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

[Eirikrautha]

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.

I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me or arguing in the first part. My contention is that 5e is purposely reducing the "crowd-control" aspect of tactics that grew up out of 3e and grid-based combat. While all classes do rise in power, bounded accuracy and other systems still restrain their ability to roflstomp low-level threats. From Mike Mearls, himself: "So things like Orcs and Ogres are still viable threats at higher levels: You just fight more of them." (www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11554-Inside-the-Launch-of-the-New-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike.3). So while a wizard might be able to fireball a group of mooks, that doesn't eliminate the threat of some getting to him.

Battlefield "control" is a relatively new concept (I think I'll start a thread about this later), partly based on the return to grid combat as default and partly because of the influence of MMOs. Compare "Dig" in 1e or 2e to "Create Pit," the original was far more useful as a way to shape the battlefield before an engagement than as an in-combat mechanic. Likewise, the only "opportunity attack" from 1e and 2e require the opponent to be fleeing from melee. Repositioning to another melee combatant within the melee gained no such free attacks (RAW). So the rules to allow players to force mobs away from squishies pretty much are recent inventions (2e did allow an adjacent ally to block for a withdrawing character... but that's a far cry from battlefield control).

Once again, this is an intended change. The primary restraint on 1e and 2e casters were their limited number of spells and the danger of casting in combat (their fragility). Later rules both increased the number and efficacy of spells, as well as allowed martial characters to funnel mooks away from the casters. Both of these exacerbated the LFQW problem. Note that 5e has reestablished both of the features of earlier D&Ds: fewer spells (with cantrips to keep the players engaged and having fun) and the reduction of crowd control. I don't see how you can say that this is not the intended outcome...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So while a wizard might be able to fireball a group of mooks, that doesn't eliminate the threat of some getting to him.

Sure it does. Dead things can't hit you. The idea that CC is "new" is violently wrong. It's name is new. The concept is as old as war.

The idea that AoOs in 3E made LFQW worse is practically 1984-style doublespeak! I applaud you, sir!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Double post.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

If it's an open field, sure that can still work. But if it's a narrow corridor they are going by, doesn't work so well as moving through your allies space is now difficult terrain.

 

[Eirikrautha]

The idea that AoOs in 3E made LFQW worse is practically 1984-style doublespeak! I applaud you, sir!

The ability of martials to shield wizards from the threat of melee makes wizards even more powerful (as they can be glass cannons with impunity). This is not a difficult concept.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The ability of martials to shield wizards from the threat of melee makes wizards even more powerful (as they can be glass cannons with impunity). This is not a difficult concept.

It's pee in the ocean, and truly ludicrous to bring up. 4E has no LFQW and by far the best defensive Fighters, too.

 

[Pillsy]

It's pee in the ocean, and truly ludicrous to bring up.

It's not obvious to me why it's ludicrous. The wizard will be spending slots and/or actions on shields, thunderwaves and misty steps if they're getting mobbed more often, which does constrain their effectiveness. The fact that it's a different design approach from 4E doesn't really address the issue, IMO.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not obvious to me why it's ludicrous. The wizard will be spending slots and/or actions on shields, thunderwaves and misty steps if they're getting mobbed more often, which does constrain their effectiveness. The fact that it's a different design approach from 4E doesn't really address the issue, IMO.

I was discussing the idea that it mattered to LFQW in 3E as was asserted. In 5E it's very low on the list of LFQW-influencers. Pee in the pool instead of the ocean.

 

[Pillsy]

I was discussing the idea that it mattered to LFQW in 3E as was asserted.

Sorry, I got a bit lost there. I agree that it doesn't seem to have been a major constraint in 3E.

 

[Juriel]

It's not obvious to me why it's ludicrous. The wizard will be spending slots and/or actions on shields, thunderwaves and misty steps if they're getting mobbed more often, which does constrain their effectiveness. The fact that it's a different design approach from 4E doesn't really address the issue, IMO.

It's actually more likely they'll spend slots on making their alpha strike even better, making them more of glass cannons...

Because it's unlikely they can withstand the conga line of beat-ass that any enemy party can bring against them (let alone if they have ranged attacks).