paucity of Opportunity Attacks [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

heavyfuel

2020-09-15, 05:36 PM

The biggest difference is that making a ranged attack no longer provokes an AoO and instead gives Disadvantage on the attack, and the various other means of provoking AoO (like attacking unarmed) were removed

I'm pretty sure that's OP's problem right there

@OP, my friends and I have brought back OAs for spells. We did make an exception for spells that required melee attacks (either melee weapon attacks or melee spell attacks) and it worked fine. We also allowed spells to be interrupted with readied actions.

Suddenly spellcasters are back to needing good positioning in combat and can no longer cast with complete impunity.

It was pretty good.

I wouldn't recommend bringing back OAs from getting up from prone since this just encourages every single melee character into a tripping character, and boy do I not miss them from 3.5.

OldTrees1

2020-09-15, 05:41 PM

I'm a little confused, 5e does have Opportunity Attacks, and they function mostly the same.

In 3E the AoO also triggered on moving around within the threatened space. In 5E you can move around unless diagonally flanked. This made it trigger much more often in 3E. Oh, and 3E was 1+Dex Mod AoOs per round for anyone that took Combat Reflexes.

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-15, 05:46 PM

I'm pretty sure that's OP's problem right there

@OP, my friends and I have brought back OAs for spells. We did make an exception for spells that required melee attacks (either melee weapon attacks or melee spell attacks) and it worked fine. We also allowed spells to be interrupted with readied actions.

Suddenly spellcasters are back to needing good positioning in combat and can no longer cast with complete impunity.

It was pretty good.

I wouldn't recommend bringing back OAs from getting up from prone since this just encourages every single melee character into a tripping character, and boy do I not miss them from 3.5.

I guess I just don't really see those situations being very common. Very seldom do I see a character casting a nonmelee, nonteleport, nondefense spell while adjacent to an enemy, or someone making a ranged attack while getting Disadvantage.

I can understand the point behind wanting those triggers back, from a sensible standpoint, but how often they'd actually be relevant just doesn't seem beneficial for the cause.

I've always been a fan of making it so drawing a non-light weapon provoked OA's, as a means of empowering melee characters, light-weapons, and as a slight nerf to ranged attackers, because that seems a bit less niche than "when you attempt a ranged effect while an enemy is adjacent to you".

In 3E the AoO also triggered on moving around within the threatened space. In 5E you can move around unless diagonally flanked. This made it trigger much more often in 3E. Oh, and 3E was 1+Dex Mod AoOs per round for anyone that took Combat Reflexes.

That makes sense, but we already see a lot of the melee slog in 5e. Things are already fairly immobile, and the chance of someone moving more than 15 feet plummets once you're past the first round of combat. Movement encourages interaction, it encourages the players to adapt to what's happening in that exact moment rather than the predefined strategy they came up with before the fight started.

What is there to gain by making mobility worse? Will it make the game better?

Fitz10019

2020-09-15, 05:54 PM

Thanks for these replies.

...@OP, my friends and I have brought back OAs for spells. We did make an exception for spells that required melee attacks (either melee weapon attacks or melee spell attacks) and it worked fine. We also allowed spells to be interrupted with readied actions.

Suddenly spellcasters are back to needing good positioning in combat and can no longer cast with complete impunity.

It was pretty good.

I wouldn't recommend bringing back OAs from getting up from prone since this just encourages every single melee character into a tripping character, and boy do I not miss them from 3.5.

That's really helpful, thanks.

I walked away from 4e at the very beginning because I double-moved to cross a room to get into the face of a caster with his back against a wall, and I didn't get an AoO/OA when he cast. It was a deal-breaker for me then, but the tide is against me these days in trying to resist the pull of 5e.

cutlery

2020-09-15, 05:58 PM

Thanks for these replies.

That's really helpful, thanks.

I walked away from 4e at the very beginning because I double-moved to cross a room to get into the face of a caster with his back against a wall, and I didn't get an AoO/OA when he cast. It was a deal-breaker for me then, but the tide is against me these days in trying to resist the pull of 5e.

The Mage Slayer feat may be for you.

Fitz10019

2020-09-15, 05:59 PM

... but they're mostly the same after transitioning into the Reaction resource (instead of AoO having their own).
Sorry, I've played just 12 hours of 5e, and have had only 2 combats. Could you give an example of how the Reaction resource is functionally similar to a 3.5e-AoO situation?

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-15, 06:02 PM

I walked away from 4e at the very beginning because I double-moved to cross a room to get into the face of a caster with his back against a wall, and I didn't get an AoO/OA when he cast. It was a deal-breaker for me then...

Honestly, I think the worst thing that could have happened to 4e was to be immediately after 3.5.

Most folks that I've encountered that hated it did so because it wasn't what they were expecting, rather than just accepting it as its own game. Given, that was a LOT of people. 3.5 just had been the standard for so long, 4e was treated as a competitor instead of a transition.

Part of that was just because of how friggin' different it was (5e probably sits between 4e and 3.5e, in terms of overall design and mechanics), and the devs for 4e were too ambitious and didn't really consider what the average DnD player was actually like, but it does its strengths well.

Most of its failures come from players' predefined expectations, and I feel it got a bad rap for that.

Sorry, I've played just 12 hours of 5e, and have had only 2 combats. Could you give an example of how the Reaction resource is functionally similar to a 3.5e-AoO situation?

Enemy is within your Reach. If the enemy moves out of your Reach, you may spend your Reaction to make an Opportunity Attack against him. This attack takes place just before the moment when they leave your Reach. This is a standard use of a Reaction that all creatures get by default (technically, even a ridden Mount, but that's mostly an oversight...).

