Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6541027" data-attributes="member: 6787650">5E isn't like AD&amp;D at all? In 5E, withdrawing requires the Disengage action (which halves your speed compared to Dash, the closest analogue to an AD&amp;D move action) or else you eat an opportunity attack. That's quite similar to AD&amp;D, the difference being that now an opportunity attack is tied into the action economy (takes your reaction) and doesn't allow multi-attack. (Honestly I don't remember any way at all to disengage even NOT at full speed--I only remember eating opportunity attacks--but I'm trusting your memory on that point.)In most situations not involving a goblin conga line AD&amp;D and 5E are equivalently sticky by &quot;default&quot;, it's just that 5E has lots of ways to become unstuck (Cunning Action, Mobile feat, etc.). But AD&amp;D monsters were fully capable of eating an attack sequence to get to the back-line squishies if they wanted, so I don't think the claim that there is more mechanical space for a &quot;defender&quot; in 5E than AD&amp;D holds.TLDR; opportunity attacks, by any name, don't create true stickiness. AD&amp;D and 5E take similar approaches to opportunity attacks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6541027, member: 6787650"] 5E isn't like AD&D at all? In 5E, withdrawing requires the Disengage action (which halves your speed compared to Dash, the closest analogue to an AD&D move action) or else you eat an opportunity attack. That's quite similar to AD&D, the difference being that now an opportunity attack is tied into the action economy (takes your reaction) and doesn't allow multi-attack. (Honestly I don't remember any way at all to disengage even NOT at full speed--I only remember eating opportunity attacks--but I'm trusting your memory on that point.) In most situations not involving a goblin conga line AD&D and 5E are equivalently sticky by "default", it's just that 5E has lots of ways to become unstuck (Cunning Action, Mobile feat, etc.). But AD&D monsters were fully capable of eating an attack sequence to get to the back-line squishies if they wanted, so I don't think the claim that there is more mechanical space for a "defender" in 5E than AD&D holds. TLDR; opportunity attacks, by any name, don't create true stickiness. AD&D and 5E take similar approaches to opportunity attacks. [/QUOTE]

Verification