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

[BookTenTiger]

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.

I think this is an interesting idea. However, again, I don't necessarily want to discourage my players from taking actions like lighting a torch, loading a crossbow...

(Man, I had that list memorized back in my d20 days!)

I do think it's interesting that 5e limited Attacks of Opportunity to only leaving a creature's reach, and made it a reaction, which means some character builds will never want to waste their reaction on an AoO. It shows that it's actually a small part of combat.

For whatever reason though, at my table it really discourages my players from moving around the battlefield, which is something I find fun and engaging.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't think it would have a big enough impact that you need to give NPCs something in return. It will probably just make it easier for PCs to focus fire and do things like run past minions to take out the spellcaster.

I do agree that it takes away some of the tactical element of the game, but that's not everybody's cup of tea.

I also think there's a tendency for players to be overly cautious. There's plenty of times where it's worth it to get an attack of opportunity. You might demonstrate this by having NPCs provoke them to get in better tactical positions. Also as others have mentioned there are lots of ways mitigate AoOs and remember that it takes a reaction, so they can't do one if they used their reaction for anything else (including another AoO.)

I think my friend Matthew is correct......though at low levels many PCs can't take an extra hit or two......

I don't love opportunity attacks, and wish there was a better mechanic/idea. Because I think combatants would be in constant motion.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

That's a strong simplification of what I was saying – which was more about AoO opening up narrative options that would not exist without the AoO mechanic being available to monsters – but that's the gist of it.

Dungeon World is great in that regard, indeed.

One thing that does make a difference is upping your terrain design game. For instance, I routinely have PCs in positions where monsters could not reach them – like up in a tree, under slatted floorboards on a stilted hut, hiding in a cart of hay, on the far bank of a river of fire, and so forth. I also deliberately adjust starting encounter distances, looking for opportunities to inject longer starting distances in order to give movement-based & ranged-based PCs a chance to glow, as well as give all the players a chance to devise strategies to avoid engaging in melee if they do not wish. So it's like the football huddle before a game, but imagine the field is full of hillocks, trenches, oak trees, you the get the picture.

 

[BluejayJunior]

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?

They are interesting, but I wouldn't find them fun. Most of these reactions just make enemies tougher or allow them to cause more damage. These are actually quite powerful against players.
It may encourage movement, but most of that movement is going to be chasing after monsters or moving to attack a monster that isn't harder to hurt.
Players are encouraged to keep their distance from enemies, so they are rarely going to get opportunity attacks because they aren't next to enemies.
Battles are going to be longer and more of a slog. Players are going to have trouble focusing down enemies. They are going to spread their attacks out, keeping enemies alive longer and allowing them to deal more damage to the characters.
I would hate taking damage by attacking an enemy.

 

[MikalC]

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

By pointing out dumbing down and making the game easier doesn’t, in fact, make it fun?

 

[BookTenTiger]

By pointing out dumbing down and making the game easier doesn’t, in fact, make it fun?

There are so many more respectful ways to share your opinion and add to a conversation.

 

[BookTenTiger]

They are interesting, but I wouldn't find them fun. Most of these reactions just make enemies tougher or allow them to cause more damage. These are actually quite powerful against players.
It may encourage movement, but most of that movement is going to be chasing after monsters or moving to attack a monster that isn't harder to hurt.
Players are encouraged to keep their distance from enemies, so they are rarely going to get opportunity attacks because they aren't next to enemies.
Battles are going to be longer and more of a slog. Players are going to have trouble focusing down enemies. They are going to spread their attacks out, keeping enemies alive longer and allowing them to deal more damage to the characters.
I would hate taking damage by attacking an enemy.

I definitely see what you are saying. To me, though, those are positive consequences (other than a player "hating" a system which is always negative).

I don't know, I both DM and play in separate D&D games, and as a player I'm always disappointed in how few rounds there are in combat. I play a wizard, and I have such a huge arsenal of spells, but I only get two or three rounds to cast them!

I might try these reactions out in the next dungeon I run and see how it goes. It's totally possible that it just slows the game down and is no fun, but I feel like it would be interesting to try out!

 

[MikalC]

There are so many more respectful ways to share your opinion and add to a conversation.

thank you miss manners.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Easy solution: Instead of inflicting OA on characters that move, inflict them on characters that don't move.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Easy solution: Instead of inflicting OA on characters that move, inflict them on characters that don't move.

Now THAT is an interesting idea!

Any creature that does not move in a round provoked an attack of opportunity from enemies within reach.

I feel like that would be a real invitation to make battlemaps with interesting movement-based zones. Flowing water, swinging chandeliers, slippery slopes, strong winds...

I want to try this out!