A Reaction can also be spent on other things, like a Monk's Deflect Missiles feature, or a Wizard's Shield spell. You only get one Reaction per round.

Keep in mind, not all Reaction-based Attacks are Opportunity Attacks. Some are (such as how the Polearm Master feat does it), but others are not (such as the Mage Slayer feat). This is important, as some powers refer to Opportunity Attacks (Sentinel Feat, Vengeance Paladin feature), while others do not (Rogue's Sneak Attack can apply once per creature turn, allowing you to get it from off-turn, Reaction-based attacks).

OldTrees1

2020-09-15, 06:02 PM

Sorry, I've played just 12 hours of 5e, and have had only 2 combats. Could you give an example of how the Reaction resource is functionally similar to a 3.5e-AoO situation?

3E AoO (without Combat Reflexes) is limited to once until your next turn. Sort of like Immediate Actions (with without losing the Swift action).
5E AoO spends your Reaction which is also limited to once until your next turn. Basically an Immediate Action (with without losing the Swift action).

Edea

2020-09-15, 06:03 PM

OAs screw with the action economy and bog combat down when they're present in excess, so they were very careful about how it was implemented.

Also, yes, the answer to that particular concern's the Mage Slayer feat. Strongly against re-introducing anything remotely akin to 3.5's Combat Reflexes, from the perspective of 5e's design paradigms that's borked.

Fitz10019

2020-09-15, 06:06 PM

Segev

2020-09-15, 06:06 PM

Sorry, I've played just 12 hours of 5e, and have had only 2 combats. Could you give an example of how the Reaction resource is functionally similar to a 3.5e-AoO situation?

Opportunity Attacks are provoked primarily by enemies leaving your side after having engaged without taking the Disengage action. There are a few other ways to generate them. Opportunity Attacks allow you to take your Reaction to make an attack against the creature that provoked them.

Reactions are the replacement for immediate actions from 3e. You have one Reaction per round, which you may take at any time, even when it is not your turn. I believe they "refresh" at the start of your turn.

There is no Combat Reflexes equivalent to give you more OAs; since they consume your Reaction, you get a maximum of 1 per round, and can't do it if you've used your Reaction for anything else.

Mage Slayer makes casting when in melee with you provoke OAs.

Sentinel makes the Disengage action fail, so moving away from you willingly always provokes an OA, and if you hit a creature with an OA, its movement speed is reduced to 0 for the round.

heavyfuel

2020-09-15, 06:08 PM

I guess I just don't really see those situations being very common. Very seldom do I see a character casting a nonmelee, nonteleport, nondefense spell while adjacent to an enemy, or someone making a ranged attack while getting Disadvantage.

I can understand the point behind wanting those triggers back, from a sensible standpoint, but how often they'd actually be relevant just doesn't seem beneficial for the cause.

That's fair criticism, and I do agree to a certain extent. However, I do think the OA for casting is relevant. With this houserule in place, if you manage to close in on a caster, they're far more restricted in what they can cast without eating an OA to the face (an OA that might disrupt their spellcasting, which is part of the houserule).

Even if they cast something defensive or a (non bonus action) teleport, they still get to see just well polished your warhammer is from very up close.

If the spellcaster doesn't have access to something like Misty Step or Shocking Grasp, they're about to have a terrible time.

Fitz10019

2020-09-15, 06:10 PM

5e's design paradigms

It seems to me that 5e's rules are made to be easily implemented in programming, so you don't get a big difference between tabletop play's rules and any future PC/console game's rules. Not getting an AoO/OA when someone drinks a potion mid-melee caters to video gamers. I can see why that is a design goal, but I would houserule that back to the familiar (and, to me, logical).

heavyfuel

2020-09-15, 06:10 PM

The Mage Slayer feat may be for you.

Thanks for that recommendation, really.

Having just read that feat on dnd5ed.wikidot.com, I feel the first two bullets read like what should be basic rules -- not rules I would have to spend a feat to get. And feats are more dear in 5e than 3.5e!

Do not fall for one of the largest trap in 5e. Mage Slayer is terrible.

It doesn't actually stop the spell. You get in a hit for "free*" (*if you consider an investment of one your precious ASI "free") but at the end of the day the caster is still casting. The only difference is he's now also laughing at your 1d8+5 damage (assuming you hit).

Also, by Sage Advice logic, the spell goes first. So if they're casting - say - Shocking Grasp, you might not even get your OA despite having the feat.

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-15, 06:13 PM

Thanks for that recommendation, really.

Having just read that feat on dnd5ed.wikidot.com, I feel the first two bullets read like what should be basic rules -- not rules I would have to spend a feat to get. And feats are more dear in 5e than 3.5e!

We all agree. Mage Slayer is a terrible feat, and my suggestion is to allow any Reaction trigger to interrupt the intended effect.

So if you Ready an Action to interrupt the caster when he attempts to cast a spell, you're allowed to do so (as the Ready Action is generally worse than a normal Attack Action). Similarly, I'd make Mage Slayer allowed to make its Reaction Attack before the caster's able to finish the spell (maybe even forcing a Concentration check from the mage to see if he even finishes casting).

Triggers promote interactive play between players and enemies, so I feel that they should be encouraged. Someone took a risk to get that trigger-based investment, when they could have chosen something proactive and choose to use every turn, and so it makes sense to me that trigger-based powers deserve to be some of the most powerful effects in the game.

It seems to me that 5e's rules are made to be easily implemented in programming, so you don't get a big difference between tabletop play's rules and any future PC/console game's rules. Not getting an AoO/OA when someone drinks a potion mid-melee caters to video gamers. I can see why that is a design goal, but I would houserule that back to the familiar (and, to me, logical).

