As I am building my knowledge regarding the rules of engagement in the 5E system I keep coming across a combat tactic that makes sense in some circumstances, yet seems improbable or impractical in other circumstances. This has to do with the Opportunity Attack (OA) or Attack of Opportunity (AoO). I understand the rules for D&D do not completely explain all aspects of events that could happen in real life. Unfortunately when creating a game I like to make the events seem logical and practical. When I look at fencing, boxing, or kendo as examples of melee combat I have to ask how does moving backward create an opportunity for your opponent to make an extra attack? If an attacker who moves into attack you rolls and does not hit. Then on your turn you kite that attacker by making movement backward to gain position to fire your ranged weapon. How does that create an opportunity for the attacker to recover from the failed attack to attempt another attack? Or even if the attacker lands their blow and you take several steps back to recover. How does that then create an opportunity for that opponent to bring back their weapon in a ready fashion to take another swing? Those instances I feel the AoO doesn't feel probable or practical. Creating distance from an opponent by stepping backward is a tactic used often in combat situations which rarely gives the other person the ability to swing and hit again. Also repositions backward rarely negates your ability to strike as if to say you have used your entire turn to "disengage" from combat. I understand the need for combat movement restrictions. I just argue how some movements, such as moving backward, create an opportunity to attack. As a homebrew I have modified the ability to make an opportunity attack and the concept of disengaging. I have done this in an attempt to make movement more practical. Charging forward past an opponent who can see and reach you gives them the opportunity to attack you. Turning your back on an opponent who can see and reach you without "disengaging" would also create that opportunity. Simply moving backward while maintaining line of sight does not create an opportunity for an attack. If you want to maneuver around opponents to gain position which allows them to flank you would also give them the opportunity to attack. This doesn't eliminate the rogues unique skill to dodge, dash, or disengage as a bonus action. That class would still be able to interact and attack while maneuvering around the battle field with their bonus action still available. The idea of moving backward for position also does not give other classes the unique bonus action of disengaging. If that player wants to maneuver any other way around combatants then they have to think about how they are opening themselves up for a quick jab. Using your action to attack and then attempt to move past the opponent you attacked gives them an opportunity to attack. In short I am only applying the homebrew rule to the idea someone is maintaining distance or repositioning after an attack by moving backward while keeping the opponent in sight and engaged with combat maneuvers. The 5E rule as it is creates an impractical static environment for melee combat. Two opponents who are whacking at each other only circling each other to prevent their opponent from being able to get a one up smack. Again taking a step backward, as in fencing, boxing, or any other fighting style, rarely ever creates opportunity for your opponent to get in an extra smack.
Honestly 5e just makes it simple...you move out of reach its an AoO.
In pervious editions there was a laundry list of things that would expose you to AoO (including stuff like casting a spell) that they just did away with for the sake of simplicity.
My general advice is just try RAW for a while and see if it fits or not before making big adjustments to the system. Facing is not part of the system at all and if you want to incorporate it you will have to make a LOT of adjustments for it.
You might be better off looking at other systems potentially to see if their ingrained rules fit your style better. You could look at Pathfinder or PF 2nd Edition.
Nothing prevent a DM to have more situation that provoke Opportunity Attack, but RAW its fairly simple what provoke and its if you try to get away from your opponent by leaving it's reach.
3.5 had one 5-foot-step per round in addition to your movement, right? To reflect that a combatant can probably safely step back from one enemy, but would be exposed if trying to weave through many?
If you wanted to houserule that a player can take a”5 foot step not provoking OA” once on their turn as a (bonus action? once free per turn?), that would probably make combat feel more 3.5ish.
Just recall that 3.5 made it very hard for melee combatants to meaningfully lock down a front line. 4E addressed that with hard taunts and targeting priorities DM was instructed to follow, which made melee VERY sticky. 5E walked that back a bit, but the elimination of the 5 foot step overall has made melee “better” since it takes sacrificing your entire action/attack to safely disengage, so changing that WILL effect combat balance.
