D&D 5E 5E - Time for Attacks of Opportunity to die?

[Astrosicebear]

Attacks of opportunity, love em, or hate em, they served a purpose in systems full of tactical combat rules, but do they deserve to be core, or for that matter even involved in D&D next?

Attacks of opportunity as written provided a punishment for DM's to hand out to players trying things they 'shouldnt' be doing in combat, and provided a deterrent in the ruleset for those players to even think of having their wizard attempt to disarm the half orc barbarian. It was a way to speed gameplay along, as most players knew what provoked and didnt, and could skip by those possible clumsy actions of disarm, bullrush, trip etc, and get down to the meat of hack'n'slash.

But in a system founded upon the ideas of quick, easy combat, and a ruleset that seems (at this point) to favor DM empowerment, are AoO's even necessary?

If the system is streamlined enough, I favor no AoOs. In a system designed to be empowering to player thoughtfulness and DM arbitration, AoO's are no longer necessary. We have reports stating that characters were basically swinging from chandeliers, or jumping on tables and kicking swords from baddies hands, and no reports of complex mechanics or DM's saying no.

Do attacks of opportunity even have a purpose in D&D next? Should they even be considered for the 'tactical combat' module?

 

[kitsune9]

Personally, I like them. Like 'em lots I do. However, I know other posters hate them so my vote is that I can see them in a module ruleset and not part of base.

 

[MerricB]

Historically, in the early versions of D&D, when you moved out of combat, the opponent got a free swing at you. In addition, if you lost initiative (alternatively some arcane system involving weapon speeds and casting time) and got hit, you lost the spell you were casting. Ranged weapons just couldn't be used once you were in melee.

Once 3E came along, with cyclical initiative, the second point - being hit spoils the spell - no longer worked as originally designed. Thus, the free swing of moving away got adapted for 3E and the more general "attack of opportunity" was born. Likewise, you could use ranged weapons in melee, but provoked an AoO for doing so.

Of course, then 3E made the spell-casting AoOs mostly irrelevant with the Concentration skill!

4E kept the Opportunity Attack, removed Concentration (but added special abilities to avoid it), and made a more consistent terminology (Area, Ranged, Close, Melee) to show when they apply.

That's the history of the AoO until now - it's always been part of D&D, but it's been made more encompassing due to the adoption of cyclical initiative, even though a lot of things allow you to get around it!

Cheers!

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think you can have D&D without them, but I'd like to see them presented as a prominent option.

Beyond the AoO and all the associated rules about what provokes one and what doesn't, the simple idea of out of turn action is important and something I'd like to see emphasized in the base game.

 

[Dragonblade]

I want OA's in the tactical module, but I prefer the 4e incarnation of them. Much simpler and less fiddly than the 3e version, IMO.

Heck, if I had my druthers, the 5e tactical module would look as close to 4e's combat system as I could get it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I like 'em, but would be happy to move them to an optional module for those who do not.

 

[enrious]

Not in the core, but certainly in a tack-on.

Better to allow opt-in instead of requiring an opt-out.

 

[MortalPlague]

They're very useful for a means of battlefield control in a tactical combat. So I'd certainly like to see them there. And dodging an opportunity attack (ala a 4E rogue's "Artful Dodger" power) is a lot of fun. But I'd love a mechanic that didn't punish movement. I want combat to be more mobile, rather than less.

 

[Sunseeker]

I certainly like 4e's implementation of them. Occasionally OP, but overall a very useful way for everyone to exert some battlefield control.

 

[Agamon]

Shouldn't Yes = Tactical Module? Obviously if the core allows for no minis, AoO shouldn't be part of the core.

 

[Lanefan]

Historically, in the early versions of D&D, when you moved out of combat, the opponent got a free swing at you. In addition, if you lost initiative (alternatively some arcane system involving weapon speeds and casting time) and got hit, you lost the spell you were casting. Ranged weapons just couldn't be used once you were in melee.

And this was really all that was ever needed. And the move-out-of-combat free shot only applied of you (or your foe) turned tail and ran; if you backed up in a "fighting retreat" and kept your defenses up there was no free shot.

Once 3E came along, with cyclical initiative, .....

Truth be told, I thought cyclical initiative was a child of 2e.

