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

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?

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.

DM Dave1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah it seems to me that the threat of the OA is worse than the bite especially at higher levels making melee combat very static.

The tables I play with are not overly concerned with OAs. They factor in, but they don't result in trench warfare or static combats. There are too many other things that cause movement and even causing/taking an OA becomes a viable decision.

What would it do to our game? Well, it would make the rogue feel not as special since everyone would effectively have the disengage option. It means their would no doubt be more readied actions as people wait for the other side to dash in and out. It would make it much easier to break through the front lines and target casters. So yea, the party casters would probably go down in every fight as they get swarmed by minions just rushing past the front line. I guess that means there would no longer be a front line.

I guess that all means two main things;

• Rogues would lose some of their uniqueness
• Combat would be a free for all and tanks would be avoided until all the squishies had been squished.

LordEntrails said:

The tables I play with are not overly concerned with OAs. They factor in, but they don't result in trench warfare or static combats. There are too many other things that cause movement and even causing/taking an OA becomes a viable decision.

What would it do to our game? Well, it would make the rogue feel not as special since everyone would effectively have the disengage option. It means their would no doubt be more readied actions as people wait for the other side to dash in and out. It would make it much easier to break through the front lines and target casters. So yea, the party casters would probably go down in every fight as they get swarmed by minions just rushing past the front line. I guess that means there would no longer be a front line.

I guess that all means two main things;

• Rogues would lose some of their uniqueness
• Combat would be a free for all and tanks would be avoided until all the squishies had been squished.

Click to expand...

Yes it would diminish the Rogue's cunning action and feats like mobile. Sentinel would be a must for tanks if it wasn't already so yeah there would be some balance changes. But it would also open up different tactics. Grappling would become more important. I really don't see too much of that at least in the games I've been involved in.

The idea about combat becoming a free for all is interesting. It's not like you can't rush to the squishies now, you just have to eat an OA which may or may not hit and it's often just one hit. It's the threat that keeps people in place lots of times. But even if they get past the tanks, the tanks just need to move back and start attacking from there. The front line has just shifted to the backline as it were. But IDK if this will make it any different really.

well if you remove them from 3.5 you get 5e. If you remove them from 5e.... not much.

edit: not much because 5e nearly removes the entire AoO risk from the game

Someone once recommended to me the idea of changing it so NOT moving on your turn triggered an opportunity attack. I kind of like that idea!

I don't encounter a lot of "trench warfare" in combat, or at least never in a way that has bothered me. If it is a major factor in your gameplay I worry that the DM has very dull battlefields and enemy strategies, but maybe your whole group just plays straight melee combatants all the time.

Getting rid of opportunity attacks diminishes everyone who has special abilities for disengaging (Rogues, Monks, Storm Sorcerer, Goblins, folks with the mobile feat, anyone who can teleport), reduces the significance of push away abilities like a Sword Bard's mobile flourish or Thunderwave to just being there to occasionally try and knock someone off a cliff, and radically ups the power of Booming Blade. It also diminishes the roll of all the various melee fighters in tanking, as outside of narrow hallways they have no way to keep the enemy away from the back lines. It also enables retreating enemies to dash, and pursuers to dash after them to close the gap but then not actually be able to take a hit. So anticipate lots of long inconclusive chases at the ends of your encounters.

Why would it encourage fluid movement?

As I said in the other thread, opportunity attacks are not just a discouragement to movement - they also do the opposite. If I'm a stealthy rogue I may want to disengage in order to avoid retaliation with the knowledge that should my opponent follow me they risk the opportunity attack.

Remove opportunity attacks and anyone who moves can easily be followed (unless they're super fast like a monk, for whom kiting becomes a relevant strategy) so why move?

What would happen is there would now be no impediments to focus fire, so people may move away from the character who attacked them in order to focus on taking down someone who has already been attacked by an ally.

I'm just not sure what we're trying to achieve when we talk about more dynamic combats - what about movement on a grid (in isolation) makes combat more dynamic? Movement happened a lot in 4E with forced movement and defenders, but that was dynamic precisely because stickiness and opportunity attacks make movement meaningful. This is generally true in 5E too. My Fighter with Sentinel and Shieldmaster would often push someone and then move after them, precisely to trap them in a situation where they were left with little choice but to attack the character with the highest AC in the party (and riposte). I also shoved people to let the spellcaster free themselves from being engaged so they could reposition for best area effect of a spell. Without opportunity attacks there would have been no point to any of this movement!

Removing opportunity attacks makes movement easier but it does not make it meaningful, so it doesn't really solve the problem. It's generally a solution if you want to make theatre of the mind combat easier to adjudicate (at which point lack of movement is not such a problem as - since you're not staring at the grid -you're free to imagine and describe all sorts of movement back and forward.)

Older editions didn't have opportunity attacks and still nobody used grappling.