So, Attacks of Oppportunity?

[Ellington]

I think they should be available for those that really want them. As a feat, for example.

I'd also be cool by having them be fighter only. It'd be a cool and unique mechanic the fighter would have, and it would allow him to be a threat on the battlefield by turning otherwise safe ways into dangerous ones. People would think twice before running away from a fighter!

 

[bganon]

At first I really thought core needed some kind of OA rule to make melee stickier. But eventually I came around to the playtest's way of doing it. I think of it like this:

OA rules do very little for the DM. If the DM doesn't want the kobolds to rush past the fighter to gank the wizard, then they don't. DMs don't really need to use combat rules to justify how they run monsters, particularly when those rules are really an abstraction anyway.

And in practice, OA rules don't affect the players that much either. Low hp classes already have incentive to stay away from melee. Classes that want to duck in and out of melee tend to find ways to do it even when OA rules are present (high AC, spring attack, etc...), usually by exploiting even more rules. Do away with the whole mess and player behavior doesn't really wind up that different in the end. About the only major change I saw was with the Wizard ducking in and out with shocking grasp, and that's more a problem of the Wizard not having a comparably damaging ranged at-will.

 

[Dragoslav]

This is particularly important when you have OAs from people who aren't melee specialists. When the fighter takes an opportunity attack (especially in 4E), folks sit up and take notice, because the fighter's OAs really sting. When the wizard takes an opportunity attack, however, nobody cares. It very seldom hits, and if it does hit it deals crap damage, but the wizard takes it anyway because there's no in-game cost for doing so. A slight chance of a little free damage is better than nothing. Grindtastic.

I don't know, twice in 3 recent sessions from our campaign my psion has rolled max damage (1d4+1) on an OA against a retreating enemy and caused, directly or indirectly, something awesome to happen, so if only fighters can make OAs then you lose out on those awesome moments where something unlikely changes things in a dramatic way.

 

[Rhenny]

It's reasonable, but why are they absolutely so bad?

Personally I think that the reason for AoOs vs ranged attack is not really about realism... I mean, shooting a loaded crossbow at point blank, how can that possibly be more AoO-provoking than swinging an axe, which require much more movement of your arms when you raise it upward?

I think the reason instead is game balance: you just don't want ranged weapons to be just as good from point blank otherwise you may have no reason for melee weapons, if you can use a ranged weapon both from range and in melee, and I quite agree with this.

Good point. I think the rules in D&DNext do a better job with ranged weapons by making threatened attackers attack at a disadvantage rather than incurring an AoO.

 

[Steely_Dan]

We didn't notice, as in our 3rd/4th Ed campaign of 7 years, I think we had 3, as we all play tactically smart, and they were clunky, disruptive and dull.

I have no problem with a rule for completely running from your enemy (ala 2nd Ed).

 

[Rhenny]

At first I really thought core needed some kind of OA rule to make melee stickier. But eventually I came around to the playtest's way of doing it. I think of it like this:

OA rules do very little for the DM. If the DM doesn't want the kobolds to rush past the fighter to gank the wizard, then they don't. DMs don't really need to use combat rules to justify how they run monsters, particularly when those rules are really an abstraction anyway.

And in practice, OA rules don't affect the players that much either. Low hp classes already have incentive to stay away from melee. Classes that want to duck in and out of melee tend to find ways to do it even when OA rules are present (high AC, spring attack, etc...), usually by exploiting even more rules. Do away with the whole mess and player behavior doesn't really wind up that different in the end. About the only major change I saw was with the Wizard ducking in and out with shocking grasp, and that's more a problem of the Wizard not having a comparably damaging ranged at-will.

I agree with you on the issue of AoO. At first I thought it was missing, but then when we played, we saw that combats were becoming more dynamic and interesting - more movement options and choices. There are still plenty of ways to play tactically without AoO.

Shield wall/block at choke points
Have defender near a squishy or injured PC
Ready an action to hack at the monster that runs to get the Wizard
Wizard runs away or finds cover
Grapple the monster that is drooling as it stares at the spellcaster or injured pc
Wizard can use frost ray vs. the same drooling monster
Use ranged weapons to attack the wizard who ran up, used shocking grasp and ran back.
Set up obstacles to make it harder for monsters to run to the back ranks (tip over tables, etc.)

That being said, WotC does need an optional rule for AoO so that people who really want it can use it. At the very least, perhaps there should be a way to "disengage" from combat. Maybe a skill contest.

Overall, if we play without AoO, we have to assume that all adventurers and monsters have enough combat training to know when and how to move through threatened areas.

 

[Kinak]

I think disadvantage on ranged attack points us in the right direction on this. If someone had danced in through a wall of foes in my playtest, I would have just given them disadvantage.

No reason to slow down combat by throwing in entire attacks outside the normal turncycle. And it still lets people be mobile when it's appropriate.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes, as in no attacks of opportunity just doesn't work.

I understand the thought that opportunity attacks slow down the game but actually, when you do damage during an opportunity attack that speeds up the game.

Nobody should ever step away from a dangerous opponent without provoking an opportunity attack.

You're not going to speed past a fighter without him or her taking a swing at you. If you really want to get to that wizard, you're going to have to pay some blood.

And we need opportunity attacks to make some of the popular feats still useful such as point blank firing and quick drawing of a ranged weapon.

Furthermore, Dodge Action could be so much more useful if you extended that to opportunity attacks and defending your allies with them.

I think the core rules would be just fine with AOOs applying just when disengaging from melee without a fighting withdrawl providing your opponent is now unengaged.

I never did understand the logic of a fighter engaged with 3 opponents suddenly getting a free attack on some guy that happens to run behind him. Did his 3 original opponents stop to allow him the courtesy to do such a thing?

Trying to move past a ready waiting fighter should draw an attack but not from one that is already commited to fighting one or more opponents.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think the core rules would be just fine with AOOs applying just when disengaging from melee without a fighting withdrawl providing your opponent is now unengaged.

I never did understand the logic of a fighter engaged with 3 opponents suddenly getting a free attack on some guy that happens to run behind him. Did his 3 original opponents stop to allow him the courtesy to do such a thing?

Trying to move past a ready waiting fighter should draw an attack but not from one that is already commited to fighting one or more opponents.

Ah, very, very good point ("...guys, guys...hold on...*swings* okay...").

 

[mlund]

Even 1st Edition had penalties for leaving a melee - free attacks at a huge bonus. It was simple, if overly brutal.

5E should have something simple in the core rules:

When a character attempts to leave melee reach of an enemy that enemy can take a Reaction to make a melee attack against him. The attack has Advantage but to take this Reaction one must forfeit their action on their next turn. Characters who can not take an action on their next turn are not eligible to use this Reaction.

Thereby the action economy is preserved, no extra rolls are introduced, and there's a definite cost to flitting in and out of melee combat. It is even easy to mitigate with feats, actions, and abilities later if people want to be able to train "Spring Attack", "Withdraw," or have a racial benefit for being small and nimble.

- Marty Lund