Giving every participant a way to avoid an attack once per round, virtually for free, would absolutely drag combat out. It's laughable to compare that to the dodge action. All of these reactions sound like nightmares, honestly.
[...[]Are there any TTRPG's that let you just declare your attempt to dodge in response to being attacked? Every one I can think of simply assumes that general attempting to dodge is a part of being in combat.
Runequest and it's descendants, GURPS, Chivalry and Sorcery to name three I've played. All are significantly different to D&D though in how they handle armour - it doesn't reduce the chance of being hit, it reduces the damage you take when you're hit.
Giving every participant a way to avoid an attack once per round, virtually for free, would absolutely drag combat out. It's laughable to compare that to the dodge action. All of these reactions sound like nightmares, honestly.
The ability to drop prone "sounds like a nightmare"? Ok.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Giving every participant a way to avoid an attack once per round, virtually for free, would absolutely drag combat out. It's laughable to compare that to the dodge action. All of these reactions sound like nightmares, honestly.
The ability to drop prone "sounds like a nightmare"? Ok.
The ability to drop prone, outside of your own turn, once all melee hazards have been cleared and there's no risk to dropping prone? Asking players/allowing time for the reaction on literally every single ranged attack fired at any party member? Yes, this sounds like a nightmare. It only serves to make combats last longer and mitigate any sort of risk to a character.
There's a reason that Shield and Silvery Barbs are considered some of the best 1st-level spells in the game, and right now we're discussing the idea of giving similar zero-cost abilities to everyone? Nah, fam. Nah.
When discussing how to fix a problem with the system, you are intrinsically arguing that their initial design had a problem. Saying their initial design runs contrary to the proposed fix is a given. It should, their initial design has the problem. We want to fix it.
I suppose it depends on what exactly we're talking about. If the question is specifically in regards to 5e, then that assumes we're attempting a minor tweak on the system while leaving the underlying design principles in places. If you're going after the system as a whole, you're not talking about fixing a problem in a system, you're talking about overhauling an existing system into something distinct. 5e was deliberately designed with few defense or reaction options, ergo if you're looking to make large-scale changes to that portion, you're either going to knock the whole combat system off kilter, which isn't really a fix, or you're completely overhauling the system, at which point you're not really playing 5e anymore.
I will disagree with this particular assertion about the impact of changing a system (combat, in this case) meaning one is no longer playing 5e.
D&D in any edition is a sprawling collection of different systems that interact far les than people may realize, and this is one of the strengths of the system as a whole, as it gives it significant flexibility and durability.
for all the Theseus’ ship arguments, the simple fact is that spells, critters, core abilities, the d20 basis, combat, magic (which is distinct from spells, mechanically), and so forth are all very much easily changed or added onto without ultimately altering the fundamental nature of the game as a whole if the core principles are retained.
some will point to Paulo and argue PF isn’t D&D and I would beg to differ there, as well: I see it as a competing version of D&D, a distinct Edition so to speak, even though it is no longer under the stewardship of WotC.
and the folks I know who play it still think of it as D&D.
it is like arguing that cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians are two different games. They aren’t. They are just played differently.
One could develop an entirely separate set of spells and monsters and leave the rest alone, and they would still be playing D&D — even if they used entirely new ways of writing and playing those spells and monsters.
the only way it would become something other than D&D would be if they rewrote everything as an entire whole in terms of the underlying mechanical systems in use.
one can run a straight rules D&D game without Monsters, without magic, without combat. All of that within the rules as written themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To the general point of the thread, I will note that it is shockingly overwhelming how many folks are in favor of opportunity attacks being available to everyone — but also how in the defense of not doing so the responses cite edge cases or specific uses with the assertion that only some should have it.
the issue is that some folks see the way the game used the concept to give power and favor to some classes, but in doing so ignored the system itself, which is supposed to be a rough approximation, not a precise system.
this tension has existed for a very long time. D&D does not have a system that says you swing once every six seconds. It has a system that says “at some point in this six second window, you score this hit”.
folks who have been in combat, or who engage in re-enactments, or just want supercrunch are likely to see the flaws in this approach, but not the benefits, and the flip side for those who hold the other view.
oppo attacks are not new, even in Edition time, because the underlying basis is still “due to assorted factors. Here is a chance that you can use”. It makes both cinematic and mechanical sense that someone would have a chance to strike — just like the bad guy does after everyone thinks he is down.
in this, imagine that your character is hit with the same kinds of attacks of opportunity that are being cited here. If that seems unfair, then your argument is weakened, because it isn’t about the mechanics, but rather the player.
no matter what side of the debate you are on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
... Do people feel like this is true, or do you see players often leaving melee range and activating an Attack of Opportunity?