It's more than just that, though. Not necessarily a video game design choice, but a game design choice.

Fact is, being punished for healing yourself when you need it most is a Positive Feedback Loop: The more you win, the more you win, and the reverse is also true. Drinking a healing pot, and then getting hit for it, is a Positive Feedback Loop against the player, a design choice for the system to punish you for being a loser. That could be a good thing, in some games. This is how most strategy games work, and it's good for proving who's undeniably better, as it exacerbates your gains and failures.

But on the other hand, a Negative Feedback Loop is when things get harder the better you're doing. This favors the underdog, promotes chaos, and makes the unexpected happen. Sure, this could be like Mario Kart, but a more relatable example is how Orcs, Zealot Barbarians, and Samurai Fighters can keep fighting after hitting 0 HP.

It's a change in priorities. It's not fun to be attacked when you try to heal when you need healing, despite how realistic it may be. It could be fun to play that gritty, Warhammer 40k, meat-grinder ideal, but that's not what 5e was going for.

Fact is, real-life is a series of Positive Feedback Loops, and people have started realizing over the years that real-life isn't very fun and it doesn't make a good standard for developing games.

Segev

2020-09-15, 06:13 PM

Do not fall for one of the largest trap in 5e. Mage Slayer is terrible.

It doesn't actually stop the spell. You get in a hit for "free*" (*if you consider an investment of one your precious ASI "free") but at the end of the day the caster is still casting. The only difference is he's now also laughing at your 1d8+5 damage (assuming you hit).

I thought it triggered a Concentration check, still, in 5e to take damage while casting.

heavyfuel

2020-09-15, 06:14 PM

I thought it triggered a Concentration check, still, in 5e to take damage while casting.

I do not think this is a rule. It's definitely a rule in my games, but I don't think it's RAW (would love to be proven wrong, though)

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-15, 06:27 PM

I thought it triggered a Concentration check, still, in 5e to take damage while casting.

It does not, unless the spell already required Concentration. Otherwise, the spell is cast as normal, and THEN the Mage Slayer gets their Reaction attack.

Even if it did attack before the spell was cast, there's nothing saying that taking damage mid-cast actually provokes a Concentration Check. The only thing that'd imply otherwise are the rules on Readying a spell, but that's only because it explicitly requires your Concentration to Ready a spell in the first place.

If I'm casting Fireball, and you hit me before I finish casting as part of a houserule for Mage Slayer, I don't make a Concentration Check as I'm not actually Concentrating on anything. You get to try to hit me, but I still get to cast Fireball as normal.

The solution basically requires two separate house rules: One that says that Mage Slayer can trigger before the spell finishes casting, and another that says that any spell can be interrupted with a Concentration Check if the caster takes damage before it's finished.

OldTrees1

2020-09-15, 06:31 PM

I thought it triggered a Concentration check, still, in 5e to take damage while casting.

1) If it was a readied spell, then you can disrupt their concentration before they cast. Because readied spells take concentration.
2) If it is a concentration spell, then you can disrupt their concentration after they cast.
3) I believe Mage Slayer (5E Designers consider this optional variant atypical content) lets you attack before they cast, but maybe it means after they cast. I don't think it is during the cast like 3E was. English is the wrong language for this. No rules confirm or deny a concentration save here.

It is a reasonable ruling.

Edit: Edited based on Man_Over_Game's correction

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-15, 06:37 PM

1)
3) I believe Mage Slayer (5E Designers consider this optional variant atypical content) lets you attack before they cast, but maybe it means after they cast.

On Reaction Triggers, Xanathar's Guide to Everything covers this on Page 5:
"If you’re unsure when a reaction occurs in relation to its trigger, here’s the rule: the reaction happens after its trigger completes, unless the description of the reaction explicitly says otherwise."

This is why the Shield spell is very straightforward, despite the fact that it takes effect AFTER you are hit (which it then can rewind time to nullify, it's weird).

The reason Mage Slayer is such a point of contention is because it doesn't make any sense to have you attack after the triggering spell has been cast, yet that's the correct interpretation from pretty much all sources. Either they forgot to make an exception for it, or they thought Mage Slayer didn't need it. Supposedly, the team that worked on feats were separate from the ones that worked on classes and such, which is why some of them just don't make much sense (like Weapon Master).

Considering how long it took them to just add the Dodge Action for Beastmaster Ranger pets after years of complaining about it, the devs are not very big on admitting mistakes.

Composer99

2020-09-15, 06:54 PM

Even with the 1/round OA per character, the folks in melee in my games end up looking like the Western Front in WWI (nobody moving, just slugging it out); courtesy of loss aversion, folks just aren't interested in giving the enemy free reaction attacks unless there's something they desperately need to be doing somewhere else (which usually means my wife's paladin/celestial warlock running over to cast cure wounds on someone making death saves).

I don't miss older edition AoOs.

I do think mage slayer should interrupt spellcasting, though.

Fitz10019

2020-09-15, 07:09 PM

So is the Spellcasting AoO the only one to bring back to 5e? What about loading a crossbow??

Maybe this list can guide a discussion.

Actions in Combat
Attack of Opportunity 3.5e
House-ruled OA 5e

Attack (unarmed)
Yes
?

Attack (ranged)
Yes
?

Bull rush
Yes
?

Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time)
Yes
Yes

Drink a potion or apply an oil
Yes
?

Read a scroll
Yes
Yes

Standing up from prone
Yes
No

Sunder a weapon (attack)
Yes
?

Use spell-like ability
Yes
Yes

Recommend Mage Slayer
-
Yes

Aid someone in an action that provokes
Yes
Yes

Skill checks
Mostly/depends
Mostly/depends

Load a crossbow or sling
Yes
?

