Attacks of Opportunity

[Nebulous]

I think AoOs can be greatly simplified. In fact, maybe just giving them to warrior-type classes would make them (the class) more distinctive, instead of everyone being able to AoO. As others mentioned though, for those that would be perfectly emulate 3e, it would be nice for the modular optional system of full AoO to be plugged into the game.

My question is, how much of core 5e can be so "modular" that a big bulk of the book is useless for people that don't want that "stuff"?

 

[howandwhy99]

For mini-less combat, I'm not sure how AoOs, OAs, etc., could be incorporated optionally.

For mini-based combat, an option in [every?] previous versions of D&D, AoOs are Zones of Control. Even if you drop Reach or Threat Range or AoOs, we still have concerns about "in the same square as your foe" combat. Those count as zones of control too.

Frankly, this stuff can be simplified by Immediate Actions. The cost of these used to be they were the only action taken on your turn. It wasn't a bonus attack IOW. 1/round plus more by was 3e's version. I don't know 4th's.

Spacing (like Facing, if it's an option) should be handled if the game is going to have a skirmish wargame design option. This means AoOs or some form of proactive defense/offense generally.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

That's true, I should have worded that better.

I think you worded it just fine. It always happens with polls that someone will point out how supposedly silly or stupidly you worded your question and how you SHOULD have worded it so that they could understand it. The truth of the matter is that it's fine and your 3rd option on the poll covered the "optional" because in reality that is "keeping" it in the person's game, but changing it a bit to suit them making it in essence optional when they explain their reasons for picking the third option in the poll as asked.

Since that is out of my system. I feel that I'd like to see the AoO removed. A few posters said exactly what I was thinking when I read it. It slows down gameplay and it's trying to make a fantasy game more "realistic." I want a fast flowing combat personally, I like the actual role playing more than the hack and slash, but again that's my personal opinion and that's what you are asking for here.

 

[Rhenny]

Like so many parts of 3.5 and 4e, I'm torn about this. There should be a risk to moving through threatened squares, but if it slows down play, I'd rather live without it. For me, the number 1 concern I have for 5e is that combats play quicker...quicker...quicker.

Stalker's idea is interesting. If PCs/Monsters always took 5 points per tier any time they passed through a threatened square there would be risks to maneuvers, and it would play more quickly. Abilities/Powers like tumble, etc. would negate the penalty, so some PCs and monsters would be able to move without as much fear.

Perhaps, an acrobatics check could negate the damage, so for each threatened square a creature enters and leaves, he or she has to roll an acrobatics check (DC ?). This would be slower than just applying the damage automatically, but probably faster than waiting for creature to make an attack and roll for damage.

I may try this in my campaign...we'll see.

 

[Belphanior]

In all three editions I played extensively (2e, 3e, 4e) there were opportunity attack rules. And in all three of them I don't feel the effort is worth it. Whatever is gained in a realistic or tactical sense is overshadowed by slowing down game play, a focus on minis as a requirement (rather than an aid), and attempts to "trick" the system into giving you more attacks (like using mind controlling effects to let an enemy run past all the melee).

However I am open to streamlined and easier rules. Maybe by making it a certain amount of auto-damage as was suggested, possibly negated by an effort of the triggering creature. That way the rolls and momentum sticks to the same player rather than bouncing around. Or it could be kept entirely but only as an optional class feature for those who want to recreate a defender/"you shall not pass!" kind of character.

There's ways to make it work.

 

[Aramax]

The only other game I play is V&V(talk about your niche)and Im going to add AoO to it,I think its one of the best advances over 1st that they made.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

AoOs should stay, but essentially be modular -- they should be easy to remove without rendering irrelevant a bunch of class features and feats. A basic version of the game should just prohibit actions that would otehrwise draw an AoO (casting next to a melee combatant, etc) ... add AoOs back in if you want more options/realism.

 

[SKyOdin]

One of the annoying aspects of Attacks of Opportunity in 3E and Opportunity Attacks in 4E has always been that they fundamentally exist as a check designed to discourage characters from taking certain actions, so PCs and monsters rarely take those actions. The net result is that AoO rarely happen, so players rarely get to enjoy the thrill of killing enemies with one. The complex AoO rules in 3E in particular also tended to discourage crazy actions, such as jumping off a rooftop in order to get a charge in at a dragon with reach.

Maybe switching to characters being able to make intercepting attacks more at their own discretion would be an improvement. The marking mechanic would need to be changed though.

 

[Falling Icicle]

What if moving past an enemy (through their threatened space) or fleeing from them required you to succeed on some kind of opposed roll, such as an opposed attack roll, acrobatics check vs their attack roll, or (in Pathfinder terms), a combat maneuver check? It seems to me that enemies in melee combat do everything they can to keep each other from maneuvering into better positions. This would make more sense to me than getting a free attack on someone that moves out of a threatened space. Such an opposed roll could also be used if someone tries to make a ranged attack or cast a spell in your threatened space. If you win, you disrupt their action.

Just an idea. I'm not sure how well it would work out in play.

 

[GM Dave]

Roleplaying Tips . com

Taught me to like AoO as a GM to help speed up combat.

I used to play 'tactially' smart with my monsters and troops but I learned from the discussion on speeding up combat how having aggressive monsters speeds up combat.

This means don't think like a min/max GM but think of how every time you use this rule you can inject more fun in your game.

Your players like to get the extra swing of the weapon. This is especially good if you have a fighter who had a bad run of luck on their last set of swings. Toss a villian moving past to a flank position and let the player get an extra hit at bat.

You can also make your fighter feel like their really holding back the hordes as you try to slip a monster by to go for a 'softer' target.

If you have a wizard that you don't really want to unload a huge heaping damage spell then have them stand in another player's AoO zone. If they get the hit in then it is like an extra saving throw to prevent the spell from going off.

All those extra hits add up to extra damage on the monsters and finishes the battle faster instead of having to wait for someone to get lucky to clear off the last few hit points of damage.

If the monsters are doing poorly then have them run for the hillls past some of the players that are normally just sitting in the back of the party and see if they can get a chance to roll a hit to make their combat not a total slumber fest.

You can do plenty to spice up play with AoO by using them to give the excitement and fun to the players. This is the job of the GM to make sure the players have a good time.

Oh, and a side effect that I have found at my table is the more aggressive and 'fun' the monsters then the more aggressive and 'fun' the players as they start to risk things and accept a couple of AoO for a bit of combat advantage or flank.