Variant: No Attacks of Opportunity

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey,

Has anyone on here ever run a 5e game without attacks of opportunity? I sometimes feel like AoO are a bit too much, either for fleeing players or fleeing villains.

[OldTrees1]

Huh? How are AoOs a bit too much?

Unless they have Sentinel, Warcaster, Stunning Strike, or Sneak Attack, the AoE is just a single attack for small damage. That seems a reasonable disincentive for retreat while allowing retreat to be feasible. Even in those cases the Disengage action exists. It just means the retreating character does not get to Dash.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note: AoO is not the 5e term, that's Opportunity Attack (OA).

And get rid of one of the few ways non-magic can prevent/punish people from breaking through the front line/"tank"? No.

[LudicSavant]

Hey,

Has anyone on here ever run a 5e game without attacks of opportunity? I sometimes feel like AoO are a bit too much, either for fleeing players or fleeing villains.

OAs are an important tool for many tank builds to work.

Your PCs and villains can flee, they just need to use something a bit better than "I walk away." For example "I teleport away" or "I disengage with Telekinetic" or "I disengage with Cunning Action" or "I use Repelling Blast then run away" and etc.

[Sparky McDibben]

Huh? How are AoOs a bit too much?

Unless they have Sentinel, Warcaster, Stunning Strike, or Sneak Attack, the AoE is just a single attack for small damage. That seems a reasonable disincentive for retreat while allowing retreat to be feasible. Even in those cases the Disengage action exists. It just means the retreating character does not get to Dash.

Yeah, but you literally quoted like four character abilities that disincentivize withdrawal. And that doesn't even bring in some of the spell combos that synergize with it, such as dissonant whispers. Even with the Disengage action, it makes it really hard for a villain who doesn't have special movement abilities to get fully out of combat with the party, unless you've got a bunch of funny doglegs in your dungeons. Ditto for hard-pressed PCs.


....get rid of one of the few ways non-magic can prevent/punish people from breaking through the front line/"tank"? No.

See? This is what I was thinking about. There are folks who build their whole damn character around this one weird interaction. What happens when you strip it out? Well, movement is way easier. That prioritizes any magic or abilities that restrict movement. Caltrops suddenly become way more valuable. Ditto for oil and the grease and entangle spells. It's way easier for villains to get the hell out of combat without needing spell slots, magic items, or special abilities. They just pull a Count Rugen and run away. There's a ton of knock-on effects from this (easier to draw folks into traps, lower character mortality since you can just haul buttocks out of there, etc.) but I don't want to delve into those just now.

I'm just interested in what effect does it have on the game, and on player options, if we strip this one rule out?

[False God]

I'm just interested in what effect does it have on the game, and on player options, if we strip this one rule out?

They just told you. And you even answered your own question. It places additional emphasis on magic use, it reduces the role of melee defenders, and it puts the burden on the party to "prevent escape". That's basically it. It eliminates several melee builds from the game, requires casters to prepare spells they may not use, and generally lets the baddies off the hook from having to do any of the heavy lifting when running away.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They just told you. And you even answered your own question. It places additional emphasis on magic use, it reduces the role of melee defenders, and it puts the burden on the party to "prevent escape". That's basically it. It eliminates several melee builds from the game, requires casters to prepare spells they may not use, and generally lets the baddies off the hook from having to do any of the heavy lifting when running away.

Or walking up and ganking the squishies. On either side

[Greywander]

I can't possibly see how OAs are too much when you can Disengage as an action. If you're running away, then it's not like you're going to be doing anything else, except possibly Dashing. Disengaging is the cost of getting out of melee. If you must Dash or do some other action, then the OA is the price you pay for that. The game is designed around this interaction, and taking it away is going to unbalance it.

Let's be honest here, you post this thread with a facade of concern for both players and NPCs, and yet the abilities that have been brought up that make OAs much stronger, namely Sentinel, Warcaster, Stunning Strike, and Sneak Attack, are all player-only abilities (with a few specific NPC exceptions). If it's a problem, then you, as a DM, can choose not to give your NPCs those abilities. I don't want to jump to a conclusion, but I strongly suspect that this thread is actually about nerfing players, not about saving them from OAs. If I'm right, then the thing to consider is that the player specifically built their character to be good at OAs, and they did that because they find it fun to play that way. Don't fight against your players, fight with them. Facilitate their fun. And maybe, turn their tricks against them from time to time.