Segev

2020-09-15, 07:24 PM

The big reason all those triggers are gone is for simplicity. The goal was to make acting in combat less of a gotcha game.

Edea

2020-09-15, 07:44 PM

The big reason all those triggers are gone is for simplicity. The goal was to make acting in combat less of a gotcha game.

Though if the recent trend with material like Ravnica is any indication, it may swiftly become a gacha game, instead...

heavyfuel

2020-09-15, 07:56 PM

Actions in Combat
Attack of Opportunity 3.5e
House-ruled OA 5e

Recommend Mage Slayer
-
Yes

Sorry, cutlery. (House)rules are rules. *readies d20*

PhoenixPhyre

2020-09-15, 08:07 PM

The big reason all those triggers are gone is for simplicity. The goal was to make acting in combat less of a gotcha game.

And just reduce the time needed to resolve stuff.

Triggered actions are a huge slow-down in gameplay. After (and often before) every action (whether Action or not), you have to check "can someone react to that". The current design makes it very simple--there are only a few global reaction triggers, and a few specific ones. And let me tell you, counterspell and shield (the other big reaction triggers IMX) already slow things down tremendously when I know someone (NPC or PC has them). You have to check and wait after every possible trigger.

And when triggers can fire off of triggers, welcome to database purgatory.

OldTrees1

2020-09-15, 09:53 PM

The reason Mage Slayer is such a point of contention is because it doesn't make any sense to have you attack after the triggering spell has been cast, yet that's the correct interpretation from pretty much all sources. Either they forgot to make an exception for it, or they thought Mage Slayer didn't need it. Supposedly, the team that worked on feats were separate from the ones that worked on classes and such, which is why some of them just don't make much sense (like Weapon Master).

Thanks for the clarification!

Mage Slayer hitting after the cast means it can disrupt concentration spells. Neat. Or it was a mistake.

Unoriginal

2020-09-16, 05:51 AM

It seems to me that 5e's rules are made to be easily implemented in programming, so you don't get a big difference between tabletop play's rules and any future PC/console game's rules.

Quite untrue. 5e's rules are made to be ruled and modified at will by a DM so that their table's experience is tailored for said table's maximum enjoyment. And the programming of the Baldur's Gate video game was not easy for this very reason.

4e was the one thought out in prevision of a video game (among other things), and after the reception it got and how the video game deal didn't work out, WotC was not going to re-do the same thing for the next edition.

JackPhoenix

2020-09-16, 08:14 AM

Tanarii

2020-09-16, 08:28 AM

I'm new to 5e, although I've played and DM'd 3.5e for years. I admire the simplicity of Advantage/Disadvantage, and not chasing stackable bonuses. One thing I perhaps hold a grudge against is the lack of 3.5e's AoOs.Play the game extensively before you start house ruling it. Trust me. It's a huge mistake to try and house rule back to an older edition based on immediate impressions. Been there done that, you don't want to go down that path. Because you haven't understood the underlying point for the changes yet to really know if you'll like them.

5e has significant subtle differences from 3e that are intentionally integrated elements of old school (pre 3e) and newer school (4e). They're there for a reason. Once you figure out what the reason is, then decide if you like that reason or not.

Segev

2020-09-16, 09:30 AM

To reiterate a point made a post or two ago, in 3e, AoOs were triggered by a lot of things, but feats were available to allow characters to perform the triggering actions but not provoke AoOs. In 5e, very few things trigger OAs, but there exist feats to enable a character to get an OA for additional triggers. This greatly reduces the list of triggers one must watch out for, and makes it so that you aren't looking for a trigger only to find that it doesn't apply after all.

LordNibbler

2020-09-16, 09:42 AM

I disagree about the usefulness of Mage Slayer. It’s not the OA that is most beneficial but giving the caster disadvantage on concentration checks. Multiple party members banished? Your 11th level sword & board Paladin hits for 2d8 + 4 (+magic sword bonus + divine smite damage). Make that save with disadvantage! That’s a party saver. You just have to have the feat on the right character.

Specter

2020-09-16, 09:47 AM

There are less opportunity attacks, but the feel of battle is not very different.
- Casting: only gives op. attacks if opponents have Mage Slayer, but if you use a ranged spell, you still incur the normal disadvantage of ranged attacks in melee. And unless you are a melee hybrid caster, like Cleric, you definitely don't want to be close to opponents anyway, so you'd better run or Dodge or whatever.
- Ranged: same as above.

Fitz10019

2020-09-16, 09:48 AM

Play the game extensively before you start house ruling it. Trust me. It's a huge mistake to try and house rule back to an older edition based on immediate impressions. Been there done that, you don't want to go down that path. Because you haven't understood the underlying point for the changes yet to really know if you'll like them.

5e has significant subtle differences from 3e that are intentionally integrated elements of old school (pre 3e) and newer school (4e). They're there for a reason. Once you figure out what the reason is, then decide if you like that reason or not.

Well-stated, and that's certainly a valid point.

My trouble is, these three lack-of-OAs get my goat: Spellcasting/scroll-reading, crossbow/sling loading, potion drinking/oil applying.

I know, I know, cue the Frozen theme.

Segev

2020-09-16, 10:28 AM

Well-stated, and that's certainly a valid point.

My trouble is, these three lack-of-OAs get my goat: Spellcasting/scroll-reading, crossbow/sling loading, potion drinking/oil applying.

I know, I know, cue the Frozen theme.