As Optimis said, I’d suggest giving 5E a chance and getting familiar with it, before jumping straight to houseruling core systems.
3.5 had one 5-foot-step per round in addition to your movement, right? To reflect that a combatant can probably safely step back from one enemy, but would be exposed if trying to weave through many?
If you wanted to houserule that a player can take a”5 foot step not provoking OA” once on their turn as a (bonus action? once free per turn?), that would probably make combat feel more 3.5ish.
Just recall that 3.5 made it very hard for melee combatants to meaningfully lock down a front line. 4E addressed that with hard taunts and targeting priorities DM was instructed to follow, which made melee VERY sticky. 5E walked that back a bit, but the elimination of the 5 foot step overall has made melee “better” since it takes sacrificing your entire action/attack to safely disengage, so changing that WILL effect combat balance.
As Optimis said, I’d suggest giving 5E a chance and getting familiar with it, before jumping straight to houseruling core systems.
PF2e does that as well where you have a Step that is 5ft that does not provoke AoO.
You are correct it is a fairly common concept in the "crunchier" versions of the game. 5e had Disengage as action instead to simplify the process/idea and it allows you to use your full movement.
Overall I feel AoO are likey not proc'd a whole lot since every creature gets it. I did a survey on it once.
Seems that for the majority of folks its about once a combat or less frequent than that.
Can’t say I haven’t given the overall RAW system a chance. I’m GM’ing a campaign that’s been going on over the past year. Just seeing one aspect of combat that doesn’t really create fluid realistic movement in melee combat. Perhaps it’s just how I’m imagining the 5e wording. defensively moving backwards doesn’t open oneself up to an attack nor does it negate the ability to attack. I do agree that opportunity attacks are probably not considered in the turn based game. Especially if people aren’t contemplating what exactly they can do in a turn.
I just can’t help seeing an overall flaw in the idea that defensive movement, especially how moving in combat is written, causes an opening for an opponent to attack or completely negates the ability to attack.
Can’t say I haven’t given the overall RAW system a chance. I’m GM’ing a campaign that’s been going on over the past year. Just seeing one aspect of combat that doesn’t really create fluid realistic movement in melee combat. Perhaps it’s just how I’m imagining the 5e wording. defensively moving backwards doesn’t open oneself up to an attack nor does it negate the ability to attack.
Backing away carefully = the Disengage action, no opportunity attacks.
Just moving, turning away from the enemy carelessly = a drop in your guard, so opportunity attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I see disengaging as something that is more than a defensive movement backwards. Like there’s a bomb about to go off and to prevent from being in range you disengage from the combat to run away. Or I’m injured and in attempt to prevent from getting killed I disengage to make only evasive measures until I can be helped. My feelings a movement backwards such as when a melee combatant moves forward to close the gap and attack a person who’s uses a bow. After that attack move it’s the range fighters turn. To prevent disadvantage on close range shots and moving in an area that doesn’t have difficult terrain, they move backwards to maintain distance. This would ultimately cause the melee attacker to move forward again. I don’t see this type off movement as disengagement. I also don’t see how this type of movement would practically creates an opportunity for the melee attacker to swing again. In fencing you attack and move to keep your opponent at a distance allowing for telegraphing of next move. There’s no real time to make an attack on someone who’s quickly stepping back that way. At least not a truly successful one.
I see disengaging as something that is more than a defensive movement backwards. Like there’s a bomb about to go off and to prevent from being in range you disengage from the combat to run away. Or I’m injured and in attempt to prevent from getting killed I disengage to make only evasive measures until I can be helped. My feelings a movement backwards such as when a melee combatant moves forward to close the gap and attack a person who’s uses a bow. After that attack move it’s the range fighters turn. To prevent disadvantage on close range shots and moving in an area that doesn’t have difficult terrain, they move backwards to maintain distance. This would ultimately cause the melee attacker to move forward again. I don’t see this type off movement as disengagement. I also don’t see how this type of movement would practically crest an opportunity for the melee attacker to swing again. In fencing you attack and move to keep your opponent at a distance allowing for telegraphing of next move. There’s no real time to make an attack on someone who’s quickly stepping back that way. At least not a truly successful one.
