[...] You cannot make opportunity attacks against allies.
I agree with you. The intent behind an Opportunity Attack is to attack enemies, as you've already stated:
Opportunity Attacks Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
And from the Glossary:
Opportunity Attacks
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
why would you be putting yourself in danger by moving past your ally? why would someone be actively looking for ways to exploit their friends?
That remains flavor text, NOT conditions required. It's like the flavor text in backgrounds: You can pick the background which has the name "Sailor" and you're explicitly allowed to replace the text and describe your history growing up in the desert, or mountains, or plains without a boat for hundreds of miles in any direction.
Linklite has it right. And why was the word "hostile" removed from the description of when the condition applies, if it wasn't meant to be removing the hostile restriction?
tarodnet cites the Glossary for his argument, but the text right there in the definition of Opportunity Attacks... the words "hostile," or "enemy," or "foe" do not appear at all.
Also relevant is that a melee attack includes an Unarmed Strike, and an unarmed strike includes a Shove attack which can move a target 5 feet if it fails a STR/DEX saving throw - which, a character can willingly choose to do. So if someone wants to reach a spot, but is just shy, they could get an extra 5 feet by willingly taking a shove from an ally
This opens up a lot of interesting, if situational ways to be creative in combat. What's the objection to that?
[...] tarodnet cites the Glossary for his argument, but the text right there in the definition of Opportunity Attacks... the words "hostile," or "enemy," or "foe" do not appear at all.
Yeah, I also added the Glossary to connect the points. Both the description from the Combat section and the Glossary refer to attacks. Attacks on enemies who drop their guard. You don't need to worry about your allies, as they don't provoke Opportunity Attacks.
This section from the 2024 DMG should pretty much clear this up:
Players Exploiting the Rules
Some players enjoy poring over the D&D rules and looking for optimal combinations. This kind of optimizing is part of the game (see “Know Your Players” in chapter 2), but it can cross a line into being exploitative, interfering with everyone else’s fun.
Setting clear expectations is essential when dealing with this kind of rules exploitation. Bear these principles in mind:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world. Don’t let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn’t define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round.
The Game Is Not an Economy. The rules of the game aren’t intended to model a realistic economy, and players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules.
Combat Is for Enemies. Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.
Outlining these principles can help hold players’ exploits at bay. If a player persistently tries to twist the rules of the game, have a conversation with that player outside the game and ask them to stop.
Also, I agree with the statement that this is an Opportunity Attack, if you want to attack an ally as they move out of range then that's a totally different issue, but they can't run by you and then you cast a healing spell or buff of some sort. People want to argue that the first line of the Opportunity Attack section is "flavor text" when it's actually the context of the rule. Coming back and rules-lawyering the specific wording as your free pass is exploitation. You know dang well what the intention of it is to be. "Combatants" sets up the entire context of the rule, the rest is bad faith purposeful misinterpretation.
Did they miss-word it? Yes. Should they update and issue an errata once they've determined a lot of these rules are being taken out of context? Also yes.
If a DM wants to allow it at their table, that's their prerogative. But clear intent is there and ignoring it is just inane. 2024 Rules are optional at best, meant to clarify or offer new takes on existing 5e. I'll just look a player in the eye and state "then we use 2014 rules on opportunity attacks" and shut that down for good.
A turn is different from a round like sneak attack works once per turn so rogues can sneak attack on a reaction and on a action if they are different turns
Flamepulse, The Dungeon Master is the god of any campaign they are over, so those rules you stated could easily be not used in a campaign. the D&D Beyond rules are guidelines, not rules. it like in the first pirates of the carribean movie where barbarosa states that the Pirates Code are more like guidelines than rules that all pirates follow.
Flamepulse, The Dungeon Master is the god of any campaign they are over, so those rules you stated could easily be not used in a campaign. the D&D Beyond rules are guidelines, not rules. it like in the first pirates of the carribean movie where barbarosa states that the Pirates Code are more like guidelines than rules that all pirates follow.
I suggest folks be careful with this statement lest they not have players in their game. The game is designed for the group. The DM should be a moderator NOT god of the game. Compromise plays a large part.
