D&D 5E Keeping AoO for PC's, but removing AoO from enemies

[MGibster]

I don't think PCs need more advantages in 5E than they already have. The game is too easy on them as it is. It's not like I want my game to be a PC bloodbath, but, man, between all the expected rests and the way adventures are designed to be paced, this is the least risky edition of D&D ever.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Hellz no!

For me a big part of the fun of grid combat in 5e is trying to manage AoO's from both sides.

 

[Li Shenron]

This causes more problems than it solves, which is none.

Only because everyone is thinking in terms of the whole game and community, which really isn't the case.

For example, BookTenTiger's house rule nerfs the mobile feat. Who cares? Only a group where some PCs have that feat. If BookTenTiger has a PC with the feat, good to point out that the player might complain. If not, it is irrelevant. It's not like everyone else's game will be affected.

To the point... @BookTenTiger if you remove OAs from the game you need to be aware of at least 2 possible big changes tactically.

The first is that's it's much easier to run away from combat. IMXP most players don't run away, they rather die and complain that the battle was too hard. However in my own games I sometimes have a very strong or even impossible opponent (because I run semi-sandbox games), even though I inform the players if that's the case. With the current 5e rules it is not easy to run away, you need to know how to minimize the damage and even think out of the box. You need to consider, does it happen that your PCs have to escape a battle, and are you ok that it will be easy to do so?

The second scenario is more tricky. OAs make it difficult to move past the enemies, for example to attack their boss or save the prisoners or catch the mcguffin or press the magic button or... you get the point! This is also a fairly rare situation, but you need to be aware that if you have it in your game, some savvy players can bypass the enemy line more easily if there are no OAs. Nothing that you can't still fix with careful placement of the monsters, but keep this in mind.

 

[MNblockhead]

Good god no, not for my players. If anything I would do the opposite, to better challenge them, but that breaks verisimilitude for me.

AoO are important to make the game have more tactical and interesting choices. Already D&D 5e can too easily become a slog of roll to hit, roll to dame, deduct form back of hit points, rinse and repeat.

Maybe it is because my players are well seasoned and play very tactically. They would be bored and I would find it even harder to challenge them.

Not only to I have monsters take advantage of AoO, but I use crit decks for the monsters as well as for the players.

I regret not using the optional flanking rules in my current campaign. In my first 5e campaign I found my players were using flanking much more effectively and it was just making getting advantage to easy. But now that I'm better at running 5e, I really wish my monsters could take advantage of flanking.

It should be dangerous to enter combat, even at high level against underpowered adversaries. There should always be a risk. For many players that makes the game MORE fun.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I regret not using the optional flanking rules in my current campaign. In my first 5e campaign I found my players were using flanking much more effectively and it was just making getting advantage to easy. But now that I'm better at running 5e, I really wish my monsters could take advantage of flanking.

It should be dangerous to enter combat, even at high level against underpowered adversaries. There should always be a risk. For many players that makes the game MORE fun.

We use flanking rules. It really adds interesting complexity. Makes both sides think about exactly which square to move to.

 

[Lanefan]

If you want more free-flowing movement on the battlefield then get rid of AoOs entirely; for PCs and foes alike.

 

[Nebulous]

I don't think PCs need more advantages in 5E than they already have. The game is too easy on them as it is. It's not like I want my game to be a PC bloodbath, but, man, between all the expected rests and the way adventures are designed to be paced, this is the least risky edition of D&D ever.

Yes, I've had to modify it some just so it has a semblance of danger, but even by 9th or 10th level that gets strained.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This causes more problems than it solves, which is none.

It sounds to me like the OP's problem is players who suck at tactics. They should go away and play 3rd edition for a few weeks, then see how they feel about 5e when they get back!

 

[jasper]

We monster want two AOOs, you pcs get NONE. Who is with me?

 

[BluejayJunior]

Monsters don't need anything to make up for it. Unless you as the DM are constantly moving monsters out of range without using Disengage, the difference between the players and monsters shouldn't really affect the balance between them. If it's only occasional, it won't make a difference. If multiple PCs are getting OAs every round, then it would shift in the PCs favor.
I think it would likely have one of two outcomes, either PCs don't take advantage of it and just stay in contact with the enemy. Or the PCs are constantly doing hit and runs, in which case the enemies are free to move around at will and hit whoever they want. Which would likely make the PCs revert to staying in contact with the enemy in order to take advantage of OAs and prevent enemies from getting near the weaker party members.
It would definitely change the effectiveness of rogues' cunning action, swashbucklers, mobile feat, monk's step of wind. If you already have a part with those things, I'd be hesitant to change or at least try to find ways to give them other options to make up for it. If you are starting a new game with this option, I would make sure players know that and the effect it would have.
Dual wielding rogues, for instance, would now become more common. After hitting and doing sneak attack on their first attack, there is no longer a choice of a second hit for a little more damage or using a bonus action to disengage to avoid a hit. They can now do both.
It's not something I would do or want to play with, but if it makes it more fun for your group, then go for it. But definitely make sure that it isn't negating a player's build/style. If one of your players made their character to optimize those hit and run tactics, doing this will make them feel less special and could make the game no longer fun for them.