So, Attacks of Oppportunity?

[Rhenny]

My biggest problem with AoO is that once players and monsters expect that they'll happen, movement options tend to become more limited. In my 3e and 4e games, players tended to engage and stick to it. They rarely make any decisions to disengage or try to block other opponents, etc. because most of the time they fear taking AoO. Once, a wizard decided to cast shield and run through 4 foes to get to an object the group needed. He was only hit once. I applauded his maneuver, but it was an isolated experience.

Another problem with AoO is for the DM and the player. Often, as DM, I find it hard to decide if a monster would rush to attack the wizard or the guy who is shooting arrows at it if the monster knows that it will have to cross through one or more threatened areas. An intelligent foe needs to calculate the cost/benefit of such an action, which takes time and brain-power. Even animals understand the threat that other humanoids with weapons pose to them, so they too may be struck with a moment of indecision. The indecision is both in game (as the PC or monster) and out of game (as the player or DM has to make the decision). Sometimes these decisions exhaust me, and they always make the turn last longer.

The more I play without AoO, the more I tend to like it. The keys to making it work are the following:

1) Assume that adventurers and monsters have enough combat training or experience to know when and how to move in threatened areas.

2) Realize that both sides are bound by the same rules, so it is fair.

3) Utilize other abilities (defender, hold the line, ray of frost, grapple/restrain), attacks, reactions/readied actions, positioning, terrain (choke points and obstacles), etc.

Of course, there should be an official way to add AoO if a group wants them, so WotC needs to decide on an official mechanic for this option.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

I like this, with a couple modifications:

1. Advantage on OAs would actually make rogues the best tanks (since they could sneak attack), so I'd get rid of that.

2. Fighters should have a level 1 class ability that lets them OA without forfeiting their next action. That way, the fighter class has a significant advantage for tanking that still plays elegantly into the base rules.

 

[mlund]

1. Advantage on OAs would actually make rogues the best tanks (since they could sneak attack), so I'd get rid of that.

Giving your back to a Rogue in combat has been a terrible idea in D&D since 1st Edition. Leaving melee from a Thief let them Backstab the living daylights out of you. I don't see anything wrong with returning to that in the new edition. It still won't make a Rogue into a tank because they lack the necessary durability (low HP).

2. Fighters should have a level 1 class ability that lets them OA without forfeiting their next action. That way, the fighter class has a significant advantage for tanking that still plays elegantly into the base rules.

This is not 4th Edition (as much as I love it). Fighters do not default to being tanks. Improved opportunity attack / reaction mechanics would certainly be a nice feature for a Fighter theme, though.

- Marty Lund

 

[BobTheNob]

Dont want to be too much of a fence sitter, but Im sympathetic with both sides of this argument.

If a compromise is required. Im kinda partial to suggestion by [MENTION=50304]mlund[/MENTION]

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.

I kinda like that you could build the ability to do opp attacks not as a core consideration but instead as a theme feature...though I am also hesitant because Im cautious about the return of mandatory tanking mechanics.

Just dont know which way to go with this.

 

[bganon]

I have no interest in a game designed for genius metagaming kobolds. I want a roleplaying game where creatures react based on their knowledge of the world.

What I'm confused about is that "creatures' knowledge of the world" is up to you, and has nothing to do with whether OAs exist in the game or not. OAs are not real, just like hit points and turns aren't real.

All a kobold can know is that sometimes they can run past the fighter, and sometimes they can't. This is true regardless of whether OAs exist because kobolds don't know what turns are, so how can they know if they're ending their "turn" next to a fighter or not? How does the kobold know the difference between

A) Turn 1 move, end adj to fighter, get attacked by fighter on fighter's turn. Turn 2 move past fighter.

and

B) Turn 1 move past fighter, take OA from fighter. Turn 2 move some more.

I can't figure out any way kobolds could possibly know for sure whether OAs exist or not unless they also know for sure that turns exist. So it sounds to me like you want a roleplaying game where creatures react based on their knowledge of the world, and that knowledge includes whether or not unreal things like turns and OAs exist. That's the very definition of metagaming.

 

[hbarsquared]

It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of people who have actually played the playtest (myself included) do not miss attacks of opportunity.

I'm all for AoO/OA being an option as part of a "tactics module," or even a special ability for the fighter class or slayer theme and particular monsters. But in the playtest, not using attacks of opportunity has opened so many more options and a far more engaging, tense, exciting combat.

Players have to respond with creative solutions to protect their wizard, block the doorway, and prevent monsters from running. In my playtest games, our group naturally resorts to pulling things from the environment, which makes the combat and story all the more engaging.

So, I'm definitely in the camp of "No attacks of opportunity in 5e," at least as a base, automatic option built into the rules. I like them for those playing a tactical module game, and I even like them as feats/themes/class features and for combat-focused monsters. But they should be limited, and not the general rule.

