Improving Opportunity Attacks ?

[Osuniev]

I've realized recently that Opportunity Attacks weren't "good enough" for my tastes :
- they cost a Reaction
- they only grant one attack, which isn't much for creatures/PCs who rely on multiple attacks for significant damage (which includes most "tanks")
- they don't threaten enough (to my taste) the casters/archers, making the main tactical option for "everyone" (where to move, how to position yourself) not meaningful enough. Disengaging doesn't happen often enough, because it's often better to take the OA and Dash/attack/cast a spell anyway.
- Having a Reach weapon is as much as bad as it's good, because enemies can move inside your reach freely

I'm trying to come up to a good houserule for my new campaign, which would make Opportunity Attacks a bigger deal.

Things I've contemplated :
- when TWF, someone with Extra Attack/the multiattack action could do TWO OAs with only one reaction
- the Extra Attack/multiattack feature grants you an extra reaction that can only be used for OA
- allowing "special" OAs such as tripping/grappling (but what could be the cost of these ? Disadvantage to the check ? It should be an interesting tactical option, not the obvious best choice)
- improving the "dangerousness" of tanks some other way. Ideally something that doesn't make Mage Slayer/Cavalier Fighter/WarCaster irrelevant.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

If more opportunity attacks is what you are wanting possible simpler solutions could be

- Any class that gains the Extra Attack feature gains at minimum two per turn
- The number of uses is dependent on their Dex Modifier
- Use the Mark combat option from the DMG but remove the one per turn rule. Instead it can make multiple opportunity attacks in a turn though only against those it has Marked.

[MrStabby]

I think there are a few features that need some caution. Pole arm mastery and sentinel comes to mind. It's strong as it is, but with multiple potential attempts to land a hit it becomes stronger still.

The 2nd reaction attack with two weapon fighting is good. Its a buff to an underrepresented style and shouldn't clash much with pole arm mastery.

Honestly, the best option might be a boost in damage per hit, and let it scale with character level. D4 from level 6, 2d4 from level 12, 3d4 from level 18. It's just enough to keep these attacks interesting and to make movement a harder choice.

[Kane0]

Two things that I do:

Polearm fighting style: When wielding a Reach weapon, hostile creatures treat the area within your reach as difficult terrain

Addition to Dual Wielder Feat: While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can make an attack with each weapon you are wielding against the same target (with the usual TWF restrictions).

Lightning reflexes half feat (+1 Dex): After you take a Reaction, you can choose to take another on a different turn before the start of your next turn. Once you take your second reaction you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Plus the usual sentinel, polearm master, cavalier fighter, etc.

[MoiMagnus]

The Armorer (Artificer) has a class ability that makes then when one of your melee attack hits, the target get disadvantage to every attack against peoples that aren't you (for one round). And that works great for attacks of opportunity.

[Petelo4f]

Personally, I've always felt that 1 Opp attack per round ever is way to limiting. There should be a fighting style available to Paladins and Fighters that lets them make an additional "X"-1 opportunity attacks per round but no more than 1 opportunity attack per turn where "X" is the character's proficiency bonus.

[MornShine]

There is, very-old-UA tunnel fighter.

That said, having multiple opportunity attacks gets OP fast, especially with aformentioned feats.

[Sorinth]

Would reducing the targets speed if hit by an OA by half until the end of turn work?

If you prevent them from getting where they want to go the OA becomes more powerful which is why Sentinel is go good. Sentinel would still have it's place as being better, but overall less of a need. You'd probably want to word it so it doesn't work with PAM though.

[Contrast]

I don't necessarily disagree with many of your initial points.

That said, I would make the observation that personally I already find 5E combats frustratingly static a lot of the time. Improving opp attacks will only further reinforce moving into melee range and then standing still whaling on each other until one falls over.

I'm not necessarily sure this would actually make the game better.

[Kane0]

There's also the DMG Marking variant.

[MrCharlie]

I've realized recently that Opportunity Attacks weren't "good enough" for my tastes :
- they cost a Reaction
- they only grant one attack, which isn't much for creatures/PCs who rely on multiple attacks for significant damage (which includes most "tanks")
- they don't threaten enough (to my taste) the casters/archers, making the main tactical option for "everyone" (where to move, how to position yourself) not meaningful enough. Disengaging doesn't happen often enough, because it's often better to take the OA and Dash/attack/cast a spell anyway.
- Having a Reach weapon is as much as bad as it's good, because enemies can move inside your reach freely

I'm trying to come up to a good houserule for my new campaign, which would make Opportunity Attacks a bigger deal.