How you see it is irrelevant.
The disengage action in D&D 5th Edition is specifically to ensure you can leave an enemy without dropping your guard.
That is how D&D works.
If you don't like it, change it. DM > Rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
As a HEMA practitioner of 8 years, I think you're seeing the idea of moving away like this wrong.
You're viewing it like opponents fencing one to one with one another. But that's not what D&D combat is typically like. This is not sports-hall match competition, it's a battlefield of swirling magical energy, breath weapons, exploding mushrooms, barbarians who are so enraged they shrug off arrows like they were dandelions and ultimately, they could be fighting a giant flying jellyfish from hell.
The type of in-and-out distance control is something that we should assume is automatically going on within the combat, outside of any actual movement across hexes or squares. These are not chess pieces advancing and making a solitary blow; these are dynamic warriors who are moving, parrying, circling and the whole of the combat mechanics purely exist to suggest that it's possible that combatants might hit each other, and represent it in an easily digestible way. Any movement away from an enemy should be considered to be like turning your back, or ignoring the opponent in order to move away.
There is no part of D&D combat that aims for realism (errrrm hit points?), and you're trying to apply realism to just one part of the fight. Attacks of Opportunity exist solely so that the battlefield feels dynamic and that if an orc is chasing your wizard, she can't just run off from it and have to be chased like a Benny Hill scene. It's there so that your fighters get up in each others' faces and then have to make choices about whether to try to push forward to engage the back line squishies.
I was just wondering if anyone else saw the intrinsic flaw of movement in combat and the terminology regarding movement and disengagement. moving doesn’t equal dropping your guard. Especially moving backwards. I’m looking for a discussion. Not sure why you post if you feel my thoughts were irrelevant. Unless you’re annoyed which then makes me wonder why post?
Sanvael put it well: this isn’t about realism it is about combat balance. Allowing what you’re describing WILL make combat much more fluid and mobile, in a way that is very likely to frustrate your melee tanks, and result in more Benny Hill chases around the battlefield as ranged characters attempt to kite their pursuers even after being caught. Making melee more sticky by requiring a high opportunity cost for Disengage is very much an intentional design element of 5E, not a mere oversight.
I was just wondering if anyone else saw the intrinsic flaw of movement in combat and the terminology regarding movement and disengagement. moving doesn’t equal dropping your guard. Especially moving backwards. I’m looking for a discussion. Not sure why you post if you feel my thoughts were irrelevant. Unless you’re annoyed which then makes me wonder why post?
Disengage is a valid term. It means to release from something and also means to remove from an area of conflict. D&D is just adding "safely", because just moving away could also be described as disengaging by definition.
There is no flaw in terms. Disengage is an action that represents "moving backwards" - to remove yourself from the conflict with that particular enemy in a safe fashion. You are disengaging from an enemy you are engaged in conflict with.
The Move on your turn literally means just moving in that direction. Not safely, not dangerously, it's just moving. If you're engaged with an enemy and you just move out without regard for your safety you have, indeed, dropped your guard which presents an opportunity for the enemy to attack. To do so keeping your guard you back up, keep yourself ready, keep an eye on them as you move - this is the act of disengaging. This is the Disengage action.