If it's just personal aesthetics, I'm afraid that, yes, my advice is to cue the Frozen theme. If you have something you want to do as a player that these not provoking OAs prevents, we might be able to find ways to achieve something similar for you, if you can name what it is you hope to achieve that these not provoking OAs prevents.

heavyfuel

2020-09-16, 10:45 AM

Play the game extensively before you start house ruling it. Trust me. It's a huge mistake to try and house rule back to an older edition based on immediate impressions. Been there done that, you don't want to go down that path. Because you haven't understood the underlying point for the changes yet to really know if you'll like them.

5e has significant subtle differences from 3e that are intentionally integrated elements of old school (pre 3e) and newer school (4e). They're there for a reason. Once you figure out what the reason is, then decide if you like that reason or not.

Despite my advice of house ruling back OAs for spells, I agree with this.

We did houserule it in only after over a year playing the game. Once we knew it wasn't a kneejerk reaction and that we really didn't like casters casting with complete impunity did we houserule it in.

Personally, from OP's list of actions that provoked back in 3e, the only one we felt needed the houserule was the Casting a Spell action (and others like it, such as using a scroll)

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-16, 10:46 AM

Well-stated, and that's certainly a valid point.

My trouble is, these three lack-of-OAs get my goat: Spellcasting/scroll-reading, crossbow/sling loading, potion drinking/oil applying.

I know, I know, cue the Frozen theme.

Lemme ask you this: What part of the game does that improve?

Yes, it's more realistic to have those OA triggers, but realism is a 3.5e priority, not a 5e priority. 5e prioritizes the game, the fun, and player intent. So what part of the game gets improved by penalizing creatures from doing player-specific resource usage?

That could be realism, but that means that the game is played for that realism, rather than the gamist mechanics itself.

That could be the difficulty, but not everyone shares the philosophy that Challenge = Fun, or even have the same ideals as to what is considered a "Challenge".

3.5 did things because it made sense in the world, not necessarily because it was actually enjoyable to do. Which is why I ask, how do those things improve the game for your players?

Segev

2020-09-16, 10:57 AM

Lemme ask you this: What part of the game does that improve?

Yes, it's more realistic to have those OA triggers, but realism is a 3.5e priority, not a 5e priority. 5e prioritizes the game, the fun, and player intent. So what part of the game gets improved by penalizing creatures from doing player-specific resource usage?

I'm not even sure it really is "realistic." What, precisely, is more realistic about provoking OAs from casting a spell than from swinging a sword? It's all in what you decide is "distracting" vs. "something you can do while being mindful of your surroundings." If it makes you feel better, maybe casting a spell surrounds you in an aura of power that makes pebbles rise from the ground and creates pressure that pushes attacks away or something. :P

KorvinStarmast

2020-09-16, 11:11 AM

Has anyone experimented with putting 3.5e's AoOs back into 5e? If so, has that hurt or helped your 5e game? Try to treat 5e as a new game and just take it like it is. That's what I did. Let go of previous edition assumptions.

Sorry, I've played just 12 hours of 5e, and have had only 2 combats. Could you give an example of how the Reaction resource is functionally similar to a 3.5e-AoO situation?
See above. My recommendation, again, is that you not try to shoe horn 3.5 into 5. My brother does this with some frequency as a DM: it can get annoying when everyone else is playing this edition as is.

For @Heavyfuel: glad to see that your table likes that mod.

I had a player make the same complaint that the OP did about six months ago. She's been playing 5e since it came out in 2014, to include a rogue/warlock multiclas. Not like she doesn't know how it works. Then, out of the blue, she got a bit annoyed that she did not get, as a Monk, an opportunity attack on an enemy caster who had just cast a spell.

It caught me by surprise and then I just said: "Wrong edition" and played on.

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-16, 11:14 AM

I'm not even sure it really is "realistic." What, precisely, is more realistic about provoking OAs from casting a spell than from swinging a sword? It's all in what you decide is "distracting" vs. "something you can do while being mindful of your surroundings." If it makes you feel better, maybe casting a spell surrounds you in an aura of power that makes pebbles rise from the ground and creates pressure that pushes attacks away or something. :P

There are some aspects of the game that imply that spells are easier to interrupt from realism, considering:
Readied spells can be interrupted from damage, while other Readied actions can not.
Spells require up to 3 separate components to cast, and may be impossible to cast without them being available.
Some spells require a weapon attack, but no weapon attacks require a spell.

That being said..is it necessary? Should you punish someone for spending a spell slot to cast Thunderwave (that got saved), or would you have rather had them take the boring solution of taking the Disengage Action?

Try to treat 5e as a new game and just take it like it is. That's what I did. Let go of previous edition assumptions.

Agreed. Not meant as criticism on OP, but those expectations are what killed your attempt at 4e, right? Why go through that again?

Fitz10019

2020-09-16, 02:05 PM

... those expectations are what killed your attempt at 4e, right? Why go through that again?

Uh... I enjoyed not playing 4e. That got me 10 more years of 3.5e.

I guess I feel it's a balance/trade-off issue. The meleers affect one combatant per attack, and it must be someone only 5 feet away, maybe 10. The rangeders can hit one combatant per attack, but from far away. The casters can affect multiple combatants with one spell, often from far away. Those two non-meleers rightly should get a fist in the face or worse if they try their shtick up close.

Also, is no one else bothered by the image of a barbarian patiently waiting when someone reloads their crossbow? Really, I'm alone on this? Their Danger Sense doesn't tingle while the guy who shot them last round is now reloading?

My inexperience with 5e is a valid criticism of my stance. I haven't had a combat against a group that includes a caster, so I guess I'm still imagining 3.5e's magic system when I read the 5e combat rules and don't see 'enough' OA-triggers. I'll curl up with the Spells chapter later to try to acclimatize to 5e's different combat dynamic.

I appreciate that everyone has been entertaining my arguments so patiently.