'The Dungeon Master is the god of any campaign they are over'
However, I also believe you can't target an ally with an Opportunity Attack. It's exploitive, per the DMG entries posted by erraticpaladin5, and a bad faith interpretation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree with you. The intent behind an Opportunity Attack is to attack enemies, as you've already stated:
And from the Glossary:
That remains flavor text, NOT conditions required. It's like the flavor text in backgrounds: You can pick the background which has the name "Sailor" and you're explicitly allowed to replace the text and describe your history growing up in the desert, or mountains, or plains without a boat for hundreds of miles in any direction.
Linklite has it right. And why was the word "hostile" removed from the description of when the condition applies, if it wasn't meant to be removing the hostile restriction?
tarodnet cites the Glossary for his argument, but the text right there in the definition of Opportunity Attacks... the words "hostile," or "enemy," or "foe" do not appear at all.
Also relevant is that a melee attack includes an Unarmed Strike, and an unarmed strike includes a Shove attack which can move a target 5 feet if it fails a STR/DEX saving throw - which, a character can willingly choose to do. So if someone wants to reach a spot, but is just shy, they could get an extra 5 feet by willingly taking a shove from an ally
This opens up a lot of interesting, if situational ways to be creative in combat. What's the objection to that?
I would lay odds that it isn't an intended interaction, just something that wasn't clearly thought out.
Yeah, I also added the Glossary to connect the points. Both the description from the Combat section and the Glossary refer to attacks. Attacks on enemies who drop their guard. You don't need to worry about your allies, as they don't provoke Opportunity Attacks.
I actually find it incredible that this is a discussion.
This section from the 2024 DMG should pretty much clear this up:
Players Exploiting the Rules
Some players enjoy poring over the D&D rules and looking for optimal combinations. This kind of optimizing is part of the game (see “Know Your Players” in chapter 2), but it can cross a line into being exploitative, interfering with everyone else’s fun.
Setting clear expectations is essential when dealing with this kind of rules exploitation. Bear these principles in mind:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world. Don’t let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn’t define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round.
The Game Is Not an Economy. The rules of the game aren’t intended to model a realistic economy, and players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules.
Combat Is for Enemies. Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.
Outlining these principles can help hold players’ exploits at bay. If a player persistently tries to twist the rules of the game, have a conversation with that player outside the game and ask them to stop.
Also, I agree with the statement that this is an Opportunity Attack, if you want to attack an ally as they move out of range then that's a totally different issue, but they can't run by you and then you cast a healing spell or buff of some sort. People want to argue that the first line of the Opportunity Attack section is "flavor text" when it's actually the context of the rule. Coming back and rules-lawyering the specific wording as your free pass is exploitation. You know dang well what the intention of it is to be. "Combatants" sets up the entire context of the rule, the rest is bad faith purposeful misinterpretation.
Did they miss-word it? Yes. Should they update and issue an errata once they've determined a lot of these rules are being taken out of context? Also yes.
If a DM wants to allow it at their table, that's their prerogative. But clear intent is there and ignoring it is just inane. 2024 Rules are optional at best, meant to clarify or offer new takes on existing 5e. I'll just look a player in the eye and state "then we use 2014 rules on opportunity attacks" and shut that down for good.
A walking D&D Beyond AdA D&D Beyond SubscriberA turn is different from a round like sneak attack works once per turn so rogues can sneak attack on a reaction and on a action if they are different turns
Flamepulse, The Dungeon Master is the god of any campaign they are over, so those rules you stated could easily be not used in a campaign. the D&D Beyond rules are guidelines, not rules. it like in the first pirates of the carribean movie where barbarosa states that the Pirates Code are more like guidelines than rules that all pirates follow.
I suggest folks be careful with this statement lest they not have players in their game. The game is designed for the group. The DM should be a moderator NOT god of the game. Compromise plays a large part.
'The Dungeon Master is the god of any campaign they are over'
However, I also believe you can't target an ally with an Opportunity Attack. It's exploitive, per the DMG entries posted by erraticpaladin5, and a bad faith interpretation.