This is not flawed and uses the correct terms.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I see the construct you're describing. I also understand the idea that 5E is attempting to establish. I'm not looking for realism in a fantasy role playing game. I'm more looking for probable and practical battlefield movement. I'm attempting to make sense of action, reaction, engagement, disengagement, and movement. That way when I describe it to a player during a game session it comes across as "Yeah, I see how that works!". To say that a movement backward as an enemy approaches causes an opportunity for an attack doesn't at all seem practical. I agree that rules have to be balanced so that players and NPC's aren't dancing on the battlefield unchecked. I do feel that the rules as written create an environment that is completely static. Preventing players from using any movement except to dance literally in circles around their opponent or suffer some form of retaliation. Moving out of an area of effect, especially backward after shooting an arrow and slashing with a sword doesn't seem practical to elicit an opportunity for the opponent to counter attack. I don't see that as a disengagement. I would say that if you step to the side or attempt to move around an opponent after making an attack that you would be allowing yourself to be flanked. Which would then give more practical application for an AoO. The RAW doesn't take into account flanking or being surrounded. Unless you are moving out of or through an area of effect for an opportunity attack. Or if you're using the Help action. Or if you're asking the GM if you have advantage on the attack. Which by the way is completely open for debate and has no meaningful descriptive verbiage within the 5E system. Probably a topic for another thread. I appreciate the idea that people posting have some experience swinging and shooting weapon. That helps when attempting to describe what I'm talking about. I get that this is not a competition arena, one on one scenario. The idea that someone can get a good swing off because you stepped 10 feet backward Isn't practical in combat. If you stepped 10 feet backward and into someone else's area of effect then yes you have now been flanked. I'll look up how to post some pics to give a more visual description of what I am seeing as flawed when it comes to backward movement.
Another example could be that if I am a range fighter and a melee combatant approaches me that I react by moving backward to prevent the gap from being closed. That action and reaction would essentially always lead to the melee combatant never being close enough to land a hit. While the ranged combatant shuffles backward while shooting arrows. Moving doesn't hinder action. the melee combatant can swing his sword all they want while walking forward. A bowman can shoot his bow while moving. Since the bowman was never in the melee combatant area of effect then the AoO never applies.
The roll to hit on an attack represents the one (at low levels) good opportunity that could occur in those 6 seconds for you to land a blow on your opponent.
If you don't actively use the disengage action, then the OA merely represents a last lunge/thrust/whatever with a weapon towards somebody leaving your immediate surroundings.
If you do use disengage, then you are actively parrying with no intention of attacking, and so can move away without exposing yourself to one final blow from your foe.
Another example could be that if I am a range fighter and a melee combatant approaches me that I react by moving backward to prevent the gap from being closed. That action and reaction would essentially always lead to the melee combatant never being close enough to land a hit. While the ranged combatant shuffles backward while shooting arrows. Moving doesn't hinder action. the melee combatant can swing his sword all they want while walking forward. A bowman can shoot his bow while moving. Since the bowman was never in the melee combatant area of effect then the AoO never applies.
If the melee fighter does not have enough movement to get within 5 feet of the archer then, yes, the archer can move away and shoot. However, depending on range, the melee fighter can Dash into 5 feet and when the archer tries to move away, will suffer an OA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I think another problem is you’re treating “provoked an OA” as being on par with “left yourself defenseless.” You’re usually no easier to hit with an OA on your turn than you are at other times not on your turn, where you probably ALSO are fighting defensively and taking measures to protect yourself. If you step back out of my sword range (carefully, cautiously, with great skill and aplomb) so that you can shoot me, why wouldn’t I try take one last swing at you? The defensiveness of your fighting stance is generally represented by your AC, and that’s no less true when someone makes an OA against you than it is when they use their action to attack.
