I'd say that issue is fairly wide spread across 2024 with not only teleport but other abilities. Shoves for example used to be fairly niche the warlock and a couple subclasses, now they are everywhere. And i think overall it makes the game worse with that much overlap in abilities.
(complains about lack of options)
(Gets mad when people start using options)
Giving everyone the same options doesn't add a lot of options. It just blandifies everything.
I am not anti-Misty Step/Temp HP, but I do think that there are enough sources for those abilities already and would like to see something new in any future UA's.
Teleportation has always been fairly common place in 5th edition, it's not new to the 2024 rules. Imo it's neither boring (teleportation encourages interesting movement) nor excessive
The only reason I agree is that opportunity attacks ruined mobility to start with, on top of slowing down the game. If 2024 dropped ubiquitous opportunity attacks, you wouldn't need teleportation to encourage interesting movement. It's a clumsy bandage. The 2024 solution requires all characters to be either martial/stationary or rogues/magical/mobile. The side effect is that if you want to make a non-rogue character mobile, you must also make it possible for that character to violate physics. Plenty of us argued this in 2013-14, when the devs could have elected to make opportunity attacks more rare or locked them to certain archetypes. We were arguing from the experience in 3e, where the issue was even worse.
Teleportation has always been fairly common place in 5th edition, it's not new to the 2024 rules. Imo it's neither boring (teleportation encourages interesting movement) nor excessive
The only reason I agree is that opportunity attacks ruined mobility to start with, on top of slowing down the game. If 2024 dropped ubiquitous opportunity attacks, you wouldn't need teleportation to encourage interesting movement. It's a clumsy bandage. The 2024 solution requires all characters to be either martial/stationary or rogues/magical/mobile. The side effect is that if you want to make a non-rogue character mobile, you must also make it possible for that character to violate physics. Plenty of us argued this in 2013-14, when the devs could have elected to make opportunity attacks more rare or locked them to certain archetypes. We were arguing from the experience in 3e, where the issue was even worse.
One idea I had to make opportunity attacks less brutal is making monsters not add their ability modifier to the damage of them.
Teleportation has always been fairly common place in 5th edition, it's not new to the 2024 rules. Imo it's neither boring (teleportation encourages interesting movement) nor excessive
The only reason I agree is that opportunity attacks ruined mobility to start with, on top of slowing down the game. If 2024 dropped ubiquitous opportunity attacks, you wouldn't need teleportation to encourage interesting movement. It's a clumsy bandage. The 2024 solution requires all characters to be either martial/stationary or rogues/magical/mobile. The side effect is that if you want to make a non-rogue character mobile, you must also make it possible for that character to violate physics. Plenty of us argued this in 2013-14, when the devs could have elected to make opportunity attacks more rare or locked them to certain archetypes. We were arguing from the experience in 3e, where the issue was even worse.
One idea I had to make opportunity attacks less brutal is making monsters not add their ability modifier to the damage of them.
My gripe isn’t how much damage opportunity attacks deal—it’s that their very existence drags the game out and makes it less fun for me.
Close‑combat in D&D is already a tough nut to crack. You’re constantly juggling high damage risk, aura effects, melee traps, and “death‑throes”‑style abilities. Melee fighters in 5e have already been suffering with a baseline level of boring—they often end up doing the same vanilla attack over and over with little else to spice things up.
On top of that, opportunity attacks pile on extra mental overhead. Every time you want to move while engaged in melee, you have to consider whether it will provoke, and whether the movement is then worthwhile at all. That creates a no‑win situation. You can either stay put, making combat feel static and boring, or you can move, which risks triggering one or more opportunity attacks, each of which adds another round of dice‑rolling. This slows down encounters, which are already too long in 5e. Opportunity attacks can be interesting in limited doses, but when every monster gets to use it, the mechanic loses its value.
It doesn’t matter how much damage the attacks actually do; the slowdown alone is enough to kill the momentum. There is a simple fix.
Opportunity attacks shouldn’t be a default ability for every PC or monster. Instead, treat them as an uncommon special feature reserved for characters who truly excel at close‑quarters combat and whose fantasy concept supports it—think dedicated duelists, berserkers, or monsters built around melee dominance. This would also provide the benefit of allowing melee tanks to feel more like tanks.
