How often do you see Attacks of Opportunity in your 5e game?

[Blue]

Varies if I'm a player or DM. OAs are serious, but not the end of the world - there are times they should be accepted in order to do something else. If I'm the DM, I run creatures based on intelligence, aggressiveness, pain tolerance, etc. Some will, some won't. As a player, I'm wary of triggering and OA but not afraid of it, but I'm in a minority.

It's a good rule - it really makes everything think.

 

[Caliban]

If I'm playing a barbarian or high AC tank, I'll provoke AoO's at the drop of a hat in order to position myself better.

If I'm playing something squishy, I avoid them if at all possible, but sometimes positioning is more important than damage.

Sometimes I'll play a character that using polearm master and/or sentinal to create extra opportunities for an AoO.

As a DM, I'll play to the monster's intelligence. Some are so dumb they don't care, some are smart enough to take calculated risks, and sometimes a caster in the back is dangerous enough that they'll just go after them at all costs.

So they come up all the time for me.

 

[dco]

Rarely. A pair of times in 15 sessions of 4h?

 

[rgoodbb]

I find this very interesting.

Up until now, I would never have accepted an AoO as a player or a relatively newbie DM out of fear. But it makes perfect tactical sense (sometimes) to take that hit to do what you want to do.

I remember a situation where the fear of an AoO stopped me doing something I wanted, but thinking back I was on full HP and should have gone with my instinct. I think there is a blanket rule taboo feeling about this with the group I play/DM with.

This thread is very enlightening for me and shows how one can just get stuck in their ways without even really thinking about it.

AoO? Oh, I'm not doing that no, never!...

...will now in my mind change to...

AoO? Ooh. maybe. Can I take it?

Cheers for that folks!

 

[jgsugden]

This all comes down to DM play style. Until we have "combat tactics" sections that encourage DMs, for certain monsters, to be willing toi take the OA, there will be games out there where they never happen.

 

[Istbor]

I see it in about half, but let me clarify something.

I play with a house-rule that natural 1s in melee result in letting creatures engaged with you take an attack of opportunity if they have a reaction available.

Obviously this works in the players favor as well.

It makes the game more gritty, and allows for something akin to a fumbles table, without the actual fumbles table.

 

[Nevvur]

What's the difference between, "In almost every combat encounter: " and "In the large majority of combat encounters: " ?

Anyway, I answered 'large majority.' Rough estimate, OA happens once or more in 4 out of 5 combats. We do grid play on roll20.

It's usually my players taking the hits so they can do ranged attacks without penalty. They've got a lot of healing resources at their disposal, so they're fine with moving freely to maximize damage. Every now and then I like to include or invent monsters that grapple on a hit to counteract this approach.

My monsters rarely open themselves to OAs. When it does happen, it's usually an attempt to flee, but there have been special circumstances. For instance, a powerful hit from a ranged combatant might draw a monster's ire enough to risk an OA, or sometimes Leader types will command subordinates to focus on a PC and they'll obey despite the risk to themselves.

 

[Tallifer]

I run combats using the Theatre of the Mind, and there is at least one and usually more attacks of opportunity in each fight. Either one of the heroes needs to rush into danger to assist his companion, or one of the foes risks the paladin's wrath to attack that annoying witch at the back of the company.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I remember a situation where the fear of an AoO stopped me doing something I wanted, but thinking back I was on full HP and should have gone with my instinct. I think there is a blanket rule taboo feeling about this with the group I play/DM with.

If you ever get to a point where you stop and think that it's an acceptable risk to leave yourself open in combat, because getting stabbed is a minor inconvenience and seriously you'll be fine it's no big deal, then that indicates a severe deficiency in the rule-set. That's a dis-connect on roughly the same level as, "I'll just jump off the cliff, because there's no way it can possibly kill me, and spending an hour to recover from that will take less time than just climbing down the normal way."

 

[Nevvur]

If you ever get to a point where you stop and think that it's an acceptable risk to leave yourself open in combat, because getting stabbed is a minor inconvenience and seriously you'll be fine it's no big deal, then that indicates a severe deficiency in the rule-set. That's a dis-connect on roughly the same level as, "I'll just jump off the cliff, because there's no way it can possibly kill me, and spending an hour to recover from that will take less time than just climbing down the normal way."

There's not a lot of stopping and thinking in combat on the narrative level. The way I view combat choices is that each decision the player makes was either the best apparent (or only) decision available to the PC in that particular moment. Taking this approach can still generate some dissonance, but it makes these occasionally bizarre choices feel less so.

Though I somehow doubt my players view combat quite like I do. It's a matter of perspective, and one that's never been discussed at my table (or here, at least in a thread I've viewed)