Also, OAs just make the game a lot more tactically interesting. Things like forced movement effects that can push an enemy (or ally) out of reach so that you or an ally can run away without needing to Disengage become a lot more useful. Having e.g. the Repelling Blast warlock in the back covering your retreat by pushing enemies away from you is a lot more tactically interesting than just running away because nothing is stopping you.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, but you literally quoted like four character abilities that disincentivize withdrawal.
Huh? Yes the sky is blue. I don't see the relevance. Many characters have none of those 4 abilities. When none of those 4 abilities is present, aka the majority of the time, then your Villain can just take the opportunity attack. It is just a tiny bit of damage. If that is really the concern, then have them retreat 1 turn sooner.

On the other hand if one of those 4 abilities is present, then you are asking "what if we nerf a Player's character to make it so they are not as good at preventing escapes?". I think a more reasonable approach is to use the Disengage action, or risk the AoO. It is perfectly okay for a PC to be good at something.

If a player has a Monk PC, then it is reasonable for it to be harder for a Villain to escape from the highly mobile monk that can stun enemies.
If a player has a Rogue PC, then it is reasonable for it to be dangerous for a Villian to escape from the highly mobile and vulnerability exploiting rogue.
If a player has a PC that took the Sentinel feat, then they are obviously specializing in pinning enemies in place.
If a player has a PC that took the Warcaster feat and the Booming blade cantrip, then they are obviously specializing in pinning enemies in place.
And that is okay.

[Kane0]

OAs are an important tool for many tank builds to work.

Your PCs and villains can flee, they just need to use something a bit better than "I walk away." For example "I teleport away" or "I disengage with Telekinetic" or "I disengage with Cunning Action" or "I use Repelling Blast then run away" and etc.

Don't forget Shocking Grasp

[Addaran]

I can't possibly see how OAs are too much when you can Disengage as an action. If you're running away, then it's not like you're going to be doing anything else, except possibly Dashing. Disengaging is the cost of getting out of melee. If you must Dash or do some other action, then the OA is the price you pay for that. The game is designed around this interaction, and taking it away is going to unbalance it.

To be fair, if the enemy reach you in melee and you both have the same speed, you will forever take one or more attack per round. If you disengage, you only travel 30ft, the enemy can travel 30 ft and still have his action next round. If you instead dash, you take the attack of opportunity, then the enemy can dash and still be in melee, rince and repeat.

You need friends to do opportunity attacks on the enemy or to pass through a friend's square in a bottle neck to be safe.

[MaxWilson]

I'm just interested in what effect does it have on the game, and on player options, if we strip this one rule out?

In my game, opportunity attacks only happen if you turn your back and flee at full speed. You can move at half speed without provoking any attacks. Is that close to what you were thinking of? (I also don't allow Warcaster reaction spells--Warcaster has a different benefit.)

What kind of effects are you inquiring about? E.g. this does let archers and mages step backwards out of melee to avoid penalties, if someone else blocks the monster from following--but RAW also allows stepping back without penalties as long as the monster has at least one reach attack (yes, it's dumb and makes no sense). So the only really BIG effect I can think of is that everything has a more realistic explanation when it does happen.

P. S. Disallowing Warcaster reaction spells, however, has a big effect on certain builds and makes it much, much harder for wizards to out-DPR at-will Fighter damage or outcompete them as tanks. If you're looking for an effect on builds, make THAT change specifically. I don't mind Sentinel, Sneak Attack, or Stunning Strike, but Warcaster RAW is silly.

[Chaos Jackal]

5e already heavily cuts down on opportunity possibilities. Compare to 3.X, where you provoke when casting, or making a ranged attack, or retrieving/using some items, or using certain abilities, or attempting to use a combat maneuver or unarmed strike without the relevant feat, or just moving within an enemy's reach, or standing up, in addition to having ways of taking multiple such attacks every turn.