As I am building my knowledge regarding the rules of engagement in the 5E system I keep coming across a combat tactic that makes sense in some circumstances, yet seems improbable or impractical in other circumstances. This has to do with the Opportunity Attack (OA) or Attack of Opportunity (AoO). I understand the rules for D&D do not completely explain all aspects of events that could happen in real life. Unfortunately when creating a game I like to make the events seem logical and practical. When I look at fencing, boxing, or kendo as examples of melee combat I have to ask how does moving backward create an opportunity for your opponent to make an extra attack? If an attacker who moves into attack you rolls and does not hit. Then on your turn you kite that attacker by making movement backward to gain position to fire your ranged weapon. How does that create an opportunity for the attacker to recover from the failed attack to attempt another attack? Or even if the attacker lands their blow and you take several steps back to recover. How does that then create an opportunity for that opponent to bring back their weapon in a ready fashion to take another swing? Those instances I feel the AoO doesn't feel probable or practical. Creating distance from an opponent by stepping backward is a tactic used often in combat situations which rarely gives the other person the ability to swing and hit again. Also repositions backward rarely negates your ability to strike as if to say you have used your entire turn to "disengage" from combat. I understand the need for combat movement restrictions. I just argue how some movements, such as moving backward, create an opportunity to attack. As a homebrew I have modified the ability to make an opportunity attack and the concept of disengaging. I have done this in an attempt to make movement more practical. Charging forward past an opponent who can see and reach you gives them the opportunity to attack you. Turning your back on an opponent who can see and reach you without "disengaging" would also create that opportunity. Simply moving backward while maintaining line of sight does not create an opportunity for an attack. If you want to maneuver around opponents to gain position which allows them to flank you would also give them the opportunity to attack. This doesn't eliminate the rogues unique skill to dodge, dash, or disengage as a bonus action. That class would still be able to interact and attack while maneuvering around the battle field with their bonus action still available. The idea of moving backward for position also does not give other classes the unique bonus action of disengaging. If that player wants to maneuver any other way around combatants then they have to think about how they are opening themselves up for a quick jab. Using your action to attack and then attempt to move past the opponent you attacked gives them an opportunity to attack. In short I am only applying the homebrew rule to the idea someone is maintaining distance or repositioning after an attack by moving backward while keeping the opponent in sight and engaged with combat maneuvers. The 5E rule as it is creates an impractical static environment for melee combat. Two opponents who are whacking at each other only circling each other to prevent their opponent from being able to get a one up smack. Again taking a step backward, as in fencing, boxing, or any other fighting style, rarely ever creates opportunity for your opponent to get in an extra smack.
I tried posting a video that gave a description but it did not recognize the format. I'll search for some instructions on how to post a video.
Honestly 5e just makes it simple...you move out of reach its an AoO.
In pervious editions there was a laundry list of things that would expose you to AoO (including stuff like casting a spell) that they just did away with for the sake of simplicity.
My general advice is just try RAW for a while and see if it fits or not before making big adjustments to the system. Facing is not part of the system at all and if you want to incorporate it you will have to make a LOT of adjustments for it.
You might be better off looking at other systems potentially to see if their ingrained rules fit your style better. You could look at Pathfinder or PF 2nd Edition.
Nothing prevent a DM to have more situation that provoke Opportunity Attack, but RAW its fairly simple what provoke and its if you try to get away from your opponent by leaving it's reach.
3.5 had one 5-foot-step per round in addition to your movement, right? To reflect that a combatant can probably safely step back from one enemy, but would be exposed if trying to weave through many?
If you wanted to houserule that a player can take a”5 foot step not provoking OA” once on their turn as a (bonus action? once free per turn?), that would probably make combat feel more 3.5ish.
Just recall that 3.5 made it very hard for melee combatants to meaningfully lock down a front line. 4E addressed that with hard taunts and targeting priorities DM was instructed to follow, which made melee VERY sticky. 5E walked that back a bit, but the elimination of the 5 foot step overall has made melee “better” since it takes sacrificing your entire action/attack to safely disengage, so changing that WILL effect combat balance.
As Optimis said, I’d suggest giving 5E a chance and getting familiar with it, before jumping straight to houseruling core systems.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
PF2e does that as well where you have a Step that is 5ft that does not provoke AoO.
You are correct it is a fairly common concept in the "crunchier" versions of the game. 5e had Disengage as action instead to simplify the process/idea and it allows you to use your full movement.
Overall I feel AoO are likey not proc'd a whole lot since every creature gets it. I did a survey on it once.
Seems that for the majority of folks its about once a combat or less frequent than that.
4E had Shift that also did this.