Teleportation has always been fairly common place in 5th edition, it's not new to the 2024 rules. Imo it's neither boring (teleportation encourages interesting movement) nor excessive
The only reason I agree is that opportunity attacks ruined mobility to start with, on top of slowing down the game. If 2024 dropped ubiquitous opportunity attacks, you wouldn't need teleportation to encourage interesting movement. It's a clumsy bandage. The 2024 solution requires all characters to be either martial/stationary or rogues/magical/mobile. The side effect is that if you want to make a non-rogue character mobile, you must also make it possible for that character to violate physics. Plenty of us argued this in 2013-14, when the devs could have elected to make opportunity attacks more rare or locked them to certain archetypes. We were arguing from the experience in 3e, where the issue was even worse.
One idea I had to make opportunity attacks less brutal is making monsters not add their ability modifier to the damage of them.
My gripe isn’t how much damage opportunity attacks deal—it’s that their very existence drags the game out and makes it less fun for me.
Close‑combat in D&D is already a tough nut to crack. You’re constantly juggling high damage risk, aura effects, melee traps, and “death‑throes”‑style abilities. Melee fighters in 5e have already been suffering with a baseline level of boring—they often end up doing the same vanilla attack over and over with little else to spice things up.
On top of that, opportunity attacks pile on extra mental overhead. Every time you want to move while engaged in melee, you have to consider whether it will provoke, and whether the movement is then worthwhile at all. That creates a no‑win situation. You can either stay put, making combat feel static and boring, or you can move, which risks triggering one or more opportunity attacks, each of which adds another round of dice‑rolling. This slowes down encounters, which are already too long in 5e. Opportunity attacks can be interesting in limited doses, but when every monster gets to use it, the mechanic loses its value.
It doesn’t matter how much damage the attacks actually do; the slowdown alone is enough to kill the momentum. There is a simple fix.
Opportunity attacks shouldn’t be a default ability for every PC or monster. Instead, treat them as an uncommon special feature reserved for characters who truly excel at close‑quarters combat and whose fantasy concept supports it—think dedicated duelists, berserkers, or monsters built around melee dominance. This would also provide the benefit of allowing melee tanks to feel more like tanks.
You complained about melee combat having no decision making (just attack every turn), and about having to make a decision when you want to move out of melee range. Which one do you not like? Decision making, or no decision making?
Teleportation has always been fairly common place in 5th edition, it's not new to the 2024 rules. Imo it's neither boring (teleportation encourages interesting movement) nor excessive
The only reason I agree is that opportunity attacks ruined mobility to start with, on top of slowing down the game. If 2024 dropped ubiquitous opportunity attacks, you wouldn't need teleportation to encourage interesting movement. It's a clumsy bandage. The 2024 solution requires all characters to be either martial/stationary or rogues/magical/mobile. The side effect is that if you want to make a non-rogue character mobile, you must also make it possible for that character to violate physics. Plenty of us argued this in 2013-14, when the devs could have elected to make opportunity attacks more rare or locked them to certain archetypes. We were arguing from the experience in 3e, where the issue was even worse.
One idea I had to make opportunity attacks less brutal is making monsters not add their ability modifier to the damage of them.
My gripe isn’t how much damage opportunity attacks deal—it’s that their very existence drags the game out and makes it less fun for me.
Close‑combat in D&D is already a tough nut to crack. You’re constantly juggling high damage risk, aura effects, melee traps, and “death‑throes”‑style abilities. Melee fighters in 5e have already been suffering with a baseline level of boring—they often end up doing the same vanilla attack over and over with little else to spice things up.
On top of that, opportunity attacks pile on extra mental overhead. Every time you want to move while engaged in melee, you have to consider whether it will provoke, and whether the movement is then worthwhile at all. That creates a no‑win situation. You can either stay put, making combat feel static and boring, or you can move, which risks triggering one or more opportunity attacks, each of which adds another round of dice‑rolling. This slowes down encounters, which are already too long in 5e. Opportunity attacks can be interesting in limited doses, but when every monster gets to use it, the mechanic loses its value.