Unoriginal

2020-09-16, 02:21 PM

I'm not even sure it really is "realistic." What, precisely, is more realistic about provoking OAs from casting a spell than from swinging a sword? It's all in what you decide is "distracting" vs. "something you can do while being mindful of your surroundings." If it makes you feel better, maybe casting a spell surrounds you in an aura of power that makes pebbles rise from the ground and creates pressure that pushes attacks away or something. :P

I'm fairly certain that getting hit by a sword because you're casting a spell isn't realistic, at least.

Also, is no one else bothered by the image of a barbarian patiently waiting when someone reloads their crossbow? Really, I'm alone on this? Their Danger Sense doesn't tingle while the guy who shot them last round is now reloading?

They're not "patiently waiting". They just can't move fast enough to interrupt the reloading, which is very fast in D&D world.

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-16, 02:27 PM

I guess I feel it's a balance/trade-off issue. The meleers affect one combatant per attack, and it must be someone only 5 feet away, maybe 10. The rangeders can hit one combatant per attack, but from far away. The casters can affect multiple combatants with one spell, often from far away. Those two non-meleers rightly should get a fist in the face or worse if they try their shtick up close.

Also, is no one else bothered by the image of a barbarian patiently waiting when someone reloads their crossbow? Really, I'm alone on this? Their Danger Sense doesn't tingle while the guy who shot them last round is now reloading?

My inexperience with 5e is a valid criticism of my stance. I haven't had a combat against a group that includes a caster, so I guess I'm still imagining 3.5e's magic system when I read the 5e combat rules and don't see 'enough' OA-triggers. I'll curl up with the Spells chapter later to try to acclimatize to 5e's different combat dynamic.

I appreciate that everyone has been entertaining my arguments so patiently.

Those are fair concerns, and there are many who agree with you, but it's important to note that there are two ways of implementing the Reloading-a-Crossbow concern:

The DM decides to do that on the fly, against the players expectations ("Wait, if I knew that could have happened, I'ma do something else!").
The Players are prepared for all of the potential Opportunity Attack triggers. Which means a memorized list of niche triggers, some of which you may see once per campaign.

Memorizing irrelevant information was a big change in the transition to 5e, as people are bogged down a lot less by a bunch of highly circumstantial rules. But, on the other hand, that means it's important for the DM to step in and create changes as-needed (which works well enough with how simple 5e is).

The problem comes in when the DM wants to create a change to the system that isn't highly circumstantial. Combining Featherfall with a falling strike doesn't need a whole suite of consistent rules behind it, but it does if it can happen in almost every session.

Additionally, there is a level of drama and impact behind these changes. You want your Wizard to cast Thunderwave as a means of gaining distance, because running away with the Disengage Action is so much more boring. Adding on more cost/risk to using Thunderwave means you're encouraging other solutions.

Similarly, if someone wants to reload a crossbow while adjacent to an enemy, while suffering Disadvantage from the following attack (which is what happens when you make a ranged attack while an enemy is adjacent to you), shouldn't there probably be a damn good reason for it?

Yes, it makes sense. That's not the question. The question is, does it make your players' game better?

As a side note, there are some mechanical consequences to houseruling stuff like this that take some system mastery, like how the Crossbow Expert feat removes the Disadvantage penalty when making ranged attacks with an adjacent enemy, which may not translate well with a "reloading provokes OA" houserule.

Willie the Duck

2020-09-16, 02:54 PM

Uh... I enjoyed not playing 4e. That got me 10 more years of 3.5e.
And a lot of people have been in the same boat.
I know you acknowledged that 5e is a different game, but let's do this one more time for feeling -- 5e is not 3.5e. Not only is it not 3.5e, it is just as much not 3.5e as it is not 4e or AD&D or BECMI. I know that with the feats and 3E-esque multiclassing system and even using terms like Opportunity Attacks (which is a stone's throw from Attacks of Opportunity) it seems like it is kinda sorta a spiritual successor to 3e specifically. It really isn't (or at least, certainly not in regards to the basic combat engine and the things about which we are talking). If you want to judge the game, and how it works, please try to judge how rule X, Y, or Z works with regard to this game, not 3.5e. You may come to the same conclusion, but probably not for the same reason.

I guess I feel it's a balance/trade-off issue. The meleers affect one combatant per attack, and it must be someone only 5 feet away, maybe 10. The rangeders can hit one combatant per attack, but from far away. The casters can affect multiple combatants with one spell, often from far away. Those two non-meleers rightly should get a fist in the face or worse if they try their shtick up close.
This makes it sound like you are worried that someone is getting away with something. Ranged attackers don't get a gut punch every time they try to shoot someone right next to them, but they do get a significant negative effect they pretty much have to think their way out of* if they are going to compete at combat if the enemy is right on top of them. Do note, that in comparison to 3e, there is no such thing** as 'make a DC 15 tumble check and get to traipse out of range and then shoot with no issue.' Nor do the melee characters get penalized (by getting no more than one attack) for the more-than-5'-step they take to get to the archers.
*It is true that there is a feat that eliminates this issue, and 'there's a feat which makes this limitation go away' is a concern in this edition, but that is a separate concern that can be thought about as its own thing.

**Although level two rogues do get a similar effect. That, however, takes up their precious bonus action resource, so it is a trade-off.

All in all, archery does seem to be a little over-tuned in this edition, but not specifically because they exchanged getting an AoO for shooting while in melee for getting disadvantage on attacks for shooting while in melee.

Also, is no one else bothered by the image of a barbarian patiently waiting when someone reloads their crossbow? Really, I'm alone on this? Their Danger Sense doesn't tingle while the guy who shot them last round is now reloading?

