Attacks of Opportunity

[steenan]

If 5e still uses a map and position-based, round-based tactical combat, some kind of AoO analog is necessary. Otherwise, there would be no way of blocking passage or defending someone.

I'd be perfectly fine if they just got rid of map and/or rounds, removing the need for opportunity attacks. But I'm afraid that's not going to happen.

If AoOs stay, I'd prefer them to work differently than in 3e or 4e. If moving or casting a spell makes you vulnerable and provokes an attack than being prone, or stunned, or held, or unconscious should too. Opportunity attacks being reactions to something the enemy does, as opposed to exploiting the state he is in, is hard to accept for me.

 

[Jawsh]

I voted yes for AoOs because I know how to use them, and I know how to use them quickly. There is a small-but-significant realism argument for keeping the AoO rules in, and that's enough for me.

But I realize that not everyone out there has my intellect or is willing to read the rules, so I guess it should be optional to take them out.

 

[messy]

well, all rules are optional, really.

but attacks of opportunity are too complicated for me, so i voted "no."

 

[Charleois]

They just make sense. Keep them.

But then again I enjoy tactical combat along with some lucky and unlucky rolls.

 

[Mokona]

Attacks of opportunity add a huge amount of bookkeeping to deciding exactly how to move your character and what squares you will or will not enter throughout your move.

That said, Oppies also add a strong tactical strategy to the game.

I said ditch AoO because I think the game has gotten too bogged down, complex, and slow. I acknowledge that it would remove an element that some players find engaging. 5e's modular goal would solve this problem if it can work.

 

[tlantl]

I'm likely never going to have to worry about them since I'll be going gridless. No sense in worrying about combat maneuvers if you're not using combat maneuvers.

 

[yoshikawa666]

Keep them. It's good for the tactics.