Can’t say I haven’t given the overall RAW system a chance. I’m GM’ing a campaign that’s been going on over the past year. Just seeing one aspect of combat that doesn’t really create fluid realistic movement in melee combat. Perhaps it’s just how I’m imagining the 5e wording. defensively moving backwards doesn’t open oneself up to an attack nor does it negate the ability to attack.
I do agree that opportunity attacks are probably not considered in the turn based game. Especially if people aren’t contemplating what exactly they can do in a turn.
I just can’t help seeing an overall flaw in the idea that defensive movement, especially how moving in combat is written, causes an opening for an opponent to attack or completely negates the ability to attack.
Disengage is what you are envisioning.
Backing away carefully = the Disengage action, no opportunity attacks.
Just moving, turning away from the enemy carelessly = a drop in your guard, so opportunity attack.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I see disengaging as something that is more than a defensive movement backwards. Like there’s a bomb about to go off and to prevent from being in range you disengage from the combat to run away. Or I’m injured and in attempt to prevent from getting killed I disengage to make only evasive measures until I can be helped. My feelings a movement backwards such as when a melee combatant moves forward to close the gap and attack a person who’s uses a bow. After that attack move it’s the range fighters turn. To prevent disadvantage on close range shots and moving in an area that doesn’t have difficult terrain, they move backwards to maintain distance. This would ultimately cause the melee attacker to move forward again. I don’t see this type off movement as disengagement. I also don’t see how this type of movement would practically creates an opportunity for the melee attacker to swing again. In fencing you attack and move to keep your opponent at a distance allowing for telegraphing of next move. There’s no real time to make an attack on someone who’s quickly stepping back that way. At least not a truly successful one.
How you see it is irrelevant.
The disengage action in D&D 5th Edition is specifically to ensure you can leave an enemy without dropping your guard.
That is how D&D works.
If you don't like it, change it. DM > Rules.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
As a HEMA practitioner of 8 years, I think you're seeing the idea of moving away like this wrong.
You're viewing it like opponents fencing one to one with one another. But that's not what D&D combat is typically like. This is not sports-hall match competition, it's a battlefield of swirling magical energy, breath weapons, exploding mushrooms, barbarians who are so enraged they shrug off arrows like they were dandelions and ultimately, they could be fighting a giant flying jellyfish from hell.
The type of in-and-out distance control is something that we should assume is automatically going on within the combat, outside of any actual movement across hexes or squares. These are not chess pieces advancing and making a solitary blow; these are dynamic warriors who are moving, parrying, circling and the whole of the combat mechanics purely exist to suggest that it's possible that combatants might hit each other, and represent it in an easily digestible way. Any movement away from an enemy should be considered to be like turning your back, or ignoring the opponent in order to move away.
There is no part of D&D combat that aims for realism (errrrm hit points?), and you're trying to apply realism to just one part of the fight. Attacks of Opportunity exist solely so that the battlefield feels dynamic and that if an orc is chasing your wizard, she can't just run off from it and have to be chased like a Benny Hill scene. It's there so that your fighters get up in each others' faces and then have to make choices about whether to try to push forward to engage the back line squishies.
I did.
I was just wondering if anyone else saw the intrinsic flaw of movement in combat and the terminology regarding movement and disengagement. moving doesn’t equal dropping your guard. Especially moving backwards. I’m looking for a discussion. Not sure why you post if you feel my thoughts were irrelevant. Unless you’re annoyed which then makes me wonder why post?
Sanvael put it well: this isn’t about realism it is about combat balance. Allowing what you’re describing WILL make combat much more fluid and mobile, in a way that is very likely to frustrate your melee tanks, and result in more Benny Hill chases around the battlefield as ranged characters attempt to kite their pursuers even after being caught. Making melee more sticky by requiring a high opportunity cost for Disengage is very much an intentional design element of 5E, not a mere oversight.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Disengage is a valid term. It means to release from something and also means to remove from an area of conflict. D&D is just adding "safely", because just moving away could also be described as disengaging by definition.
