D&D 5E Keeping AoO for PC's, but removing AoO from enemies

[BookTenTiger]

2) It might open new strategic option via positioning, but you'd rob your players of some of the existing strategic options that revolve around AoO, like the PC with high hp and AC provoking the enemy's AoO and force it to use its reaction, using the protection fighting style to shield another from an AoO, teleporting an ally out of AoO's reach, using spells like fog cloud to impose disadvantage on AoO, etc.

3) In D&D, PCs have little reasons to move in general. In mind's eye, it's easier to imagine combat as a fluid entity but on the square grid, there is no point of going places other than flying to the rescue of another player or moving out of a spell's area of effect. If PCs can do that without risks, it cheapens the "drama" of the situation.

4) What one consider fun strategic option, or out-of-the-box thinking, another may call it abuse or cheesy shenanigan, and at a point the trick gets more tiring than fun. Potential AoO are already the gambling elements of many strategies; I'm not sure if removing that gambling element would be wise.

However, I think a middle-ground could be reached if you decide that "mooks" monsters and creatures don't have a reaction, while "normal" creatures do. PCs are fighting 15 goblins, a goblin chief, and an ogre, perhaps only the chief and the ogre can deliver AoO. But even then, potential AoO is sometimes the only real threat of numerous, low CR creatures, so IDK.

I think these are some really interesting ideas!

Some of these posts are really making me think about how to incentivise movement.

I'm still having fun imagining replacements for enemy AoO. How about something like this for some enemies:

Blast
As a reaction to taking damage, the creature creates a 5 foot zone of blasting energy. A creature starting their turn in the zone takes 1d6 (fire, thunder, cold, etc) damage. The zone vanished once it deals damage, or at the start of the creature's next turn.

 

[CleverNickName]

If you want to make Opportunity Attacks more tactically interesting (which is to say, "more fun"), you could bring back some of the triggers from 3.X and Pathfinder. Casting a spell, drinking a potion, lighting a torch, loading a crossbow, standing up from prone...there was quite a long list of things that could provoke OAs besides "leaving a threatened square." That could really mix things up.

If you go that route, you might want to add ways to avoid them also. The Crossbow Master feat would let you load a crossbow without risking an OA, and the War Caster feat could let you load a crossbow without risking an OA, for example. Maybe you could spend all your movement to stand up from prone to avoid an OA, or maybe the Athlete feat could let you stand up from prone without risking an OA at all. Etc etc.

Now that I think about it, this sounds like something that would fit nicely into the ""What features should a Advanced 5th Edition have"" thread: more ways to provoke (and negate) opportunity attacks.

 

[MikalC]

You know what’s not fun? Removing the most basic of challenges from your players combats.

 

[BookTenTiger]

You know what’s not fun? Removing the most basic of challenges from your players combats.

What is your reason for posting this? How does this add to the conversation at all?

 

[auburn2]

I do not like that idea and players at my table routinely cause OAs. There is also a definite strategy at play on both sides since an character only gets one reaction. The fighter moves purposely away from the enemy so he uses the OA and then another player can walk right past the enemy. Or cause an OA so the enemy can't use a reaction ability. On the other side, an enemy is battling a PC and the PC uses shield or hellish rebuke or reposte or uncanny dodge. Now the enemy doesn't have to worry about an OA and can move anywhere he wants.

 

[Rhenny]

I’ve been playing in some Pathfinder 2 games, and they build in AoO into some monsters and not in others. I find that not knowing if a foe will take an AoO adds excitement and encourages players to chance it more often, especially if they have better AC.

I might try to incorporate that into the games I run. Elite warriors and monsters with quickness and skill will probably take the AoO.

 

[Quickleaf]

Just ran a session where a mummy's opportunity attack was a climactic moment that changed the encounter in a dynamic, deadly, and entertaining way for everyone. 3rd level PCs were kiting 3 mummies, basically doing a structured withdrawal with ranged fire and two stronger PCs holding the line as the party lured the mummies into a pit trap (which the PCs earlier avoided by placing wood planks across the ground).

Just as the PCs were almost in the clear, the bard risked taking an attack and then moving – instead of disengaging and then moving – and this allowed the mummy to opportunity attack him as he was balancing on the planks. I rolled well on damage, so the PC was dropped to 0 HP exactly, then failed a DC 11 Dex save and fell into the spiked pit below, suffering an immediate death save. The players knew how dangerous the mummies were, but the last three rounds they'd gotten confident from their sound strategy of kiting. However, this dramatic moment snapped them back to attention and gave the whole encounter greater dramatic payoff.

If the monsters didn't get opportunity attacks in my game, that awesome scene wouldn't have transpired.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Thinking further on this, I came up with some more ideas for replacing enemy AoO's with other reactions. I'm going to call it Enemy Reactions.

Using Enemy Reactions, I would hope to do the following:

• encourage more player character movement in the battlefield
• encourage tactical choices about which enemies to target with attacks and spells
• increase variety in enemy types
• have fun

When choosing enemies for a combat, you would decide on the type of enemy. The enemy would gain a different Enemy Reaction based on their type. This reaction replaces the enemy's ability to take Attacks of Opportunity, which are now reserved only for Player Characters.

Common Enemy Reactions

Nimble Reaction: As a reaction to taking damage, the enemy may move up to half its speed.