 

[Argyle King]

I have no interest in a game designed for genius metagaming kobolds. I want a roleplaying game where creatures react based on their knowledge of the world.

Same here. I would have XPed you, but I need to spread some around first.


I'm starting to feel more and more like I'm not the target audience for 5th Edition.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Giving your back to a Rogue in combat has been a terrible idea in D&D since 1st Edition. Leaving melee from a Thief let them Backstab the living daylights out of you. I don't see anything wrong with returning to that in the new edition. It still won't make a Rogue into a tank because they lack the necessary durability (low HP).

My concern is that a rogue could pick up feats/theme/etc to wear better armor and become far and away the superior choice for tanking, especially if the system is defaulting to rolled HP.

This is not 4th Edition (as much as I love it). Fighters do not default to being tanks. Improved opportunity attack / reaction mechanics would certainly be a nice feature for a Fighter theme, though.

As you just mentioned, though, tanking isn't the ONLY reason to use opportunity attacks. I'd think it would be good for any character designed to wade into melee - which IMO is a bare minimum definition of a fighter, even if he's not "defending" per se.

I do agree that this overall mechanic could be nicely extended by themes and rules modules as well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Good for you guys, but that's too meta-gaming and contrived to us.

You mean that trusting your team mates to have your back when you know they are particularly skilled, and distracting the enemy to give your team mates opportunites is too meta-gaming? To me it's a reflection fo roleplaying.

My suggestion is that the moving character either sacrifices their action or sacrifices their movement. Either your action is at an disadvantage or your movement is halved.

The orc runs by the fighter to get to the wizard. He either slows down to defend himself better and continues toward the wizard if he can make it. Or he charges past the fighter's swinging blade and wastes his action parrying that sword strike to the head.

In what way are options playing with your movement speed and disadvantage less complex than the single consequence of a free swing?

The problem with OAs is working out what triggers them - and that is utterly unchanged. Also although the wizard is a little better protected than without OAs, he still needs to be 15' behind the fighter at a minimum to avoid the two turn gank. First turn move in as close as possible - past the Fighter's shield at a minimum. Second turn move deeper and shank the wizard.

My biggest problem with AoO is that once players and monsters expect that they'll happen, movement options tend to become more limited. In my 3e and 4e games, players tended to engage and stick to it. They rarely make any decisions to disengage or try to block other opponents, etc. because most of the time they fear taking AoO.

Mileage varies. I'm the biggest provoker of OAs I know - but once I've shown how it can be done to advantage people IME take it up.

Another problem with AoO is for the DM and the player. Often, as DM, I find it hard to decide if a monster would rush to attack the wizard or the guy who is shooting arrows at it if the monster knows that it will have to cross through one or more threatened areas. An intelligent foe needs to calculate the cost/benefit of such an action, which takes time and brain-power.

As a rule they don't. They attack the wizard/archer if they can do so without taking OAs. The exception are crack troops.

1) Assume that adventurers and monsters have enough combat training or experience to know when and how to move in threatened areas.

Absolutely freely. And that is the problem. The game reflects the world.

It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of people who have actually played the playtest (myself included) do not miss attacks of opportunity.

Interesting. Because I've playtested with two completely different groups (one having an average age of about 30, with every member of the other group other than me having close to 30 years experience playing D&D). And the younger group missed them a lot, the older one might not have missed the specific mechanic but they missed the stickiness.

 

[Incenjucar]

What I'm confused about is that "creatures' knowledge of the world" is up to you, and has nothing to do with whether OAs exist in the game or not. OAs are not real, just like hit points and turns aren't real.

Any creature that has engaged in combat that involved one party attempting to move away from another party has learned what an OA is. An OA represents the opening caused by moving away from an opponent. An OA represents a very real event in the game world.

All a kobold can know is that sometimes they can run past the fighter, and sometimes they can't. This is true regardless of whether OAs exist because kobolds don't know what turns are, so how can they know if they're ending their "turn" next to a fighter or not? How does the kobold know the difference between

A) Turn 1 move, end adj to fighter, get attacked by fighter on fighter's turn. Turn 2 move past fighter.

and

B) Turn 1 move past fighter, take OA from fighter. Turn 2 move some more.

I can't figure out any way kobolds could possibly know for sure whether OAs exist or not unless they also know for sure that turns exist. So it sounds to me like you want a roleplaying game where creatures react based on their knowledge of the world, and that knowledge includes whether or not unreal things like turns and OAs exist. That's the very definition of metagaming.

In 4E, a creature explicitly understands an ability that is used on them unless stated otherwise. The ability of a fighter to stop a kobold is representative of an actual in-game event - the fighter shutting their movement down.

You've just defined combat experience as meta-gaming. By your definition, because I know that, in real life, if someone is backing away, I can often find an opening, I'm now meta-gaming reality.