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

[jgsugden]

It is really going to depend upon your group. The party makeup, the DM's monster choices, the DM's combat style... all will hve a huge impact on how this rule change would impact the game.

In the end, if you want more fluid combat as a DM, give incentives for people to move around. Add features to the combat that the PCs can manipulate - and will want to manipulate. Give them things to protect, things to take, things to stop, and things to break. Cutting the cord along a wall to drop a chandelier, rescuing the children at the edge of the battlefield, plugging the hole in the wall where the water is flooding in, etc... All of these things encourage mobility. You can also take away the part of the battlefield where they're fighting to force them to move around (collapsed floor or ceiling, wall falls over, mobs moving in their direction, push effects, etc...)

These tricks won't get everyone moving, but it gets some. The rest you can get moving by moving their foes, or putting them in positions where they need to move to get to them. If you focus on creating decsion points surrounding the movement ("If I move to get to that enemy, it leaves a path for the other guy to get past me, but we need to take that enemy out...") you can also make it more dynamic.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Older editions didn't have opportunity attacks...

They did, just not using that term.

Basic D&D: Free attack on foes who exit melee with you at +2, shields don't apply. Future version allowed 1/2 movement or less to avoid this.

AD&D 1st (DMG): Free attack or "full attack routine" (all your attacks if you have multiple) on foes who exit melee with you with a bonus to the attack as if attacking a stunned opponent from rear. Also, obscure rule that if attacked by unarmed opponent, go first and if attack is "fended off," get a free attack.

AD&D 2nd (DMG revised): Free attack on foes who exit melee, unless they're "withdrawing" at 1/3rd speed.

Third Edition: Added numerous triggers for a free attack to, as Skip Williams put it, "spice up" combat with a layer of complexity, prevent unrestricted movement around the battlefield, add realism (e.g. archers vs. melee), and give purpose to tactical actions in that edition like Trip and Disarm (standing up or grabbing a dropped weapon triggered an AOO). Imposed a cap on # of times you could use AoO, unlike prior editions. Heavy reliance on grid map to track exact location for triggers.

4E: Free attack on those voluntarily leaving your reach if you can see them, 1/turn default.

5E: Free attack on those voluntarily leaving your reach without disengaging, similar to 4E, with a cap (your Reaction). Simple for use with theater of the mind or grid map.

Hackmaster: I toss this in here because it boasts a super-realistic AD&D style combat system. If you exit melee, everyone gets a free attack on you, unless you're making a "strategic" withdrawal (walk speed, -2 on next attack). In this game system, movement can occur every initiative tick rather than only on your turn.

With all that in mind, if you remove AOO, monsters can freely saunter past your fighter rows to your wizard and pummel them. Because monsters tend, in many encounter designs, to outnumber PCs, advantage goes to monsters. The Rogue gets a severe diminishment because one of its core features - Cunning Action - is neutered. No more hit and run because everyone can. Also, you remove that tension in those moments when a PC must decide: do I risk the AOO to get to the lever and close the portcullis, or heal my ally, and so on.

It's a simple enough rule, but if you want to remove them entirely, consider imposing a movement penalty instead. You can exit melee, but it costs 1/2 your movement. While it won't prevent the enemy from running past your fighter willy-nilly, it'll at least slow them down.

 

[Razz0putin]

I don't see grappling getting much traction because as written in 5e it is garbage. It could work in some situations but way to specific for my taste.

 

[Phenomen]

I like how an attack of opportunity is a class feature in the PF2. Very few monsters have it, and only a few martial player classes have access to it. It makes combat more fluid (especially if you use grid).

 

[overgeeked]

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?

It would speed up play, make players less worried about moving their characters, and generally make for a less cluttered book.

 

[Shiroiken]

At our tables, players do seem to be overly concerned about opportunity attacks. The only player who didn’t seem to care was a vengeance paladin who took very seriously the need to seek out the biggest threat in any battle even if that meant invoking multiple OAs. Even at high levels with plenty of HP, for whatever reason, most players don’t want to invoke them. It’s not necessarily a problem mind you, but it is something I’ve noticed from behind the proverbial DM screen.

I find it a playstyle issue for some players and DMs. In my group, taking the OA to get into a better position is fairly common. Except against hard hitting foes that usually only have 1 attack normally, even getting hit isn't as bad as people think.

As far as a fluid combat, 5E allows for fairly fluid combat since you don't provoke from standing or move adjacent. The issue is that it often doesn't provide much benefit, even without OAs. If you want to hit a squishy, it's usually better to take the OA and go get him.

 

[Don Durito]

As far as a fluid combat, 5E allows for fairly fluid combat since you don't provoke from standing or move adjacent. The issue is that it often doesn't provide much benefit, even without OAs. If you want to hit a squishy, it's usually better to take the OA and go get him.

There's some weird oversights in 5e. Did it occur to no one that making Fighters reliant on multi-attacks for damage meant that their opportunity attacks don't scale?

How could you miss that?

 

[Rockyroad]

I like how an attack of opportunity is a class feature in the PF2. Very few monsters have it, and only a few martial player classes have access to it. It makes combat more fluid (especially if you use grid).

Interesting. Thanks for that. I don't play PF but that's exactly what I'm talking about. I guess ultimately it will take play testing to see how it goes.

 

[Dragonsbane]

We us AoO in 5E, and have casting a spell without an attack roll, drinking potions, lighting torches, etc cause AoO. I include Combat Reflexes as a feat that is available and I give some monsters multiple possible AoO. Players actually use Disengage now. Working great. Players are more careful and also try to set up AoO for themselves.

 

[dave2008]

Interesting. Thanks for that. I don't play PF but that's exactly what I'm talking about. I guess ultimately it will take play testing to see how it goes.

In PF2 it is a core feature of the fighter (which I like) and a few other classes can take a feat which provides a limited use OA.