It doesn’t matter how much damage the attacks actually do; the slowdown alone is enough to kill the momentum. There is a simple fix.
Opportunity attacks shouldn’t be a default ability for every PC or monster. Instead, treat them as an uncommon special feature reserved for characters who truly excel at close‑quarters combat and whose fantasy concept supports it—think dedicated duelists, berserkers, or monsters built around melee dominance. This would also provide the benefit of allowing melee tanks to feel more like tanks.
You complained about melee combat having no decision making (just attack every turn), and about having to make a decision when you want to move out of melee range. Which one do you not like? Decision making, or no decision making?
I genuinely have no idea what argument you're trying to make. Do you disagree with my opinion that opportunity attacks are a drag, or no? Kindly say so plainly.
On top of that, opportunity attacks pile on extra mental overhead. Every time you want to move while engaged in melee, you have to consider whether it will provoke, and whether the movement is then worthwhile at all. That creates a no‑win situation. You can either stay put, making combat feel static and boring, or you can move, which risks triggering one or more opportunity attacks, each of which adds another round of dice‑rolling.
Gosh, if only there was some way within the rules to move without taking Opportunity Attacks, if it's that important for you to do it
You're also ignoring situations where it's a strategic advantage to get a creature to burn its reaction with an OA, and that sort of thing. That's not "extra mental overhead", it's the kind of thing that makes combat more interesting
This complaint makes absolutely no sense to me, sorry
As for the actual subject of the thread, I suspect the increase in teleportation features in 5e24 is a response to players choices in 5e14. Fey Touched was viewed as a top-tier feat choice for a reason. I do agree that they may have gone overboard in some cases (i.e. Archfey warlock), but the new Cartographer artificer shows they're at least trying to find new twists on Misty Step-like abilities. And if you don't like it, don't play one of those subclasses
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Teleportation has always been fairly common place in 5th edition, it's not new to the 2024 rules. Imo it's neither boring (teleportation encourages interesting movement) nor excessive
The only reason I agree is that opportunity attacks ruined mobility to start with, on top of slowing down the game. If 2024 dropped ubiquitous opportunity attacks, you wouldn't need teleportation to encourage interesting movement. It's a clumsy bandage. The 2024 solution requires all characters to be either martial/stationary or rogues/magical/mobile. The side effect is that if you want to make a non-rogue character mobile, you must also make it possible for that character to violate physics. Plenty of us argued this in 2013-14, when the devs could have elected to make opportunity attacks more rare or locked them to certain archetypes. We were arguing from the experience in 3e, where the issue was even worse.
In my experience, opportunity attacks are feared more than they deserve. Unless I'm trying to dash through several lines of enemies, or the enemies are particularly hard-hitting, I don't worry about them. If you're moving away, either there's an important tactical reason, or you're trying to escape an enemy who will presumably be hitting you with their full attack next round anyway, so you're better off risking the opportunity attack.
If they were unusual, while it would perhaps encourage more movement in combat (maybe -- a lot of times there's no good reason to move), it would also reduce the tactical interest of combat. Not only does it reduce the value of positioning, and of the abilities that let monks and rogues maneuver in combat, but there are also times when you want to bait the opportunity to take away the enemy's other reactions. (And if they let you go freely, that's also a disadvantage for them.)
As it is, 5e24 has more ways to make the battlefield more dynamic. Not just teleports, but there's also more push-pull abilities, such as weapon masteries. And knockdown abilities, while they don't negate OAs, certainly make them less effective.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've pondering the Nightcrawler approach to teleportation from Xmen. Basically teleporting through hell.... at some point it has to go wrong.
Giving everyone the same options doesn't add a lot of options. It just blandifies everything.
I find it hard to pity warlocks given they are so OP.
pity the ranger. Pity the 2024 druid.
But WARLOCKS???
I am not anti-Misty Step/Temp HP, but I do think that there are enough sources for those abilities already and would like to see something new in any future UA's.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Warlocks might be better off than rogues but they are far from OP. They are weaker than the druid.
