D&D 5E Opportunity Attack around a Corner: Yes or No?

[iserith]

I think the key word to keep in mind is “opportunity”. It isn’t an automatic success, it is an opportunity for Grimmwald to take a swing at the orc as it moves past. I see nothing cheesy about that.

Yes, I often give my players many such "opportunities." Then, if I can, I use their (now) lack of a reaction against them. Always try to trick the wizard into making a dagger or quarterstaff opportunity attack so he or she can't then use shield.

Also, I think provoking them occasionally as DM is good because it sometimes has the side effect of speeding the resolution of the combat challenge.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So what I'm hearing here is that I am indeed in the minority on this, and pretty much everyone agrees with my players.

Okay, I accept that. I still think this is cheesy, but I accept that I'm the odd one out. This is what I wanted to know.

Oh, and as for having the orc move through his buddy's square, yes, that would be an option in this specific case, but there will be times when it's not possible, so it's still good to know how to handle those situations in future.

I'm curios: Why do you think it's "cheesy"?

 

[jayoungr]

I'm curios: Why do you think it's "cheesy"?

It strains my suspension of disbelief to imagine that someone should be able to see around a corner, know exactly what an enemy is doing around that corner, and pop out of nowhere around the corner to make an opportunity attack. (Around a pillar, even, in this specific case.)

And yes, I get what people are saying about how it's possible to see around a corner, especially if you're standing right at the corner. But if you move even a little bit away, you lose that ability very fast, and a square is 5 feet. This presumes that the PC is always exactly positioned in that one spot for maximum vision around the corner. I find that cheesy.

 

[Shiroiken]

It comes down to if you allow attacks across hard corners like this. I allow them, but grant half cover due to the fact that you only have half the space to work with.

One method to avoid this type of argument is to have the orc move through its ally (requiring an additional 5 ft of movement), rather than use the conflicted space.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It strains my suspension of disbelief to imagine that someone should be able to see around a corner, know exactly what an enemy is doing around that corner, and pop out of nowhere around the corner to make an opportunity attack. (Around a pillar, even, in this specific case.)

And yes, I get what people are saying about how it's possible to see around a corner, especially if you're standing right at the corner. But if you move even a little bit away, you lose that ability very fast, and a square is 5 feet. This presumes that the PC is always exactly positioned in that one spot for maximum vision around the corner. I find that cheesy.

It doesn't suggest that they are always positioned in a perfect spot, though. They can move about in that five-foot space. Why wouldn't they stand where they can defend themselves from the orc? Three of the four corners of their space pass by the corner of the wall - this means that it's not particularly blocking anything. You seem to be imagining both the orc and the guy (suddenly forgot the name) to be hugging their respective walls.

I would agree that the pillar would provide cover (the pillar is creating a bit of an extra element to this discussion, and it's actually pretty hard to see in the picture!)

 

[jayoungr]

They can move about in that five-foot space. Why wouldn't they stand where they can defend themselves from the orc?

Because in a different battle, there could be another enemy on the other side of Grimmwald, for example? I just kept the situation in the image simple so as not to clutter it up. But no, by RAW, Grimmwald always knows what's happening around the corner (and has no restrictions for having reduced space), apparently. That's what I call cheesy.

 

[iserith]

It strains my suspension of disbelief to imagine that someone should be able to see around a corner, know exactly what an enemy is doing around that corner, and pop out of nowhere around the corner to make an opportunity attack. (Around a pillar, even, in this specific case.)

And yes, I get what people are saying about how it's possible to see around a corner, especially if you're standing right at the corner. But if you move even a little bit away, you lose that ability very fast, and a square is 5 feet. This presumes that the PC is always exactly positioned in that one spot for maximum vision around the corner. I find that cheesy.

I think it's useful to remember that, if you're using a grid, it's to firm up the tactical game and the "fictional reality" does not map exactly onto it. Setting this expectation with oneself and the players keeps everyone on the same page and mitigates "suspension of disbelief" issues.

 

[Nefermandias]

There is no special interaction between Opportunity Attacks and Cover. What exactly are you confused with?

 

[Charlaquin]

First off, the image I posted is a mock-up to show the issue. In the actual game, there were more PCs around.

Second, thinking about it further, I think what bothers me here is the line of sight. It doesn't seem like Grimmwald should be able to see around the corner well enough to make the split-second reaction needed for an opportunity attack.

I think this is precisely where half-cover would come in. You can peer around the corner to see that space, but you don’t have a perfect view of it. It is partially covered by the corner of the wall.

To clarify my position on a line between the left corners of Grimmwald’s space and the right corners of the space in question, such a line would have to travel precisely along the grid line. Even if we assume the wall lines up perfectly with the grid (which I do think is appropriate to assume, even though the art on the battle map doesn’t reflect that), you would have both the wall and the imaginary line traveling precisely along the grid line. In other words, they’re both trying to occupy the same space (that space being the line along which the grid is drawn) which to me would seem to be obstructing by definition.

 

[MarkB]

View attachment 136220
So going pure grid, where you assume walls align with it, Grimmwald has line of sight to the blue dot square, so can attack.

They cannot move into it.

As for cover, let's pretend Grim is attacking the orc in the hand drawn red box.

Clearly that orc is attacking Grim with cover (see the green arrow). Does the orc have cover from Grim? That is the "along the wall" rule; does is a line going down a wall's edge blocked at all, or not?

If you take away the grid (as is reasonable!), then the pillar at the corner means Grim cannot shoot down to the red box orc without cover; the pillar blocks all of Grimm's corners from seeing the red box orc's right side. The same would hold of the blue dot orc. If not, then the blue dot orc has cover.

I find the red box orc is easier to think about, and using the same rules for the cover of the orc is reasonable.

Note that if the red box orc had cover from grim, so would grim have from the blue dot orc, and the blue dot orc from grim.

Think of it in terms of an action movie. Someone hugs the wall at the entrance to an alley and peers around it to shoot at someone who is standing twenty feet away down the alley.

Which one of them has cover from the other?