Wow, you would think based on these replies that I was suggesting taking away something like chairs at the gaming table and forcing my players to stand the whole game. A lot of people are very attached to Enemy Attacks of Opportunity!
Upon further reflection, I don't think I'm going to implement this rule, but I really wish people had taken a more constructive approach to comments in this thread. Rather than saying things like:
It sounds to me like the OP's problem is players who suck at tactics. They should go away and play 3rd edition for a few weeks, then see how they feel about 5e when they get back!
Which honestly is just insulting and rude. This is not about me changing my players, this is about adjusting the rules of my game to encourage some tactics and discourage others. Please get your judgmental attitude out of this thread.
I appreciate more those who actually took this idea and examined it. Thank you to the rare few who actually responded with constructive ideas!
Now just for fun, I'm going to go through some of these comments and defend my idea.
I always play that what works for the PCs works for the monsters.
I used to be all about this, especially back in 3rd Edition. I would carefully craft my enemies to be tailored just like PC's, making sure they had the requirements needed for feats, and so on.
4th Edition actually showed me that this was a big waste of time! Player Characters and Enemies have
vastly different roles in combat, and will be around for much different amounts of time. A Player Character will be going through hundreds of rounds of combat in their lifetime. An enemy gets, what, three to five rounds before they are killed.
I mean, so many monsters in 5e get to break the rules! For example, a vampire spawn can grapple an opponent just by succeeding in a claw attack. Player Characters can also do so many more things than an enemy! I'll never have an enemy Intimidate a Player Character, because that's just not fun for the players. But it's fantastic when a PC intimidates an enemy!
In the original post, I was not seeking
balance, I was seeking
fun. Again, at my table, I have found that AoO's are fun when Player Characters do them, but not fun when Enemies do them. I'm looking for replacements that would be unique to enemies.
Yes, but now the Swashbuckler Rogue ability and Mobile become nerfed instead. Anything that negates/mitigates AoO from enemies is now weakened/worthless.
All these problems can be solved by being upfront with a house rule. Any house rule will reward some styles of character creation and punish others. Simply telling the players "Enemies will no longer have AoO's. If this negatively effects your character's abilities, let's come up with another option" should solve it.
I don't think PCs need more advantages in 5E than they already have. The game is too easy on them as it is. It's not like I want my game to be a PC bloodbath, but, man, between all the expected rests and the way adventures are designed to be paced, this is the least risky edition of D&D ever.
So what could I replace the enemy's AoO's with that would increase risk? Maybe something else they could do as a reaction to something other than movement?
Hellz no!
For me a big part of the fun of grid combat in 5e is trying to manage AoO's from both sides.
Great! That's not true in my game. I bet there are also things that are fun in my game that are not fun for you.
Only because everyone is thinking in terms of the whole game and community, which really isn't the case.
For example, BookTenTiger's house rule nerfs the mobile feat. Who cares? Only a group where some PCs have that feat. If BookTenTiger has a PC with the feat, good to point out that the player might complain. If not, it is irrelevant. It's not like everyone else's game will be affected.
To the point...
@BookTenTiger if you remove OAs from the game you need to be aware of at least 2 possible big changes tactically.
The first is that's it's much easier to run away from combat. IMXP most players don't run away, they rather die and complain that the battle was too hard. However in my own games I sometimes have a very strong or even impossible opponent (because I run semi-sandbox games), even though I inform the players if that's the case. With the current 5e rules it is not easy to run away, you need to know how to minimize the damage and even think out of the box. You need to consider, does it happen that your PCs have to escape a battle, and are you ok that it will be easy to do so?
The second scenario is more tricky. OAs make it difficult to move past the enemies, for example to attack their boss or save the prisoners or catch the mcguffin or press the magic button or... you get the point! This is also a fairly rare situation, but you need to be aware that if you have it in your game, some savvy players can bypass the enemy line more easily if there are no OAs. Nothing that you can't still fix with careful placement of the monsters, but keep this in mind.
Thank you for the constructive reply!
I agree that those are two big consequences. However... I like those consequences! Making it easier to run away from combat allows me to place more difficult enemies in spots around my campaign world. Especially for the campaign I'm currently running (a kind of remix of Curse of Strahd), the characters will be stumbling upon enemies that are way too powerful for them. I actually like the idea of them being more comfortable running away.
I am also fine with the characters moving around the board more to target certain enemies. In fact, focusing more on movement
could be the kind of reaction I could give enemies. What about something like...
Reaction: Shift
As a reaction to taking damage, an enemy may move up to its Dexterity score in feet.
That would be interesting!
If you want more free-flowing movement on the battlefield then get rid of AoOs entirely; for PCs and foes alike.
I don't think this would fit my table. As I said, the players really enjoy having AoO's, but I find it's limiting
their movement. As a DM, I have enemies move all the time, even if it provokes AoO's from the players. It's fun! But I find the players limit their movement due to AoO's, and it creates static combat.
I think the better way to address this is to give the players reasons to move. Without a good incentive to be somewhere else, any downside to movement will prevent movement because why bother?
This can be done by enemies using area effects (either environmental or enemy-created by magic or otherwise), some kind of flanking rule (not the DMG version but something), an objective other than "kill all monsters", or just having smarter monsters gang up on one pc so that they want to get un-surrounded.
Think in terms of incentives and the problem can be addressed rather directly.
Now that's an interesting idea! Taking out enemy AoO's, but replacing them with more Area Effects would be really neat. I already give almost all my enemies a ranged attack, so this would be a fun way to spice things up.
Opportunity attacks are the whole reason why my hexblade learned armor of agathys and hellish rebuke.
Okay! And if there weren't enemy AoO's, you would be able to learn other spells instead.
I don't think there's any need to specifically remove AoO from the enemies.
Your the DM, if you don't feel like making these
attacks/rolls for the enemies just....dont.
Simply choosing not to do an optional action =/= changing the rules.
And to add to your point, if I want the players to know I'm not going to be making Attacks of Opportunity, then I can easily communicate that by telling them enemies will no longer have that option.
You know how the designers of 5e took out Delay so that players wouldn't have to consider whether to have their turn now or later? It saves time because it forces players to make a decision now. I'm finding that enemy Attacks of Opportunity add time I don't like to the game, because the time is not focused on Player Action, but instead Player Inaction.