Who says they are waiting around patiently? Barbarian sees guy with crossbow loading it up and go smacks them with their ax. He just doesn't get this specific extra freebie attack outside of their normal attack routine (instead, a different specific penalty situation occurs).

Beyond that, D&D's only-sometimes-abstracted combat leaves all sorts of room for people to find issues with verisimilitude. This is a game where unarmed monks fight side by side with swashbucklers with rapiers, barbarians with great axes, and people using longspears outside of formation fighting (oh, and wizards). There are going to be issues. Why is this one the step too far, other than in this other specific game this specific action got this other specific penalty.

My inexperience with 5e is a valid criticism of my stance. I haven't had a combat against a group that includes a caster, so I guess I'm still imagining 3.5e's magic system when I read the 5e combat rules and don't see 'enough' OA-triggers. I'll curl up with the Spells chapter later to try to acclimatize to 5e's different combat dynamic.
It will be interesting. When you do, remember that things like the save math, no such things as touch attacks, and whether you get successive saves each round and such will effect those too. Nothing happens in isolation.

I appreciate that everyone has been entertaining my arguments so patiently.
Not a problem. We all went through the same experience.

Skylivedk

2020-09-16, 02:58 PM

I find it interesting that you haven't addressed what I find to be the biggest issue with OAs in 5e: the classic tanks have some of the worst OAs in the game. Since their damage scales with Extra Attack rather than with Sneak Attack or Cantrip scaling, the Fighter's attack (and to a lesser extent Paladin, Barbarian and Ranger) end up with relatively puny OAs.

Our house rule: if you use your reaction for OA, you can make as many OAs as you have attacks.

We also let Mage Slayer interrupt spells being cast.

Similarly, if someone wants to reload a crossbow while adjacent to an enemy, while suffering Disadvantage from the following attack (which is what happens when you make a ranged attack while an enemy is adjacent to you), shouldn't there probably be a damn good reason for it?

Yes, it makes sense. That's not the question. The question is, does it make your players' game better?

As a side note, there are some mechanical consequences to houseruling stuff like this that take some system mastery, like how the Crossbow Expert feat removes the Disadvantage penalty when making ranged attacks with an adjacent enemy, which may not translate well with a "reloading provokes OA" houserule.
With the complaints about both ranged combat and crossbow expert being too strong, I honestly don't see an issue with either nerf. You can still hit in melee with Crossbow Expert after the change, it's just still dangerous to do so.

Fitz10019

2020-09-16, 06:46 PM

(instead, a different specific penalty situation occurs)
... but there isn't. The penalty I think you're referring to is for doing a ranged attack while in a melee situation. The reloading is totally without penalty or disadvantage (note, small d).

I've looked at the Spells list, and I found Magic Missile, Burning Hands, Thunderwave, Fireball, Lightning Bolt (just in the first 3 spell levels of Wizards)... exactly the damage-many-from-a-distance type I was referring to. I don't want the edition to strip iconic things like Fireball, but the AoO on casters is also iconic, at least to me.

Well, as many have already said, I'll just have to immerse myself in the game, with the rules as-is, and get my bearings.

Maybe I should base a character on Inigo Montoya.
Scene 28: 'we'll wait until you're ready'

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-16, 07:05 PM

... but there isn't. The penalty I think you're referring to is for doing a ranged attack while in a melee situation. The reloading is totally without penalty or disadvantage (note, small d).

I've looked at the Spells list, and I found Magic Missile, Burning Hands, Thunderwave, Fireball, Lightning Bolt (just in the first 3 spell levels of Wizards)... exactly the damage-many-from-a-distance type I was referring to. I don't want the edition to strip iconic things like Fireball, but the AoO on casters is also iconic, at least to me.

Well, as many have already said, I'll just have to immerse myself in the game, with the rules as-is, and get my bearings.

I'm a little confused by what you mean when you say "reloading is totally without penalty".

You reload to make a ranged attack. The ranged attack already has a penalty.

If anything, the reload is a penalty to the Ranged Attack, as reloading a Crossbow both limits you to one attack per turn (so crossbows are worthless on Martials that are level 5 or higher without spending a feat tax), requires ammunition, and it requires a free hand (which means your AC is probably lower than most folks who would are adjacent to an enemy).

I do feel like several of the spells you listed are some that I'd actually like to see more use of in melee range. As-is, since the Disengage Action lets you move your entire speed in a turn, Concentration spells are so powerful, and Misty Step is a common level 2 spell, the winning solution to most casters is to run away. And considering most enemies in 5e will likely attack at the first thing in front of them, it usually works rather well. Unless you're talking about a party with less than 4 players, you're not going to have an enemy adjacent to a Wizard all that often. And even when there is, it'll be a lot more thematic and interesting to see them cast a 10ft "range" Thunderwave to knock them back than it is to see them run with their tail between their legs.

And that's before considering things like Shocking Grasp and Booming Blade as cantrips which scale without much investment. Ranged attack spells are already subject to the Disadvantage penalty, as that penalty is not limited to Weapon Attacks, it just so happens that straight Attack spells (like Shocking Grasp) are fairly rare.

Most of the time, you're going to see your casters either conjure area effects (Moonbeam, Flaming Sphere, Wall of Fire), stunning debuffs (Hold Person, Hypnotic Pattern), Instant + ranged explosion spells (Fireball, Lightning Bolt), or spells used to not die (Misty Step, Shield).

What you don't see people do is cast anything offensive/proactive in melee range, unless their character was already designed to do so (usually Booming Blade Gish builds).

And, from a game-design standpoint, you nerf or buff things based on what you want to see less or more of, usually to increase diversity. In this case, you're suggesting the opposite.