Now 5e? All 5e does, at its basis, is allow you to attack once if someone disengages without Disengaging, and at the cost of your reaction to boot. You can't do it more than once every round (outside of very few things, Cavalier off the top of my head), can't really do much with it unless you have Sneak Attack or augment it with a feat (like War Caster, Sentinel or at least GWM) and can't do it in situations outside of moving out of reach unless you again take a feat. It doesn't even synergize with any effect requiring the Attack action or doing something on your turn (like the Soulknife's blades or a barbarian's Reckless).

Removing the already limited option of an OA does nothing but allow everyone to run around as they please. It gives even more reason to play casters and ranged martials (which are already stronger in the majority of situations), removes most if not all tanking capability from martials, reduces tactical choices, obviates a number of builds... Really, if the issue is Sentinel or War Caster, just nerf Sentinel or War Caster. Flat-out removing OAs as an option... what exactly does it accomplish, other than letting everyone literally run wild and making anything melee cry in the corner?

[Kane0]

Hey,

Has anyone on here ever run a 5e game without attacks of opportunity? I sometimes feel like AoO are a bit too much, either for fleeing players or fleeing villains.

Can you elaborate on the problem you're facing? Might be more useful in fixing the cause rather than the symptoms, if we can figure that out.

[Bobthewizard]

In general I like AOO. I think they add extra strategy for the melee characters.

I was in a TPK once, though, where the party realized we were outgunned but couldn't get away. Disengage and move away and the enemy moved and attacked. Dash taking the AOO and the enemy dashed to keep up. At level 1, no one had teleport, cunning action, or repelling blast. Without the abilities listed by Ludic, the players had no options. We had no choice but to turn and fight until we died.

[MaxWilson]

In general I like AOO. I think they add extra strategy for the melee characters.

I was in a TPK once, though, where the party realized we were outgunned but couldn't get away. Disengage and move away and the enemy moved and attacked. Dash taking the AOO and the enemy dashed to keep up. At level 1, no one had teleport, cunning action, or repelling blast. Without the abilities listed by Ludic, the players had no options. (A) We had no choice but to turn and fight until we died.

(A) Well, you could have had someone make a heroic sacrifice: they stay behind and Dodge while threatening opportunity attacks, while everyone else Dashes for one or more rounds to get out of range.

If that someone is a Monk or someone else with a fast movement speed, they may even survive the experience, but even if they die at least everyone else survives.

[Glorthindel]

Can you elaborate on the problem you're facing? Might be more useful in fixing the cause rather than the symptoms, if we can figure that out.

Given that every one of his posts mentions "fleeing villains" then throws in characters at the end, I suspect the problem is he wants/needs his villains to escape.

Don't do that. I know it is a trope of movies, TV series, etc, but players find villains that keep getting away to be really, really frustrating. You only need to see it happen once at the table, where the players keep throwing everything they can desperately at a fleeing villain to keep him pinned in combat, watching them get slowly more and more irritated, to realise that it is one of the quickest ways to annoy your players. I know you think you have a good character for a villain, and want to re-use him over an arc, and you can, by keeping him at a distance, and dealing with the party through lieutenants and henchmen, but once the big man gets on the table within stabbing range, you have to accept that it is likely the end of the road for the guy.

Now, you can make reoccuring villains, but the options are limited and short term. You can make them 'untouchable', such that the party can't draw steel on him, and have to be satisfied with foiling his plans. Alternatively you can incentivise keeping the villain alive (due to whaat they know, or the need to bring them to visible justice) for a future jailbreak. Or, through the wonders of necromancy, you can bring his unliving corpse back to fight another day. But any of these solutions really only work once, before a savvy party decides to take measure to prevent a repeat.

[Sorinth]

Honestly I'd probably want to boost the tactical stuff like AoO.

That said some options for what you want would be to still allow AoO if the creature enters and leaves the creatures reach in the same turn. That way a creature can't just run past someone without taking a hit so tanks still have a role, but fleeing after engaging is easier. Or perhaps have Disengage provide half movement as part of the action which forces the other creatures to at least Dash to keep up.