To address this question ... I have frequently seen both PCs and NPCs leaving melee range and activating an Attack of Opportunity for a wide variety of reasons. In most of these cases, either the PC or NPC weighs the risk of the Op Attack vs the expected benefit (usually attacking a more optimal target or getting more than 5' away to make a ranged attack).
For example, I've seen both PCs and NPCs subjected to op attacks as they move to engage a spellcaster or other more dangerous but also usually easier to hit target.
Characters that don't have an alternative use for their action (or for whom an Op Attack would be a significant risk) will usually just disengage as their action.
Giving every participant a way to avoid an attack once per round, virtually for free, would absolutely drag combat out. It's laughable to compare that to the dodge action. All of these reactions sound like nightmares, honestly.
Runequest and it's descendants, GURPS, Chivalry and Sorcery to name three I've played. All are significantly different to D&D though in how they handle armour - it doesn't reduce the chance of being hit, it reduces the damage you take when you're hit.
The ability to drop prone "sounds like a nightmare"? Ok.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The ability to drop prone, outside of your own turn, once all melee hazards have been cleared and there's no risk to dropping prone? Asking players/allowing time for the reaction on literally every single ranged attack fired at any party member? Yes, this sounds like a nightmare. It only serves to make combats last longer and mitigate any sort of risk to a character.
There's a reason that Shield and Silvery Barbs are considered some of the best 1st-level spells in the game, and right now we're discussing the idea of giving similar zero-cost abilities to everyone? Nah, fam. Nah.
I will disagree with this particular assertion about the impact of changing a system (combat, in this case) meaning one is no longer playing 5e.
D&D in any edition is a sprawling collection of different systems that interact far les than people may realize, and this is one of the strengths of the system as a whole, as it gives it significant flexibility and durability.
for all the Theseus’ ship arguments, the simple fact is that spells, critters, core abilities, the d20 basis, combat, magic (which is distinct from spells, mechanically), and so forth are all very much easily changed or added onto without ultimately altering the fundamental nature of the game as a whole if the core principles are retained.
some will point to Paulo and argue PF isn’t D&D and I would beg to differ there, as well: I see it as a competing version of D&D, a distinct Edition so to speak, even though it is no longer under the stewardship of WotC.
and the folks I know who play it still think of it as D&D.
it is like arguing that cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians are two different games. They aren’t. They are just played differently.
One could develop an entirely separate set of spells and monsters and leave the rest alone, and they would still be playing D&D — even if they used entirely new ways of writing and playing those spells and monsters.
the only way it would become something other than D&D would be if they rewrote everything as an entire whole in terms of the underlying mechanical systems in use.
one can run a straight rules D&D game without Monsters, without magic, without combat. All of that within the rules as written themselves.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To the general point of the thread, I will note that it is shockingly overwhelming how many folks are in favor of opportunity attacks being available to everyone — but also how in the defense of not doing so the responses cite edge cases or specific uses with the assertion that only some should have it.
the issue is that some folks see the way the game used the concept to give power and favor to some classes, but in doing so ignored the system itself, which is supposed to be a rough approximation, not a precise system.
this tension has existed for a very long time. D&D does not have a system that says you swing once every six seconds. It has a system that says “at some point in this six second window, you score this hit”.
folks who have been in combat, or who engage in re-enactments, or just want supercrunch are likely to see the flaws in this approach, but not the benefits, and the flip side for those who hold the other view.
oppo attacks are not new, even in Edition time, because the underlying basis is still “due to assorted factors. Here is a chance that you can use”. It makes both cinematic and mechanical sense that someone would have a chance to strike — just like the bad guy does after everyone thinks he is down.
in this, imagine that your character is hit with the same kinds of attacks of opportunity that are being cited here. If that seems unfair, then your argument is weakened, because it isn’t about the mechanics, but rather the player.
no matter what side of the debate you are on.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned PF2, where OAs are limited to only certain classes.
To address this question ... I have frequently seen both PCs and NPCs leaving melee range and activating an Attack of Opportunity for a wide variety of reasons. In most of these cases, either the PC or NPC weighs the risk of the Op Attack vs the expected benefit (usually attacking a more optimal target or getting more than 5' away to make a ranged attack).
For example, I've seen both PCs and NPCs subjected to op attacks as they move to engage a spellcaster or other more dangerous but also usually easier to hit target.
Characters that don't have an alternative use for their action (or for whom an Op Attack would be a significant risk) will usually just disengage as their action.