Either way, it is evil. It's really very simple to re-roll initiative each round (but use a smaller die than d20 - I've used both d6 and d10 and those work fine) and if two or more rolls are the same then those actions happen simultaneously. But, a caveat: initiative bonuses of any kind are *much* more powerful in this system; on a roll-each-round system I'd scale any init. bonus back very sharply if not eliminate such things altogether.

And to get away from the all-attacks-at-once nonsense for those with multiple attacks, each attack gets its own initiative. If the two (or more) attacks are coming from the same weapon their init's cannot be the same; but when fighting with two weapons they can strike simultaneously.

Lan-"taking the initiative, one round at a time"-efan

 

[Ahnehnois]

Shouldn't Yes = Tactical Module? Obviously if the core allows for no minis, AoO shouldn't be part of the core.

I never use miniatures or battlegrids and I play with AoOs. I don't think they go hand in hand.

 

[triqui]

Shouldn't Yes = Tactical Module? Obviously if the core allows for no minis, AoO shouldn't be part of the core.

I ve played with AO without minis, dont see the relation. It just become DM fiat.

If you try to flee,he gets free swing. Was that way in ADnD even without minis.

 

[MerricB]

And this was really all that was ever needed. And the move-out-of-combat free shot only applied of you (or your foe) turned tail and ran; if you backed up in a "fighting retreat" and kept your defenses up there was no free shot.

The AD&D rules are a little obscure on this point, in fact!

Truth be told, I thought cyclical initiative was a child of 2e.

I don't know if it ever was presented in a 2E rulebook.

Original 2E was roll initiative every round (with possible individual initiatives), and Combat & Tactics gave a system where you attacked in the round according to the speed of your attack, with initiative breaking ties or changing the order slightly.

I was running AD&D last weekend with nine (NINE!) players and I very much appreciated the group initiative rules. I just had all the melee combatants roll their attacks simultaneously and then went round the table taking down damage when they hit...

Cheers!

 

[Lanefan]

I was running AD&D last weekend with nine (NINE!) players and I very much appreciated the group initiative rules. I just had all the melee combatants roll their attacks simultaneously and then went round the table taking down damage when they hit...

Cheers!

Initiative discussion worth its own thread, you think?

Lanefan

 

[Serendipity]

Wouldn't be sorry to seem them go at all. Hopefully they'll be kept as options for those who do enjoy them however.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd also prefer side by side initiative. That's practically how I ran 3E after the first year, and how I run 4E now, anyway. But that may not be the preference of many people. I'd say it is simpler for the core game, but the skill of managing player communication with the DM using side by side is a bit different, and not one that I think fits a defined process very well.

So obviously that changes Opportunity Attacks somewhat. However, for those what I'd really like to see a game try is to replace all interrupts with conditions or status effects. That is, the whole point of an OA is that the thing you used to not be able to do at all (shoot a bow in melee) or only under serious constraints (cast a spell in melee) in early D&D, you can now choose to do at cost. But I don't see why the cost necessarily needs to be "interrupt the normal pacing of the action to resolve something else."

I've proposed elsewhere that some kind of Provoking system would be a -2 to hit all targets and/or a -2 to all defenses, until your next action. That would work well enough for a simple game, and doesn't depend on a grid. You either get it or you don't. A more tactical module, using the grid, could treat it as instead a -2 to attacks and a -2 to all defenses against those you provoke. For that same module, it is easy enough to adjust a 4E-style marking to impose more severe and different consequences, but still not be interrupts. Obviously, the exact numbers might be different in a new version. Either way, provoke, and you increase the chances that you'll take more damage, which is mainly what Opportunity Attacks do now, anyway.

All you need in any version is enough of a consequence so that people won't do it lightly, but not so much that they will never do it. I'll grant my suggestion is as much my distaste for interrupts as a desire to preserve some equivalent to Opportunity Attacks, though.

 

[Agamon]

I never use miniatures or battlegrids and I play with AoOs. I don't think they go hand in hand.

I guess so, but I don't see why it shouldn't still be optional.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I guess so, but I don't see why it shouldn't still be optional.

I think AoOs should be optional. So should miniatures. I just don't think they necessarily go together.

 

[Ichneumon]

Hell, no. I couldn't bear to quench the gleam in my players' eyes when a monster leaves itself wide open.