Giving Creatures Opportunity Attacks

[FightStyles]

So I've finally said I'm basically done with it. I told my party I'm DM'ing for that unless there are special circumstances that creatures will not be taking opportunity attacks. Reason being, about 90% of the time if an enemy comes within range, they become too afraid to move. And most of them aren't particulary melee either. So they just sit there getting pounded. I've tried too many things from the creatures and environments, so I finally just told everyone OOC that there are no more opportunity attacks by the creatures.

I will admit though, they finally started moving and using tactics afterwards.

Anyone else deal with this issue?

[foobar1969]

about 90% of the time if an enemy comes within range, they become too afraid to move. And most of them aren't particulary melee either. So they just sit there getting pounded.

I will admit though, they finally started moving and using tactics afterwards.
So then the problem is solved?

Some alternate solutions:


tell the players that you WILL kill them for being tactically stupid, and you've already written up a sword & board with Protection fighting style as the replacement PC for whoever dies first.
5 foot shift move action (yeah, I know, no such thing, I don't care) that comes with a free Disengage.

[Millface]

I'd need more information, but if the character who has stuff in his/her face isn't a character built for that they have plenty of ways to get out of there. Who's getting pummeled that isn't a Rogue (Cunning Action Disengage) or a caster (Misty Step)?

I'm not sure that putting up the bumpers and just making enemies less potent is really a solution. One on one time with players to discuss their characters and what they can and can't do might be a better route to take. Each class has it's own set of tools for these situations already.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm not sure that putting up the bumpers and just making enemies less potent is really a solution. One on one time with players to discuss their characters and what they can and can't do might be a better route to take. Each class has it's own set of tools for these situations already.

Not only this, but characters are supposed to have personalities. Is a bookish wizard really going to stand in front of an ogre because he's afraid that he'll get hurt trying to escape? If he's afraid of anything, it shout be getting hurt because he failed to escape. The swashbuckler's whole schtick is about dancing around the battlefield, stabbing people up. If she just stays rooted to the spot, she should be made to turn in her rogue license. What I'm saying is, it's a roleplaying issue as well as a tactical one.

Maybe you could set an example by using some mobile enemies that aren't afraid to provoke a few OAs. Remind your players they (and the creatures) only get one reaction per round. If they still don't get it, bring out the stick - set them up for some punishing AoE attacks that they could have escaped if they were a bit more dynamic. Or use a screen of melee meatshields to prevent them getting to an objective they really care about (the villain should saunter in after they've dug in to the combat, steal the objective, and wander off).

[PotatoGolem]

I'm very confused by your players' tactical choices. If you're not a melee character, why the hell would you stay in melee? Op attacks suck, but you only take one a round, and if you stay in melee you're just getting whaled on. Retreating is actually the way to get hit less. Also, they do know about the disengage action, right? Lets you leave combat without being hit. If they've forgotten it, I'd remind them about it gently. And if they won't take it because they want to keep blasting/shooting/whatever, that's a tactical choice. I'd agree with Millface- sit down with them and make sure they know their options, don't just play easy on them.

Alternatively, if you're dead-set against AOOs, don't let players take them either. If only players get opportunity attacks it wrecks both game balance (because they get reactions and most enemies don't, so it totally changes the action economy) and immersion. Are you saying that this group is literally the only people in the world that have ever learned to take advantage of a fleeing enemy dropping its guard? It makes it too game-y unless it goes both ways.

Also, be aware that getting rid of AOOs changes the balance of the game. Archers (and blastlocks and such) are now pretty much strictly better than melee, because you can always retreat while firing. So now archers can start the fight from a longer distance and suffer no penalty when they close. It's very sub-optimal to be a melee character with this rule.

[JAL_1138]

Make sure they're aware that they can move around enemies without taking AoOs, too--I've seen a lot of 3.PF players forget that in 5th AoO's only trigger if you leave reach, not if you move "through a threatened space." Doesn't help get them to run away, but helps them think about repositioning in melee. Remind them of the Disengage action, too (edit: potatogolem beat me to that).

[Thrudd]

So, is the real issue that they have no good front line melee fighters, so nobody has the AC or HP to be able to take a hit? That is a lesson in itself regarding party composition and big picture strategy. If nobody wants to play a fighter, maybe they can hire or recruit an NPC or two.

Theres only one situation where most characters and monsters get an OA, moving out of their reach at normal speed. As others have said, It sounds like your players need to be reminded of all their options and to do a little problem solving regarding how to tactically deal with various situations. Maybe play some practice battles, (if you and they are afraid to kill characters and roll new ones) let them experiment without consequences for the game or their characters. Training mode: give them a few different scenarios so they aren't afraid to try things and see what works.