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly I'd probably want to boost the tactical stuff like AoO.
You mean like OAs? :smallbiggrin:

It's tough to put together a controller build without feats or Xanathar's(cavalier) or magic, so making the OA have another, better benefit for Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, Rogue, Ranger, would be (IMO) good.

[stoutstien]

Im of two minds on this. At lower levels they are probably too impactful just due to the limited action pool PCs and NPCs tend to have. Single attacks are also a bigger impact at this point. After a certain point they become solely a tool for control with a small side of damage with the exception of rogues who can almost double their DPR with reaction based attacks. At this point this issue shifts to reaction based tools conflicting and pushes OAs value down outside narrow circumstances.

I think they could be fixed but the initiative issue is a bigger problem.

[JonBeowulf]

You mean like OAs? :smallbiggrin:

Thank you. This thread has been killing the OCD pedant in me.

I like OAs for both the good guys and the bad guys. Throwing a high-AC, low damage, wall-of-hp who just walks through the PCs formation is a lot of fun. There was little risk of killing a squishy, but the players didn't know that and panicked.

Of course, the paladin used it against me later.

[Xervous]

Thank you. This thread has been killing the OCD pedant in me.

I like OAs for both the good guys and the bad guys. Throwing a high-AC, low damage, wall-of-hp who just walks through the PCs formation is a lot of fun. There was little risk of killing a squishy, but the players didn't know that and panicked.

Of course, the paladin used it against me later.

But if we take the term Actionable Opportunity does the game need more AOs to deepen the OA gameplay? Will that lead to the OPs players being POd when they think it’s not OK they got KOd by an OA triggered off an AO they couldn’t mentally track due to rules complexity? Sure someone might suggest they go sit down with the OG rules, but appeals to RAW may lead to verbal war.

[Tanarii]

If you want your villains to live, you have to make it so the Players don't want to initiate combat against them. It's that simple. And that's no simple chore with the standard post 3e / WotC D&D player. It takes specific DMs running specific kinds of games for players to learn that:
- actions have consequences
- you can't win every fight

Put those together, and they might eventually learn that sometimes killing a villain out of hand results in worse consequences, including things up to their organization hunting down and destroying everything the PC holds dear. Including, for those players that apparently make no-family orphan urchins who never make friends or deep ties to avoid such "weaknesses" for the DM to "target" with consequences for actions, their life.

[Catullus64]

See, the way I think about Opportunity Attacks, they really don't come into play for fleeing players OR fleeing NPCs.

Opportunity Attacks are part of the combat rules. They represent the dangers inherent in trying to reposition during a fight. Once all the members of one side are not longer attempting to fight (e.g. fleeing), combat is over, and not all the combat rules still apply; we shift to theater-of-the-mind chase sequences in order to resolve the drama of whether or not somebody gets away. The combat rules are meant to model fights, not escapes.

A lot of D&D becomes easier to handle once you accept that lots of the combat mechanics are there to simulate combat, and don't have to pull the weight of simulating other kinds of action in the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

Put those together, and they might eventually learn that sometimes killing a villain out of hand results in worse consequences, including things up to their organization hunting down and destroying everything the PC holds dear. Including, for those players that apparently make no-family orphan urchins who never make friends or deep ties to avoid such "weaknesses" for the DM to "target" with consequences for actions, their life. Interestingly, our party has actually founded an orphanage near a destroyed temple that's being rebuilt.

Sure enough, the enemy (we are pretty sure that it's minions of the BBEG) tried to target our vulnerable point, which (thanks to an item with teleport that our sorcerer has) we hurried home to defend ... and of course walked into something like an ambush. The purpose of the threat to the orphanage was to get us to rush in and hopefully get whacked.
It was a tough fight, demons and enemy clerics and such, but we managed to overcome.

None of the players kvetched about the enemy doing that, however. What we have done is look for ways to protect, better, the orphanage and the temple reconstruction project. All said and done, we spent a whole bunch of the gold we had acquired in taking down some high level monsters. Gold, used in a campaign-contextual manner.
For all that this sub forum sees frequent kvetching about "what do you do with the gold?"
Our answer was "hire muscle, find a priest/mentor/teacher for the orphans, and build a better protective sanctuary". And the DM got, from us, a bit of free world building detail for that community. Our sorcerer and paladin were the ones who led in the detailed planning, while our other two characters were researching an artifact with sages in a local city. (Another semi expensive bit of down time, but fruitful since I helped him with his arcana check ... on top of the research assistance the sages/library provided).

