AoOs?

[Zaukrie]

I would love to give up attacks of opportunity. LOVE it. Kill them now.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[IronWolf]

No OA's and advantage is completely up to the DM. Combat felt like a game of Dodgeball with a lot of running up, hitting, and then backing off.

The rogue felt useless, until the DM ruled that any flanking granted advantage and then the Rogue player started having a lot more fun.

The wizard felt that spamming shocking grasp was by far the best tactic. You could run up, get advantage against any opponent with metal in their armor (per the spell), and then run back behind the fighter and the cleric of moradin. The other spells all felt a bit underpowered.

Many of them felt like they should be castable as a reaction or free action. Shield felt like it should be a reaction, and Death Ward felt like it should be free too. In almost every case, doing damage was considered the most important thing you could do on your turn, and doing anything else felt like a waste of a turn.

Did you like it this way or find the movement without repercussion style a downside?

I like AoO's and like to see them included. In Pathfinder Beginner Box where AoO's are not present I ran into situations similar to the ones you described. It was not a good thing in my opinion.

Subjective opinion on my part of course, just curious if you liked this style of play or did you think there should be something to help restrain movement without repercussion a bit?

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

I think as has been mentioned it changes things for spell casters a lot, and in my opinion changes their character. If there's room the monsters can slip in and splat spell casters and get out with no problem and or disadvantage. As was also mentioned spell casters can run in to touch spells such as shocking grasp, and then run out without any real threat to themselves.

I'm thinking to back in the different editions that 1e AD&D had a rule(or maybe it was just a house rule, I can't remember exactly) that if you left a combat where the combatant was still alive it would get one free swipe at you. It makes sense. AoO in 3.0-4.0 made sense as well.

I imagine that it will be in the game in some form, and will be disappointed if it's not.

 

[KesselZero]

I like the lack of AoOs/OAs thus far. I remember when 3e came out, there were so many feats that had to do with AoOs and I thought "My God, they're really forcing us to play with a grid for any of this to make sense!" For a group that had never used minis at all, this was a big change and one of my key objections to 3e at the time. Of course I'm used to it now, but back then it seemed very invasive. Anyway, I think the removal of OAs is one of the key elements of a combat system that will work without a grid. OAs are dependent on very precise placement of creatures.

The same could be said about flanking, by the way.

 

[Serendipity]

The first thing any intelligent enemies are going to do is splat the wizard. And there is nothing to prevent them.

Hopefully this adds up to fewer people complaining about overpowered wizards.
In any case, I will never ever miss AoOs. Good riddance.

 

[IronWolf]

I like the lack of AoOs/OAs thus far. I remember when 3e came out, there were so many feats that had to do with AoOs and I thought "My God, they're really forcing us to play with a grid for any of this to make sense!" For a group that had never used minis at all, this was a big change and one of my key objections to 3e at the time. Of course I'm used to it now, but back then it seemed very invasive. Anyway, I think the removal of OAs is one of the key elements of a combat system that will work without a grid. OAs are dependent on very precise placement of creatures.

The same could be said about flanking, by the way.

We play gridless a lot (3.x/Pathfinder) and we don't have trouble with AoO's or flanking in our games. In our most current game I am playing a character where flanking is sort of important, I just listen to the description of the combat, ask the GM real quick if I can maneuver into flanking and we are off to the races. All in less time than it takes me to move a mini.

AoO's have just really never seemed that complicated to me or slowed down my group's play (I know, my group is not representative of all groups, so this is just my opinion). And I see a distinct value to them in the game. Maybe not the laundry list of actions that provoke, but I think there is real merit to the essence of AoO's.

 

[Dragonblade]

Did you like it this way or find the movement without repercussion style a downside?

I like AoO's and like to see them included. In Pathfinder Beginner Box where AoO's are not present I ran into situations similar to the ones you described. It was not a good thing in my opinion.

Subjective opinion on my part of course, just curious if you liked this style of play or did you think there should be something to help restrain movement without repercussion a bit?

The wizard and the rogue loved it (once the Rogue got advantage on flanking from our DM). They felt free and unfettered. And it really helped gridless combat play much more smoothly.

However, there was no real way to tank at all aside from the cleric of moradins ability. The monsters had no issues simply ignoring the melee guys and going after the squishier PCs.

And so like I said before, it sort of turned into a game of D&D Dodge Ball. The melee guys set up a front line, then the rogue and wizard would dart forward past them and attack and then dart back. The monsters kind of did the same. They would rush up, attack and then rush back.

In 3e it was kind of the opposite. AoO's were so punishing, that combat became very static. You moved in, stood toe to toe and traded blows. I never liked that either.

This combat feels more free like 4e did, which I think is a good thing. But unlike 4e, which had some OA mechanics and marking to make the tanks sticky, there is none of that here. So movement in 5e feels very floaty and loose. I don't know if I can say its good or bad yet. But it was different and it did feel a little wonky when you went to a grid.

 

[frankthedm]

So, does that mean, that in these cases
* Character turns around and flees without further defending himself?
* Character is attacked by unseen enemy (suprised)
* Character is flanked
the attacker simply has advantage?

Simply? Advantage/Disadvantage is a HUGE deal. It doubles the chance of the result sought.

 

[IronWolf]

And so like I said before, it sort of turned into a game of D&D Dodge Ball. The melee guys set up a front line, then the rogue and wizard would dart forward past them and attack and then dart back. The monsters kind of did the same. They would rush up, attack and then rush back.

In 3e it was kind of the opposite. AoO's were so punishing, that combat became very static. You moved in, stood toe to toe and traded blows. I never liked that either.

Yeah, it would be nice to find the compromise between these two. 3.x has feats and stuff to help with mobility, but I seem to recall they were long and involved feat chains. So not sure feats/powers would be a way to help one truly be mobile if you so chose or not.

Thanks for the additional comments. Anxious to see how it plays out!

 

[OnlineDM]

Simply? Advantage/Disadvantage is a HUGE deal. It doubles the chance of the result sought.

It's a huge deal, but it doesn't double the chance of getting the result. The most it can do is increase your chance by half (taking it from 50% to 75%).

Advantage and Disadvantage in D&D Next: The Math | Online Dungeon Master

If you mean, "It gives you two chances to get the result" then yes, that's true.