[FightStyles]

Well, the party consist of a tomelock, fighter with Polearm master, moon druid and a life cleric.
I have reminded them of disengage and do choose not to use it.
I have many enemies running around getting AOO's quite frequently showing that the AOO isn't a huge deal and provided my monsters with good strategic moves.
I've used whirlwinds and roaring fires (the environment) to get them to move, and it does ok.
I'm not afraid of killing them as a few of them have died already.

I've asked them since posting this how hard they consider the battles, and it was unaminously decided that I create too hard of battles. So I think I might have stumbled onto a root source of the issue while dealing with the whole separate 5 min workday issue.

Does everyone USE the AOO of the monsters every time they can? Because before, I would roll against a DC 15 secretly to see if they took the monster took their AOO before I decided recently to remove them. I might bring them back and talk to everyone more about them.

[Ramshack]

This really hasn't been an issue at my table. Our rogue uses cunning action intelligently, our arcane casters normally try to shocking grasp to remove the reaction of the target. And if things are really bad I've seen plenty of people use the disengage action.

[EvanescentHero]

I have reminded them of disengage and do choose not to use it.

What.

So they complain that they can't move around in combat without getting hit and then ignore the action that explicitly allows them to move around in combat without getting hit?

[Millface]

Well, the party consist of a tomelock, fighter with Polearm master, moon druid and a life cleric.
I have reminded them of disengage and do choose not to use it.
I have many enemies running around getting AOO's quite frequently showing that the AOO isn't a huge deal and provided my monsters with good strategic moves.
I've used whirlwinds and roaring fires (the environment) to get them to move, and it does ok.
I'm not afraid of killing them as a few of them have died already.

I've asked them since posting this how hard they consider the battles, and it was unaminously decided that I create too hard of battles. So I think I might have stumbled onto a root source of the issue while dealing with the whole separate 5 min workday issue.

Does everyone USE the AOO of the monsters every time they can? Because before, I would roll against a DC 15 secretly to see if they took the monster took their AOO before I decided recently to remove them. I might bring them back and talk to everyone more about them.


Yes, I use attacks of opportunity every time. My players deserve the very best from my monsters. If you have to change rules or play them in a dumbed down fashion two things can be occurring.

1. Your encounters are too hard. One major cause of having to remove monster abilities or play the monsters sub-optimally is because the encounter is just too difficult for the level of your PCs.

2. Your PCs are being stubborn and just outright bad at playing their characters.

By all means, go over their abilities with them, be nice about it, but that party doesn't sound all that squishy to me. The druid can be rooting things, shapechanging into something tankier or otherwise CCing things in their face. The warlock has Armor of Agythys to punish things who do get in his grill. The fighter should be fine, and if he has polearm mastery he should be getting plenty of AAOs himself. Life Clerics can heal and wear heavy armor and use a shield.

They all have spells to affect the battlefield, offer concealment, hinder movement, hold, or otherwise incapacitate enemies. If the warlock and fighter are surrounded the cleric and druid have several spells to drop to help shape the fight in the party's favor. If their marching order is smart the fighter and the cleric should be front line most of the time, with high HP and/or AC.

My opinion is that your players aren't playing their characters well at all, mechanically speaking.

[Slipperychicken]

My DM has monsters take AoOs against the PCs. And we do have tactics; we just aren't bouncing between enemies like a bunch of pinballs.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Yes, I use attacks of opportunity every time. My players deserve the very best from my monsters.

Yeah, the game is more fun, more realistic and more balanced if monsters fight to the best of their ability (and disengage when they're on to a loser).

I use opportunity attacks when I can, except for NPC wizards et al, who might have a Shield, Hellish Rebuke or Counterspell in the hole.

[FightStyles]

Yes, I use attacks of opportunity every time. My players deserve the very best from my monsters. If you have to change rules or play them in a dumbed down fashion two things can be occurring.

1. Your encounters are too hard. One major cause of having to remove monster abilities or play the monsters sub-optimally is because the encounter is just too difficult for the level of your PCs.

2. Your PCs are being stubborn and just outright bad at playing their characters.

By all means, go over their abilities with them, be nice about it, but that party doesn't sound all that squishy to me. The druid can be rooting things, shapechanging into something tankier or otherwise CCing things in their face. The warlock has Armor of Agythys to punish things who do get in his grill. The fighter should be fine, and if he has polearm mastery he should be getting plenty of AAOs himself. Life Clerics can heal and wear heavy armor and use a shield.

