Opportunity Attacks - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Person_Man Jul 08, 2014 14:08:21	Opportunity Attacks in 5E are triggered when a hostile creature moves out of your reach. In 3.5, it occured when an enemy leaved your threatened square. This means that in 5E a creature does not trigger an attack of opportunity when they move next to or around an enemy. They only trigger one if they move AWAY from a creature. This means that: It's a lot easier for monsters to surround a player, since they can move next to and around the player without triggering an Opportunity Attack, as long as they don't move outside of the player's reach. Moving across the battlefield directly towards an enemy with a Reach weapon (ie, charging someone armed with a polearm) does not trigger an Opportunity Attack. Players with a Reach weapon are actually LESS likely to trigger an Opportunity Attack in many circumstances, since there's a larger space for enemies to move within once they enter a player's threatened area. If a player with a Reach weapon is adjacent to one or more enemies using a Ranged weapon, the enemies can take a 5 ft step backwards and fire their weapon without Disadvantage and without provoking an Opportunity Attack. When combined with the ability for all creatures to move before and after their Action and in between Attacks, and the fact that Opportunity Attacks are limited to your 1 Reaction, the net result is that combat movement is very wobbly, battlefield control barely exists, and players who choose a Reach weapon because they want to improve their battlefield control could actually have the opposite effect, which means that it's a trap option. I was wondering if this was the intent of the new Opportunity Attack and Reach rules and what the rationale for it is, or if this is an oversight caused by poor wording. This is particularly important for those of us who are used to playing with miniatures, which was the default mode of play for most players for 4E, Essentials, Pathfinder, 3.5, and 3.0.
#2 mellored Jul 08, 2014 14:16:53	I don't see any reach weapons.... so i don't know how you can claim anything with that.
#3 AaronOfBarbaria Jul 08, 2014 14:20:24	Person_Man wrote:
#4 Hurin88 Jul 08, 2014 14:32:37	Question though: I am in combat with a goblin, and each one of us is facing the other. On the goblin's turn, what is to prevent that goblin from moving around behind me to get a back attack every round?
#5 DemoMonkey Jul 08, 2014 14:53:49	"Question though: I am in combat with a goblin, and each one of us is facing the other. On the goblin's turn, what is to prevent that goblin from moving around behind me to get a back attack every round?" The fact that there are no facing rules, so there is no such thing as a "back attack". The goblin is either adjacent, or not adjacent, and that's that.
#6 SeanCaruso Jul 08, 2014 14:57:10	mellored wrote:
#7 mellored Jul 08, 2014 15:11:33	SeanCaruso wrote:
#8 Paraxis Jul 08, 2014 15:38:41	There was a feat in the playtest to help out polearm users. Polearm Master
#9 Brodomir_Rumblegut Jul 08, 2014 15:59:14	DemoMonkey wrote:
#10 Brodomir_Rumblegut Jul 08, 2014 16:02:40	Paraxis wrote:
#11 Skoldorf Jul 08, 2014 16:14:54	Also, the 5-foot step is dead. There is only Disengage, or eating the AoO.
#12 souldoubt Jul 08, 2014 17:25:03	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#13 Rastapopoulos Jul 08, 2014 19:08:10	I don't intend to use Attacks of Opportunity. I honestly don't get this idea of "leaving someone's reach triggers an extra attack"... seems very strange to me, and mechanically I don't think I like it either, or keeping track of who's leaving whose threatened area... As someone who's practiced a few different martial arts over the years, I can state that stepping away or aside from someone's reach and line of attack is one of the basis of defense in any form of combat. Just watch any MMA fight or any other such fighting competitions and you'll see guys constantly moving forward and backward, as they look for openings. Stepping away from someone's reach is actually the safe thing to do in a fight, not some "reckless" move that should be penalized by you receiving an extra attack. And it's not some sort of "complex" move either that should required a special action Disengage to perform, it's just normal part of movement and stepping during combat and in my opinion shouldn't spend your action. So... I probably won't be using attacks of opportunity. Now, concerning some tactical moves that some people commented earlier, there are a few things that I intend to incorporate. Here are some: Ready weapon: If you ready a reach weapon against a charging opponent (or anyone moving into your reach), you get to perform one attack before him even if you lost the initiative. The rest of your round is resolved on your normal initiative turn. Ranged weapons in melee: If you start your turn in melee with an opponent, you have disadvantage with ranged attacks even if you move away from him first. (Since I don't use AoO, that's to avoid ranged attackers simply stepping back and firing every round, thus ignoring the disadvantage.)
#14 frothsof Jul 08, 2014 19:36:25	Re: OAs. I really think Disengage works well in play. It doesnt just prevent OAs from the first creature you move away from, but for the whole turn. Allows you to cut and run from multiple foes. Again, worked really well at the table. Very clean. The more I play the more I like what they did with movement in melee.
#15 Jenks Jul 08, 2014 20:31:16	I actually MUCH prefer this style of OAs. This way combat doesn't lock down in 2 to 3 rounds. creatures can still move around, just not away.
#16 souldoubt Jul 08, 2014 21:17:18	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#17 Azzy1974 Jul 08, 2014 21:20:18	Person_Man wrote:
#18 Particle_Man Jul 08, 2014 21:44:40	I like mounted combat. If you can control your mount, the mount disengages as its action and you can attack with a "ride by attack"! The mount doesn't draw an Aoo, and since you are moved by the mount rather than your own power, neither do you. Sadly, Basic doesn't have the riding dog, for halfling warriors to take into dungeons with them.