Things I've contemplated :
- when TWF, someone with Extra Attack/the multiattack action could do TWO OAs with only one reaction
- the Extra Attack/multiattack feature grants you an extra reaction that can only be used for OA
- allowing "special" OAs such as tripping/grappling (but what could be the cost of these ? Disadvantage to the check ? It should be an interesting tactical option, not the obvious best choice)
- improving the "dangerousness" of tanks some other way. Ideally something that doesn't make Mage Slayer/Cavalier Fighter/WarCaster irrelevant.
The simplest solution is to make characters more damaging. While playing a higher level swashbuckler/battlemaster no one took AOO from me because I dealt 20-30 damage, which was a sufficient deterrent.

The main issue is that the ways to do that require optimization from the player-like taking booming blade and war caster, or taking sentinel+PAM, or building your Rogue into a tank with either constant advantage or swashbuckler sneak attack. The core AOO is simply not enough.

My personal flavor of solution is to revamp the entire weapon combat rules, particularly for melee combat, to give characters more meaningful options and tactical choices as well as create better martial feats than what we currently have. But that isn't the topic of this thread.

My middle ground between a full re-write and just add flat damage would be class specific AOO effects.

To writ you'd get each of these at level 5, and can only apply them to attack rolls not made as part of casting a spell.

1.Barbarians: You may deal critical hit damage to the target, or may attempt to grapple the target instead of attacking.
2. Fighter: You can add twice your proficiency bonus to both the attack and damage roll, or may attempt to grapple the target instead of attacking.
3. Monk: You may deal additional damage equal to your martial arts die, or use stunning strike on the target without expending a ki point.
4. Paladin: You may divine smite as though using a level 1 spell slot without expending a spell slot.
6 Ranger: You may target the creature with your favored foe ability without expending a use of that ability, and if you have two weapon fighting style may attack that target once with two different weapons you are wielding.
7. Rogue: You have advantage on the attack.

Some of these are generally better than others, but all have a use case.

Full spellcasters get to take war caster instead, because they get enough nice things.

[BW022]

I think you need to look at the reason why these rules exist in 5e. They exist to speed up combat by limiting the number of dice roles, special rules, and actions.

Why is TWF some special rule for AoO? Does it really help the game? How often does it come up? Does having four or five rolls made during combat help speed it up?

IMO, the 5e rules are good enough. Few PCs willingly take AoOs especially considering how powerful higher-level monsters hit. They use spells. If some character of monster does this, fine. If you really need to make it more effective... AoOs damage is doubled or AoOs are at advantage.

[Necrosnoop110]

Having a Reach weapon is as much as bad as it's good, because enemies can move inside your reach freely

Not saying this is wrong but where is this stated in the 5e ruleset?

[PhantomSoul]

Not saying this is wrong but where is this stated in the 5e ruleset?

It's a consequence of only triggering Opportunity Attacks (normally) by leaving Reach, not by moving within it, though I suppose you could kick them when they leave kicking range while you wield a Halberd eh!

[diplomancer]

The addition of Booming Blade really messed up the math of Opportunity Attacks; here are a few suggestions to even it up:
1- Simplest. Remove Booming Blade/GFB. I don't like it
2-like Booming Blade OAs, probably should be gated behind a feat: martials get their full attack action on OAs
3- add proficiency bonus d6s damage for a weapon attack OA. Kind of like a mini-sneak attack, justified by the more vulnerable position a retreating enemy is when he doesn't disengage. Rogues get to add that on top of Sneak Attack.

[JPicasso]

I don't necessarily disagree with many of your initial points.

That said, I would make the observation that personally I already find 5E combats frustratingly static a lot of the time. Improving opp attacks will only further reinforce moving into melee range and then standing still whaling on each other until one falls over.

I'm not necessarily sure this would actually make the game better.

I totally agree. I wish there was something like the 4ed 5' slide, where you could get out of the OA range of one creature to hit another with a free 5' slide. I also find combat very static, and none of my Players (or I, when I play) ever ever ever risks an opportunity attack unless it's super important.

That said, I also agree with some of the points made here.