Defensive Reaction: As a reaction to taking damage, the enemy takes the Dodge action. The benefits last until after the enemy is the target of an attack or an effect requiring a Dexterity Saving Throw.

Tough Reaction: As a reaction to taking damage, the enemy gains resistance to the next damage it takes.

Uncommon Enemy Reactions

Blasting Reaction: As a reaction to taking damage, the enemy creates a 5 ft. zone of damaging energy (choose between acid, cold, fire, lightning, necrotic, poison, psychic, radiant, or thunder). The first creature to start their turn in the zone takes an amount of damage equal to 1d4 x Enemy's Hit Dice.

Striking Reaction: As a reaction to taking damage, the enemy marks the creature who attacked. The enemy gains advantage to their next attack against the marked opponent. This effect lasts until the beginning of the enemy's next turn.

Commanding Reaction: As a reaction to taking damage, the enemy moves one ally up to 10 feet closer.

Strange Reactions

Wild Reaction: As a reaction to taking damage, the enemy causes 1d6 damage to all creatures surrounding it.

Those are my ideas so far!

Here's how I see this playing out in combat.

The Player Characters enter the next room of the dungeon. There is an Ogre, two Hobgoblins, and six Goblins.

The Goblins have Nimble Reactions. They are running around, hurling daggers, being tricksy. The Hobgoblins have Tough Reactions. They carry big ol' shields that they raise up after taking damage. The Ogre has a Commanding Reaction. He keeps moving goblins and hobgoblins back towards him for cover whenever he gets hit.

The Wizard wins initiative, and launches a fireball! It nukes a few goblins, and the others use their reactions to spread out!

The Fighter goes next. He engages one of the hobgoblins, successfully striking with his longsword, then moving back to the group. The hobgoblin raises his shield, gaining resistance to the next attack.

Now the Rogue has a choice. He could try to finish off that hobgoblin, but he sees it's taken a Tough Reaction. So instead he targets the other hobgoblin. He misses, and the hobgoblin does not get to react.

The cleric runs past the goblins and hobgoblins and casts Inflict Wounds on the big bad ogre. It hits! The ogre takes a ton of damage, and as a reaction shifts one of those hobgoblins towards him so they are now flanking the cleric.

Now the bad guys go. The goblins are spread out and throwing daggers, one hobgoblin is attacking the rogue, and the other is flanking the cleric with the ogre.

Anyways, just an idea! What do you think? Any more reactions you would add?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Just ran a session where a mummy's opportunity attack was a climactic moment that changed the encounter in a dynamic, deadly, and entertaining way for everyone. 3rd level PCs were kiting 3 mummies, basically doing a structured withdrawal with ranged fire and two stronger PCs holding the line as the party lured the mummies into a pit trap (which the PCs earlier avoided by placing wood planks across the ground).

Just as the PCs were almost in the clear, the bard risked taking an attack and then moving – instead of disengaging and then moving – and this allowed the mummy to opportunity attack him as he was balancing on the planks. I rolled well on damage, so the PC was dropped to 0 HP exactly, then failed a DC 11 Dex save and fell into the spiked pit below, suffering an immediate death save. The players knew how dangerous the mummies were, but the last three rounds they'd gotten confident from their sound strategy of kiting. However, this dramatic moment snapped them back to attention and gave the whole encounter greater dramatic payoff.

If the monsters didn't get opportunity attacks in my game, that awesome scene wouldn't have transpired.

What I'm getting from this is that taking away enemy AoO's reduces the amount of actions enemies get to take in combat. I think this is true, and definitely a negative consequence.

One thing I enjoyed about Dungeon World is that it focused so much on player turns. Rather than the DM taking a turn in combat, the enemies and environment reacted to the character's actions. As a most basic example, if the Fighter rolled a 5 or 6 on a d6, the enemy doesn't hit them back. A 3 - 4 is a success with consequences: they are struck back, or their weapon gets stuck, or they are shoved... a 1-2 is a failure with consequences: they miss and are hit, etc.

I like that enemy Attacks of Opportunity grant enemies more action: it makes combat more like a story that can be interrupted, rather than everyone just waiting around for their turn.

What I don't like is that I feel enemy Attacks of Opportunity discourage players (at least at my table!) from making more creative, tactical choices about where to move and who to attack. For whatever reason, the players at my table prioritize not taking Attacks of Opportunity over other factors in combat.

So I guess my goal here is to brainstorm ways to keep a dynamic, interesting flow of combat with trade-offs for taking risky moves, while also encouraging Player Character Movement and tactical choices.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I do not like that idea and players at my table routinely cause OAs. There is also a definite strategy at play on both sides since an character only gets one reaction. The fighter moves purposely away from the enemy so he uses the OA and then another player can walk right past the enemy. Or cause an OA so the enemy can't use a reaction ability. On the other side, an enemy is battling a PC and the PC uses shield or hellish rebuke or reposte or uncanny dodge. Now the enemy doesn't have to worry about an OA and can move anywhere he wants.

Way back in 3rd Edition, I had a player who would regularly take a bunch of feats (Dodge and Mobile, I think?) and maximize their AC and Tumble skill and then run around the combat provoking all the Attacks of Opportunity.

It's definitely one way to play!

But I also think it's fun to play around with other ideas. If we took out the need for that strategy, what could we add in that would promote other ways of play?