Personally, I'd like to reward my casters for taking some risks. Any pansy can buff and spam spells from the back, but it takes guts to duke it out on the front lines. I like to reward my players for hard work and taking risks, so your suggestion doesn't quite resonate with me.

But I get where it could make sense.

Maybe I should base a character on Inigo Montoya.

There's been a lot of threads on something like that here. My personal favorite is a Dexterity-based Battlemaster with the Defensive Duelist feat, and maybe 2 levels into Rogue. Impossible to pin down, uses anything he can to win, scrappy, cunning and agile.

KorvinStarmast

2020-09-16, 08:11 PM

My inexperience with 5e is a valid criticism of my stance.
Join the club, it took our group months, and multiple sessions, to grok 5e. We came from various levels of mastery of different editions and Pathfinder.

Heck, not until session 5 did I start trying to work the short rest deal so that I'd not always run out of healing spells so darned fast. (I was a life cleric ...) and I was incensed that I could not attempt to turn undead at will as I could in Original D&d ... anyhoo, once I just dropped all of my preconceptions, I really began to enjoy it a lot more.

Tanarii

2020-09-16, 09:27 PM

Well-stated, and that's certainly a valid point.

My trouble is, these three lack-of-OAs get my goat: Spellcasting/scroll-reading, crossbow/sling loading, potion drinking/oil applying.

I know, I know, cue the Frozen theme.
Spells not being declared at the beginning of the round, then being automatically interrupted by an attack in the mean time gets my goat.

Ranged attacks not targeting a random target when fired into a melee gets my goat.

Or for a more modern one, martial classes going back to "I attack" instead of having a couple of at-wills with rider, plus some encounter are daily abilities, gets my goat.

I used the base rules for years anyway. Including without the optional multiclassing and feats rules. The reasons for a lot of ways things are became clear to me over time. Even making martials less awesome (at first glance) than the previous edition.

And now I'm seriously considering switching to O5R's Into the Unknown instead, because it looks like it gives me a bunch of what I really want from 5e with what I'd like to bring back from old school. And see if I'm right, or just being a grognard. I just need to persuade some folks to start up again with those rules when sitting down in person becomes possible again ... :smallwink:

Willie the Duck

2020-09-17, 08:41 AM

... but there isn't. The penalty I think you're referring to is for doing a ranged attack while in a melee situation. The reloading is totally without penalty or disadvantage (note, small d).

The penalty they receive is that a barbarian just advanced on them (a shieldless, and thus lower AC, combatant) and whacked them with a big honking ax, and they are going to be able to respond with a lower-damage counter-attack with a large D Disadvantage. This is a form of realism, and a very real penalty to the archer for (proverbially) bringing a gun to a knife fight.

I'm not even convinced that 3e makes it worse for the archer. Let's say a barbarian (or fighter, someone who melees a lot) gets hit by an arrow/bolt, and notices that it was shot by a guy 10 feet away, who instead of running, starts reloading. In 3e, the fighter charges (if possible, otherwise takes a move action and then attacks, regardless only doing one attack), and then also gets a AoO when the archer fires again (and the archer gets a -4 to hit for attacking into melee, but with how to-hit vs AC line up in 3e, this may not be a big deal). In 5e, the barbarian/fighter gets all of their attacks on their turn (which could theoretically drop the archer before they get a chance to counterattack), and then the archer shoots with disadvantage (which, because of bounded accuracy, is going to be a serious degradation of the likelihood that they will hit).

You are not wrong. The very specific question of whether a melee-ist gets a reprisal-response out-of-initiative extra-attack to the specific instance of 'archer reloading' is answered in the negative. No argument. Whether that is a big deal is a personal question. I posit that 5e has at least as great a negative outcome for that archer, and in a way that is... at least at the same parity-level of realism (each has their own issues, as any abstract system does).

Spells not being declared at the beginning of the round, then being automatically interrupted by an attack in the mean time gets my goat.

Ranged attacks not targeting a random target when fired into a melee gets my goat.

Or for a more modern one, martial classes going back to "I attack" instead of having a couple of at-wills with rider, plus some encounter are daily abilities, gets my goat.
Having to buy separate higher-draw bows to apply attribute damage (which is Strength based) is one of which I notice the absence (also a realism point). Weapon versus armor type... don't really miss but is a good example.

And now I'm seriously considering switching to O5R's Into the Unknown instead, because it looks like it gives me a bunch of what I really want from 5e with what I'd like to bring back from old school. And see if I'm right, or just being a grognard. I just need to persuade some folks to start up again with those rules when sitting down in person becomes possible again ... :smallwink:
My group has been using ItU since it came out, and find it works very well for old school feel. I feel that they could have been bolder with diverging from 5e (making it 'an alternate game using the same basic engine' rather than a nearly-fully-compatible alternate), but overall it is rock solid (for the intended purpose).

JackPhoenix

2020-09-17, 08:53 AM

Also, is no one else bothered by the image of a barbarian patiently waiting when someone reloads their crossbow? Really, I'm alone on this? Their Danger Sense doesn't tingle while the guy who shot them last round is now reloading?

What reloading? You can shoot a crossbow only once per turn, but there's no action to reload it anymore. And if you take Crossbow Expert (which anyone who uses a crossbow will), not only are you skilled enough you don't suffer the disadvantage for shooting when someone is next to you, but you can reload and shoot just as fast (or even faster, with hand crossbow) than the barbarian can swing his axe.

Besides how often did those opportunity attack you're mentioning actually got off, between defensive casting, tumble checks, feats that remove AoO provocations from various actions, and most importantly, 5' step? From my experience, not very often: unless you had 10' or more reach, or was very lucky with terrain, everyone just took a step back before doing anything that would provoke.