They all have spells to affect the battlefield, offer concealment, hinder movement, hold, or otherwise incapacitate enemies. If the warlock and fighter are surrounded the cleric and druid have several spells to drop to help shape the fight in the party's favor. If their marching order is smart the fighter and the cleric should be front line most of the time, with high HP and/or AC.

My opinion is that your players aren't playing their characters well at all, mechanically speaking.

This advice is really great and so is everyone else's. But, I particulary like the part about deserving the best from the monsters. Your two points are probably spot on.

I have a current discussion going on with them all talking about the difficulty of the encounters I create for them. I do use an encounter calculator, but I do tend to stick in the lower portion of "hard" battles. I've played in a campaign where the monsters never really felt like a threat to my PC except for 1 battle. (Which ended up being a TPK). I am probably going to lower the average difficulty of the battles but still throw some hard ones at them.

They are all almost level 5 now too though. Hopefully this translates to more comfortability with their PC's as well as with the game. Also, the PCs get that nice 5th level boost so it might also turn the tides of war in their favor.

So basically, I'll probably take back AOO's and offer a little more assistance to them to understand their options of escaping AOO's if they deem necessary.

[Shining Wrath]

One other idea: throw in a DMPC who can model appropriate behavior. Someone like a valor bard or a light cleric who isn't tanky, but who can mix it up a little.

[ruy343]

Maybe the reason that they're not taking advantage of the disengage action is because they feel that they can do nothing productive on their turn if they do. After all, who wants to be the guy who runs away, when they could be the guy who stabs something or casts a neat spell!

Players won't retreat when they feel that they don't have anywhere to run to either; if you disengage, you only get your move speed to run away with, whereas dashing lets you move double. Enemy monsters can often keep up. Therefore, it's a good idea to provide cover and logical places to hide that'll give them an advantage if they run away.

[Millface]

One other idea: throw in a DMPC who can model appropriate behavior. Someone like a valor bard or a light cleric who isn't tanky, but who can mix it up a little.

This is always my last ditch effort when the group needs to learn a lesson, but I'll admit that it does usually work. Usually. Two things can happen when the group sees a DMPC outperforming them in combat. Either they learn from it or they assume DM is just trying to show off the fact that he can do whatever he wants. Depends on your group.

Whenever I run a DMPC it's very temporary and it comes with the disclaimer that this PC, despite it's class makeup, isn't any more special than any other PC at the table. It would be best to pick the class that is associated with the player having the most trouble, so they can see exactly what they can and can't do and avoid the "Well yeah, that class/multiclass is OP, of course he's better!" argument.

It is what it is: A subtle way of telling players they aren't as good as they could be. TL;DR handle the situation with care and it can work. Do it wrong and you might just make people angry.

[MrStabby]

I think you have most things covered here, but worth noting that as you have hit level 5 there are now summoned monsters your party can use as a line of meat shields. Also the cleric will get spiritual guardians. These together mean that players controlling these can feel they are having an impact on the battle even if they are running away.

It may be that things will sort themselves out as the party gets used to being level 5.

[FightStyles]

I think you have most things covered here, but worth noting that as you have hit level 5 there are now summoned monsters your party can use as a line of meat shields. Also the cleric will get spiritual guardians. These together mean that players controlling these can feel they are having an impact on the battle even if they are running away.

It may be that things will sort themselves out as the party gets used to being level 5.

I have a feeling that level 5 will help. But after a poll, they all also think I make too hard of encounters. So I will be using lower CR creatures but more of them taking AOO everytime the creatures can. These encounters will be of lower difficulty too. We'll see how it plays out.

[Millface]

I have a feeling that level 5 will help. But after a poll, they all also think I make too hard of encounters. So I will be using lower CR creatures but more of them taking AOO everytime the creatures can. These encounters will be of lower difficulty too. We'll see how it plays out.

Bottom line is that if they still just stand there and don't control the field/move around as needed it's on them, not you.

It sounds like they just want you to put them on auto-win so that they don't have to think too hard. I wouldn't enjoy that as a DM but I'd be conflicted because ultimately the point is for everyone to have fun. If they have more fun on easy mode then it's on us as DMs to decide if we're still having enough fun for it to work out.

I'm blessed with a phenomenal group right now who enjoy playing the game the same way that I do, sometimes, unfortunately, it just doesn't work out that way. I hope you guys can find a middle ground somewhere :-)