There is no flaw in terms. Disengage is an action that represents "moving backwards" - to remove yourself from the conflict with that particular enemy in a safe fashion. You are disengaging from an enemy you are engaged in conflict with.
The Move on your turn literally means just moving in that direction. Not safely, not dangerously, it's just moving. If you're engaged with an enemy and you just move out without regard for your safety you have, indeed, dropped your guard which presents an opportunity for the enemy to attack. To do so keeping your guard you back up, keep yourself ready, keep an eye on them as you move - this is the act of disengaging. This is the Disengage action.
This is not flawed and uses the correct terms.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I see the construct you're describing. I also understand the idea that 5E is attempting to establish. I'm not looking for realism in a fantasy role playing game. I'm more looking for probable and practical battlefield movement. I'm attempting to make sense of action, reaction, engagement, disengagement, and movement. That way when I describe it to a player during a game session it comes across as "Yeah, I see how that works!". To say that a movement backward as an enemy approaches causes an opportunity for an attack doesn't at all seem practical. I agree that rules have to be balanced so that players and NPC's aren't dancing on the battlefield unchecked. I do feel that the rules as written create an environment that is completely static. Preventing players from using any movement except to dance literally in circles around their opponent or suffer some form of retaliation. Moving out of an area of effect, especially backward after shooting an arrow and slashing with a sword doesn't seem practical to elicit an opportunity for the opponent to counter attack. I don't see that as a disengagement. I would say that if you step to the side or attempt to move around an opponent after making an attack that you would be allowing yourself to be flanked. Which would then give more practical application for an AoO. The RAW doesn't take into account flanking or being surrounded. Unless you are moving out of or through an area of effect for an opportunity attack. Or if you're using the Help action. Or if you're asking the GM if you have advantage on the attack. Which by the way is completely open for debate and has no meaningful descriptive verbiage within the 5E system. Probably a topic for another thread. I appreciate the idea that people posting have some experience swinging and shooting weapon. That helps when attempting to describe what I'm talking about. I get that this is not a competition arena, one on one scenario. The idea that someone can get a good swing off because you stepped 10 feet backward Isn't practical in combat. If you stepped 10 feet backward and into someone else's area of effect then yes you have now been flanked. I'll look up how to post some pics to give a more visual description of what I am seeing as flawed when it comes to backward movement.
Another example could be that if I am a range fighter and a melee combatant approaches me that I react by moving backward to prevent the gap from being closed. That action and reaction would essentially always lead to the melee combatant never being close enough to land a hit. While the ranged combatant shuffles backward while shooting arrows. Moving doesn't hinder action. the melee combatant can swing his sword all they want while walking forward. A bowman can shoot his bow while moving. Since the bowman was never in the melee combatant area of effect then the AoO never applies.
A combat round is 6 seconds.
The roll to hit on an attack represents the one (at low levels) good opportunity that could occur in those 6 seconds for you to land a blow on your opponent.
If you don't actively use the disengage action, then the OA merely represents a last lunge/thrust/whatever with a weapon towards somebody leaving your immediate surroundings.
If you do use disengage, then you are actively parrying with no intention of attacking, and so can move away without exposing yourself to one final blow from your foe.
If the melee fighter does not have enough movement to get within 5 feet of the archer then, yes, the archer can move away and shoot. However, depending on range, the melee fighter can Dash into 5 feet and when the archer tries to move away, will suffer an OA.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I think another problem is you’re treating “provoked an OA” as being on par with “left yourself defenseless.” You’re usually no easier to hit with an OA on your turn than you are at other times not on your turn, where you probably ALSO are fighting defensively and taking measures to protect yourself. If you step back out of my sword range (carefully, cautiously, with great skill and aplomb) so that you can shoot me, why wouldn’t I try take one last swing at you? The defensiveness of your fighting stance is generally represented by your AC, and that’s no less true when someone makes an OA against you than it is when they use their action to attack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.