dropping their guard, being distracted, etc., and their opponent taking advantage of that opening.

Uhm... I don't think that's the original meaning. That is more of an afterthought explanation of them...

I just think AoO were designed for tactical reasons:

- to prevent archers to shoot from close as well as from range (which could lead players to question why being a melee fighter if you can fight also in melee with a bow?)
- to prevent spellcasters to cast from up close
- to prevent running away from a fight
- to prevent passing by a first line of defense and reach the back lines with a simple move action

AoOs didn't completely prevent those but provided a good reason not to try, which is fine since they're not supposed to be impossible things, just things that if you allow them freely they may end up being too good tactics, so they needed a price to pay to do them.

Unfortunately there were not-so-nice side effects of this design... one of them being exactly that as soon as they tried to "explain" them in term of "dropping your guard", this opened up a can of worms because everyone could claim the rules were st00pid by not allowing AoOs against characters who clearly drop their guard even more (like, someone sleeping!). One of the worst consequences for me was the 3.5 update that allowed an AoO against someone standing up from prone. Realistic? Probably, after you've spread the "dropped your guard" explanation. Needed in the game? Not at all.

Then of course also the mechanics lead to some headache, not in basic scenarios but rather in cases where AoOs interacted with special abilities (Cleave) or unusual attack actions ("chains of AoOs"). For me it really sucked... it's one of those cases where the original purpose of a rule is forgotten, the rules stop serving the game and become an excuse for some type of gamers to demand that everyone else at the table serve the RAW.

 

[mach1.9pants]

What I hate (and initially I liked it, esp as a wargamer) is how long the tactical thinking and discussion took, dragging further into 4Es grind combat.
At the most I would go for Fantasy Crafts movement stops if you move adjacent to an enemy. Add to it the Pathfinder Beginner Box (no ranged attacks or spellcasting adjacent to an enemy) and you have basically the same thing. My players very rarely provoked an AO they just spent ages figuring out how not to.
Maybe a class specific feature to make them sticky, but as they are in 3E and 4E? no thanks

 

[Stalker0]

I personally want to maintain the effect that OAs cause...namely that moving past opponents or doing "risky" things have a cost. But I don't need that to necessarily be an extra attack.

It could be a status condition that lowers your defenses, you could becomes slowed when you move past others, you could take some automatic damage, etc.

 

[SensoryThought]

I like the automatic damage idea. Would streamline combat but maintain the intent of AoO.

 

[Rogue Agent]

AoO are one of those things that were first introduced in 3.0.

Actually introduced in the 2E Option rulebooks.

And although that's where the term "attack of opportunity" comes from, this was actually just a centralization of several mechanics that had been present since AD&D1.

(1) Characters could choose to either "fall back" or "flee". And choosing to "flee" meant opening yourself up to a rear attack from your opponent.

(2) Spells were specifically delayed until after other attacks had been resolved so that they could be disrupted in pretty much exactly the way AoOs allow.

(3) The rules for grappling allowed armed targets to make an attack first. If the attack was successful that "indicate that the attacker trying to grapple, pummel or overbear hos been fended or driven off, and the attack is unsuccessful. The weapon-wielder then has the opportunity to strike at the weaponless one "for real", if he or she so chooses." Sound familiar?

And so forth.

A lot of the stuff that people think was "new" in 3E was actually just rules they'd never bothered using in AD&D.

Personally, I think there were two big problems with 3E's implementation of AoO:

(1) As 4E demonstrates, forced movement is fun. Putting all the forced movement in 3E behind AoOs was probably a mistake and doesn't seem to be necessary.

(2) The laundry list of what does and does not provoke an AoO is too long. It makes the rule impossible to memorize, meaning that you need to perform a chart look-up every time somebody performs a non-trivial action. I'd limit AoOs to:

(a) Moving out of a threatened space
(b) Casting a spell
(c) Making a ranged attack
(d) Trying to grapple an armed opponent

And you could probably even talk me out of D if you tried hard enough.

That would make the rule short enough that it could be easily memorized and used.