The only reason I agree is that opportunity attacks ruined mobility to start with, on top of slowing down the game. If 2024 dropped ubiquitous opportunity attacks, you wouldn't need teleportation to encourage interesting movement. It's a clumsy bandage. The 2024 solution requires all characters to be either martial/stationary or rogues/magical/mobile. The side effect is that if you want to make a non-rogue character mobile, you must also make it possible for that character to violate physics. Plenty of us argued this in 2013-14, when the devs could have elected to make opportunity attacks more rare or locked them to certain archetypes. We were arguing from the experience in 3e, where the issue was even worse.
One idea I had to make opportunity attacks less brutal is making monsters not add their ability modifier to the damage of them.
I love Warlocks but a caster with only two spell slots and a decent cantrip they spam is far from over powered
My gripe isn’t how much damage opportunity attacks deal—it’s that their very existence drags the game out and makes it less fun for me.
Close‑combat in D&D is already a tough nut to crack. You’re constantly juggling high damage risk, aura effects, melee traps, and “death‑throes”‑style abilities. Melee fighters in 5e have already been suffering with a baseline level of boring—they often end up doing the same vanilla attack over and over with little else to spice things up.
On top of that, opportunity attacks pile on extra mental overhead. Every time you want to move while engaged in melee, you have to consider whether it will provoke, and whether the movement is then worthwhile at all. That creates a no‑win situation. You can either stay put, making combat feel static and boring, or you can move, which risks triggering one or more opportunity attacks, each of which adds another round of dice‑rolling. This slows down encounters, which are already too long in 5e. Opportunity attacks can be interesting in limited doses, but when every monster gets to use it, the mechanic loses its value.
It doesn’t matter how much damage the attacks actually do; the slowdown alone is enough to kill the momentum. There is a simple fix.
Opportunity attacks shouldn’t be a default ability for every PC or monster. Instead, treat them as an uncommon special feature reserved for characters who truly excel at close‑quarters combat and whose fantasy concept supports it—think dedicated duelists, berserkers, or monsters built around melee dominance. This would also provide the benefit of allowing melee tanks to feel more like tanks.
You complained about melee combat having no decision making (just attack every turn), and about having to make a decision when you want to move out of melee range. Which one do you not like? Decision making, or no decision making?
Use a pike, with 10ft reach, and attack and move without triggering OA
"and a decent cantrip"
That "decent cantrip" does more damage and more attacks than a ranger.
"they spam"
They spam it because its the most powerfuk cantrip in the game.
"far from over powered"
Tell that to every 2-level warlock dip out there ...
I genuinely have no idea what argument you're trying to make. Do you disagree with my opinion that opportunity attacks are a drag, or no? Kindly say so plainly.
Gosh, if only there was some way within the rules to move without taking Opportunity Attacks, if it's that important for you to do it
You're also ignoring situations where it's a strategic advantage to get a creature to burn its reaction with an OA, and that sort of thing. That's not "extra mental overhead", it's the kind of thing that makes combat more interesting
This complaint makes absolutely no sense to me, sorry
As for the actual subject of the thread, I suspect the increase in teleportation features in 5e24 is a response to players choices in 5e14. Fey Touched was viewed as a top-tier feat choice for a reason. I do agree that they may have gone overboard in some cases (i.e. Archfey warlock), but the new Cartographer artificer shows they're at least trying to find new twists on Misty Step-like abilities. And if you don't like it, don't play one of those subclasses
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In my experience, opportunity attacks are feared more than they deserve. Unless I'm trying to dash through several lines of enemies, or the enemies are particularly hard-hitting, I don't worry about them. If you're moving away, either there's an important tactical reason, or you're trying to escape an enemy who will presumably be hitting you with their full attack next round anyway, so you're better off risking the opportunity attack.
If they were unusual, while it would perhaps encourage more movement in combat (maybe -- a lot of times there's no good reason to move), it would also reduce the tactical interest of combat. Not only does it reduce the value of positioning, and of the abilities that let monks and rogues maneuver in combat, but there are also times when you want to bait the opportunity to take away the enemy's other reactions. (And if they let you go freely, that's also a disadvantage for them.)
As it is, 5e24 has more ways to make the battlefield more dynamic. Not just teleports, but there's also more push-pull abilities, such as weapon masteries. And knockdown abilities, while they don't negate OAs, certainly make them less effective.