How is this related to the OP?

Even with OA as an option, our martials had no way of blocking/being sticky such that our squishiest caster (Warlock/Sorc MC) wasn't rushable.

He relied on such CC spells as he had, and we whittled down the big bad demons (My CC was used on their toughest fighter monsters so there went my concentraton) and our martials whittled down their biggest threats a round at a time. Then I DD'd with the paladin to help clean out the last of the threats to our Warlock Sorc, who was hard pressed.

[Man_Over_Game]

The solution isn't to nerf OA's - it's a counterplay mechanic and nerfing those when they're not too strong only ever makes a game more boring.

What you want to do is encourage the counter to OAs: the Disengage Action.

You could, for example, allow folks who use the Disengage Action to also do an improvised action during any Disengage. That way, you're encouraging them to do skill checks, acrobatics maneuvers, climbing a difficult area, using an item, or whatever they want.

Or add magic items that give THP each time you take the Disengage Action.

If OAs are too strong, you'd be seeing people taking the Disengage Action more. They're not, so...

I guess the big question is, why do you feel that OAs need to be changed?

[Tanarii]

You could, for example, allow folks who use the Disengage Action to also do an improvised action during any Disengage. That way, you're encouraging them to do skill checks, acrobatics maneuvers, climbing a difficult area, or whatever they want.
Acrobatics maneuvers and climbing difficult areas should already be possible to do as part of any movement.

Now if they got a free disarm against one opponent while pulling away ...

[Glorthindel]

...POd players who think it’s not OK they got KOd by an OA triggered off an AO...
I am kinda sad you missed trying to get 'OP' in at the start of this wonderful line :smallwink:

Edit - :thumbsup:

[Xervous]

I am kinda sad you missed trying to get 'OP' in at the start of this wonderful line :smallwink:

Drat. I got lost thinking of something to pair with AC and decided I had enough content at that point.

Let’s get an edit in because this is the Internet after all.

[MaxWilson]

Acrobatics maneuvers and climbing difficult areas should already be possible to do as part of any movement.

(A) Now if they got a free disarm against one opponent while pulling away ...

(A) Don't need a rule change for that. Just use regular DMG Disarm, then pick up their weapon and leave. Sure they get an OA with their bare hands against you, for 1+STR damage, but who cares? In a practical sense this is Disengage + Disarm as long as you're only in melee with one enemy.

[KorvinStarmast]

I guess the big question is, why do you feel that OAs need to be changed? A solution looking for a problem, it seems. :smalleek:

[quinron]

I'll chime in with the fact that in Pathfinder 2e, opportunity attacks are still around, but they're limited. Only a few classes get them (and it's the ones you'd expect), and very few monsters have them. It makes for more dynamic mobility while still allowing tank/lockdown strategies from the PCs' side.

[Tanarii]

(A) Don't need a rule change for that. Just use regular DMG Disarm, then pick up their weapon and leave. Sure they get an OA with their bare hands against you, for 1+STR damage, but who cares? In a practical sense this is Disengage + Disarm as long as you're only in melee with one enemy.
It would be a rules change, because it would incorporating a free Disarm into the Disengage maneuver.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It would be a rules change, because it would incorporating a free Disarm into the Disengage maneuver.

Did you say that backwards? I don't think there's a Disengage maneuver. And I don't see how this changes anything--right now, with no changes, if you Disarm someone (either via the maneuver or the DMG variant action), they can still take an OA against you. It's just kinda worthless unless they have something that boosts their unarmed attacks. So it's not a real Disengage, it's just a way to neuter the effectiveness of any OAs they take.

[Tanarii]

Did you say that backwards? I don't think there's a Disengage maneuver.I meant disengage action.


