D&D 5E Opportunity attacks : low vs high level consequences

[MoutonRustique]

This thread got me thinking about low vs high level play with regards to mobility, "tanking" and opportunity attacks.

The thread illustrates something that's been obvious for a while : fighters gain most of their damage through multiple attacks while the individual attack damage itself increases moderately - but it just now kind of clicked for me to wonder what that will mean in high levels with regards to opportunity attacks.

At low levels, a single fighter attack is a very big deal to most creatures. As such, taking an OA is quite a dis-incentive to ignoring the metal-clad weapon wielder. Even if there are many creatures and the metal-dude only gets one OA per round, you could say that none want to go first and so no-one goes.

At higher levels, a single fighter attack is very much less of a big deal (three of them still hurts, but one is a good deal more acceptable). Ignoring that hard-to-hit metal-dude to go after softer targets seems like a much better plan then. This seems a strange evolution to me...

While I understand that "tanking" is mostly out, I'm wondering about some curious possible effects from the "single attack" AO and the "damage through multiple attacks" mechanics. Especially if other classes have melee capabilities that don't derive from multiple attacks - don't have the PHB, are there?

Am I the only one pondering on this? (Like the silence thing...)

 

[Pillsy]

Am I the only one pondering on this? (Like the silence thing...)

No, I've been thinking about this a lot. The new edition really seems to limit the ability of characters to control space, as they're limited to a single reaction and a single attack.

The Sentinel feat (p.169 of the PHB) helps a little, in that it stops the target in its tracks. Battle Master maneuvers can make things a little better, too, because you add damage from superiority dice, can inflict statuses (like prone and frightened) that make it harder for the target to go about their business, and, by the RAW, can stack many maneuvers onto a single hit. In both cases, though, the single reaction is a major limitation.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Thank you.

I guess we'll see if the higher levels actually see regular play (as opposed to previously) and if it comes up as something noteworthy.

 

[Kaylos]

I was thinking the same thing. I was coming from the angle that the real advantage of great weapons was the larger damage you could do with opportunity attacks. But after looking at it, I realized the same thing. It is very strong at the very beginning, but something easily ignored by higher level creatures where eating the damage could give them a real advantage. However with bounded accuracy, lower level monsters with lower HP totals may remain an issue in larger numbers for high level characters. Still though, the lack of scaling or even option for scaling for someone wanting to maintain a level of battlefield control seems odd.

The questions I suppose are, would it be worth house-ruling to maintain effectiveness? What would be unintended consequences of doing so? for instance, suppose you allow extra attacks on an opportunity attack. How much rolling could a fighter do before it is too much rolling? Would fighters do too much damage with multiple attack opportunity attacks since you could potentially fabricate situations that allowed them to get the effect, making encounters a matter of CC for fighter opportunity attack glory. Maybe there are other ways other than damage like Sentinel does, changing the stop movement of a OA into a 0 movement rest of turn. It is a very nice effect that is much more controlling than simple damage and it is already in there for the aspiring tank.

 

[Eirikrautha]

This thread got me thinking about low vs high level play with regards to mobility, "tanking" and opportunity attacks.

The thread illustrates something that's been obvious for a while : fighters gain most of their damage through multiple attacks while the individual attack damage itself increases moderately - but it just now kind of clicked for me to wonder what that will mean in high levels with regards to opportunity attacks.

At low levels, a single fighter attack is a very big deal to most creatures. As such, taking an OA is quite a dis-incentive to ignoring the metal-clad weapon wielder. Even if there are many creatures and the metal-dude only gets one OA per round, you could say that none want to go first and so no-one goes.

At higher levels, a single fighter attack is very much less of a big deal (three of them still hurts, but one is a good deal more acceptable). Ignoring that hard-to-hit metal-dude to go after softer targets seems like a much better plan then. This seems a strange evolution to me...

While I understand that "tanking" is mostly out, I'm wondering about some curious possible effects from the "single attack" AO and the "damage through multiple attacks" mechanics. Especially if other classes have melee capabilities that don't derive from multiple attacks - don't have the PHB, are there?

Am I the only one pondering on this? (Like the silence thing...)

I think this is intended. Remember comments by M. Mearls (I think it was him) that the team wanted to make lower CR monsters viable threats even at higher levels. The inability to "tank" really does help that be possible. A 4-on-4 fight at low level could be approached so that the squishy wizard faces at most one (and maybe no) attacks. But 12-on-4 several levels later will continue to be a threat because the squishies will not be able to avoid the combat as easily, and the martials will still be limited as to how many mooks they can kill per round. Plus, the Protection fighting style can help somewhat, keeping fighters quite relevant in these cases.

I think it's a feature, not a bug. I'd be willing to bet that this will change tactics for the better, and tone down the "glass cannons" in the long run...

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I think it's a feature, not a bug.

I concur.

 

[Juriel]

I think it's a feature, not a bug. I'd be willing to bet that this will change tactics for the better, and tone down the "glass cannons" in the long run...

Tactics with this: wolves form a conga line, as you can attack at any point of movement, and after the first one eats the Fighter's AoO, the rest just walk past him and each bite the Wizard in turn, then move out of the way of the next wolf.

Not sure if that's working as intended.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think this is intended. Remember comments by M. Mearls (I think it was him) that the team wanted to make lower CR monsters viable threats even at higher levels. The inability to "tank" really does help that be possible. A 4-on-4 fight at low level could be approached so that the squishy wizard faces at most one (and maybe no) attacks. But 12-on-4 several levels later will continue to be a threat because the squishies will not be able to avoid the combat as easily, and the martials will still be limited as to how many mooks they can kill per round. Plus, the Protection fighting style can help somewhat, keeping fighters quite relevant in these cases.

I think it's a feature, not a bug. I'd be willing to bet that this will change tactics for the better, and tone down the "glass cannons" in the long run...

None of this is really true.

The "squishies" (presumably Wizards?) will get MUCH better at killing multiple low-CR opponents as they level up, with access to really serious AE damage and CC spells. They only get better at dealing with "many opponents" situations.

Equally, Fighters get better at dealing with multiple weak opponents, as do Rangers, as the level up. They can thin the field a great deal faster.

What changes is that Fighters (etc.) get much worse at controlling the battlefield whilst "squishies" get much BETTER at it. That does not seem to be "by design", and none of your arguments really seem to suggest that it is.

The idea that using your Reaction to impose Disadvantage once/round is going to "keep Fighters relevant" is pretty dodgy, imho. It requires the Fighter to use a 1h weapon (lowering his damage), right next to the victim (so you've already failed, in a sense) and is obviously inferior to actually preventing/dissuading the target from making the attack in the first place.

 

[Kinak]

Splitting damage out into a bunch of different attacks definitely decreases the usefulness of AoOs. In my Pathfinder homebrew, I've collapsed monsters down to one attack and it's very obvious in the way that players work to avoid AoOs.

Making tactics the most important at first level, when any one hit can knock you out, then pulling that back over time... seems weird to me. Why throw people in the deep end if you're not committed to making them swim?

In any case, if this is a big problem for your group, multiplying damage instead of making multiple attacks is a solid option. It also makes (dis)advantage work way more smoothly.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Eirikrautha]

Tactics with this: wolves form a conga line, as you can attack at any point of movement, and after the first one eats the Fighter's AoO, the rest just walk past him and each bite the Wizard in turn, then move out of the way of the next wolf.

Not sure if that's working as intended.

Sure it is. It works to establish that you need to find another table, since any DM that has animal-intelligence opponents concentrate on wizards and use advanced tactics is only looking to screw you over. So it helps you find a new DM.