And I don't see how this changes anything--right now, with no changes, if you Disarm someone (either via the maneuver or the DMG variant action), they can still take an OA against you. It's just kinda worthless unless they have something that boosts their unarmed attacks. So it's not a real Disengage, it's just a way to neuter the effectiveness of any OAs they take.Valid point. Same with Shove.

My train of thought was that the suggested free "improvised actions" weren't actually actions, and should already be possible with any movement, including the movement after a Disengage. So I began thinking of something that would be an improvised action other than an object interaction or part of movement, and the things most players want to do that aren't attacks are disarms, shoves/trips, grapples, steal something, or the like. All of which have rules or optional rules.

Maybe "throw some sand in their eyes" or "point and say 'what's that!"? :smallamused:

[Damon_Tor]

I play in a game with several younger kids, and while we don't explicitly play without OA, the DM never uses them, and the enemies never try to disengage from melee. This keeps things pretty simple, so you don't have the kids worried about taking actions off turn.

It works fine. We're deliberately reducing the tactical depth to make the game go more smoothly.

[MaxWilson]

It would be a rules change, because it would incorporating a free Disarm into the Disengage maneuver.

Yes, I know. I'm just saying it's not substantially different from RAW in its tactical implications.

[Naanomi]

I played plenty of 1e and 2e; without some mechanic like AoOs the only thing that lets anyone 'hold a line' or play protector for squishier party members is 90% GM fiat that the monsters attack the guy in full plate for some reason, and 10% cleverly utilizing terrain and max distance by characters with longer range attacks

[Tanarii]

I played plenty of 1e and 2e; without some mechanic like AoOs the only thing that lets anyone 'hold a line' or play protector for squishier party members is 90% GM fiat that the monsters attack the guy in full plate for some reason, and 10% cleverly utilizing terrain and max distance by characters with longer range attacks
I thought the rule in AD&D was you had to use your action to withdraw from melee? I know BECMI had a withdraw 'action' if you wanted to disengage from melee, and you could only withdraw backwards, not towards the squishiness. It wasn't a question of not having OAs, it was that you couldn't leave melee at all without skipping your turn.

What kept enemies from bypassing melee was the assumption that melee on both sides just kind of met in the middle as they moved forward. But if you were a thief or a Magic-user and enemies suddenly came up from the side or behind, you were definitely hosed for at least a round. More if there weren't clerics or fighters pulling rear guard so you could withdraw from the melee.

[Ettina]

Personally, I think players are too concerned with OAs. If a melee enemy can multiattack, and you can get far enough to force them to Dash into melee with you, repeatedly provoking OAs is worth it. Plus, they get one OA per round, so if several targets flee, they'll only get to hit one. And you can do stuff like disarm or dodge to make their OAs ****ty.

But from a verisimilitude perspective, I could see changing it so OAs are provoked by moving into an enemy's space instead of moving out.

[MaxWilson]

I thought the rule in AD&D was you had to use your action to withdraw from melee?

I can't speak for 1E, but in AD&D 2nd edition you can withdraw from melee at up to 1/3 your normal speed without penalty, albeit the monsters can follow you. If you go faster than that, you're considered to be turning your back and fleeing, and the monsters get to attack you for free (a full multiattack sequence, in 5E's terminology) and you don't get shield or Dexterity bonuses to AC when they do it.


But from a verisimilitude perspective, I could see changing it so OAs are provoked by moving into an enemy's space instead of moving out.

This. My biggest beef with 5E's version of OA's is that they are physically bizarre.

(1) If I'm holding a pike, you can come charging at me and nothing special happens, but if you step 10' away from me, suddenly I surge forward and hit you with the pike? What.

(2) If I'm holding a sword in my left hand and nothing in my right, when you step 5' back away from me, I can surge forward and hit you with my sword, even though normally in fencing, retreating a step is a powerful defensive maneuver which should give an AC bonus or prevent an attack. But if I'm holding a whip in my left hand, I can't do that any more. But if you step 10' back away from me now I can surge forward and hit you with the whip, but not the sword. Again, what.

Case #2 is most relevant to archers trying to get out of disadvantage. Creatures with reach attacks cannot force the archers to stay within 5', disadvantage range.