(Reply to #18) Luciender	Particle_Man wrote:
(Reply to #3) Particle_Man	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #20) AaronOfBarbaria	Particle_Man wrote:
#22 Particle_Man Jul 08, 2014 23:58:30	Another problem with your interpretation is that it does not allow an Aoo if someone leaves one's 10' reach to 15', despite having that weapon's slashy/pointy bits at that range to hurt someone. It also means I am somehow changing my grip both before my attack (to get 10' reach) and after my attack (to lose that 10' reach) automatically, even if it would not be to my advantage to do so. So no, it doesn't wash. Also, my interpretation is the simpler implementation. You don't have to remember that your reach changes; you just have a static reach set by the weapon. I am confident that the RAI interpretation is the simple one that if you have a reach weapon, you have 10' reach, period. It does allow warriors to "circle each other like mad dogs" with a bit of a wider circle, but I can live with that.
(Reply to #3) Person_Man	I agree with Particle Man's comments above. (And probably any other They Might Be Giants enthusiasts on this forum). In addition, the first step under the "Making an Attack" rule is "Pick a target within your attack’s range." If a Goblin is standing 10 feet away from you, it must be within your range for you to declare an attack. If the reach weapon property does not add to your range prior to you declaring an attack, then you can never target a creature beyond 5 feet. Also, the (poorly worded) Reach weapon property says "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." I read "when you attack with it" to mean that you only gain 5 feet of reach with that specific weapon, and not all weapons. For example, if I'm armed with a whip and a flail, I only gain 5 feet of reach when I attack with the whip. If they wanted it to only apply during your turn, then they would have said something like "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it until the end of your turn" or "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, but this reach does not apply during other creatures' turn or Opportunity Attacks." Futhermore, it does not make any sense that you would be able to attack an enemy 10 feet away during your turn, but only 5 feet away during someone else's turn. It's a physical object that reaches an additional 5 feet, not a magical property or special combat maneuver. I'm perfectly willing to consider the fact that I might be wrong. My primary issue is the default 5E rules are for the "theater of the mind" but they tried to incorporate many elements from 3.0/3/5/4E where the default was using miniatures on a physical map. And thus we get poorly worded rules like "when a hostile creature moves out of your reach" and not "when an enemy leaved your threatened square" because a "square" doesn't exist in the theater of the mind. And if I try to play 5E with miniatures on a physical tabletop (which is how I've played D&D since 1st edition) the movement and Opportunity Attack rules function very poorly. 5E uses the exact same vocabulary from previous editions for certain rules, but has changed those rules entirely. If they wanted those rules to function differently, they should have picked different words. For someone who has been playing 3.0/3.5/4E/Essentials for a number of years, Reach and/or Opportunity Attack and many other D&D terms mean something very specific. If they want it to function some other way, fine, go ahead and do that. I expect a new edition to have new rules that function differently. But don't tell me that a Red Light now means Yield, because for the rest of my life Red Light has meant Stop.
#24 ivstin Jul 09, 2014 7:01:51	As a practiced combatant in various combat simulation styles and martial arts practices, something that broke my brain in 3.0/3.5/4.0 was the whole concept of an "extra attack" because I'm circling a target. We pace around each other for long periods of time, focused on defense, in the sparring world. We do not focus on this "opportunity" where I can hit someone because their leg moved passed an imaginary line five feet away... Humor aside, I lovexinfinity the new rules brought to Attacks of Opportunity in the playtest and now in the new game. Now, I can sensibly move around my enemy - staying in the engaged range - without worrying about their attacks of opportunity ruining my positioning. No more of this "first square you leave..." nonsense. I am either in the same distance as I started, closer, or farther away. The assumption in this case is that "moving away" means turning your attention to your surroundings because of your field of vision changing, etc. When I hear people say "I run around behind him..." I see people who have not fought on a battlefield with live weapons. If someone gets behind you and you are fighting them alone... ? What were you facing? When engaged in melee combat, you are constantly adjusting, moving your feet, turning your head... it's a very intense situation, especially when your life is truly on the line and not just for some fun Live Action Roleplay (LARP). As a DM, it has made life ten million times easier on the limit of information coming and going from my players. I do not need to micromanage their movement for attacks every step. I just need to know: Character moving? Yes If Yes: Using Disengage action? If No: is movement Closer, Farther, or the Same? If Farther: then Attack. Resolve. If any other: Any special abilities? If no: Done. Compared to: Character moving? Yes If Yes: 5 ft step? No. Then: Ignore first square. Ask: How many targets threaten second square? Calculate. Then Attack(s). Resolve. Is movement finished? If no, ask: How many targets threaten third square? Ask: If Same targets as previous, do any have more than one attack of opportunity? If yes: Then Attack. Then New targets attack. Repeat for each square. The logorithm in my head got shorter, therefore I am able to focus more time and energy on enemy tactics and descriptions. I approve of this rules change.
(Reply to #13) thehobb	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#26 Rastapopoulos Jul 09, 2014 7:24:27	souldoubt wrote:
#27 Rastapopoulos Jul 09, 2014 7:28:15	thehobb wrote:
#28 The_Lone_Cleric Jul 09, 2014 7:43:57	I do like how it makes pike/lance/glaive uers WAY more useful in keeping skirmishers off your casters and ranged warriors. This is very fun.
(Reply to #27) AaronOfBarbaria	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#30 souldoubt Jul 09, 2014 9:07:31	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#31 MrHotter Jul 09, 2014 10:14:33	I handle opportunity attacks a bit differently. If someone gets up from the table for any reason I throw a d20 at them. If they fail to doge it their character takes damage equal to the roll/throw. Damage is doubled if their beard does not extend to their neck.
#32 Particle_Man Jul 09, 2014 10:18:26	Now I wonder: if someone has whip in one hand and flail in the other, I know that they cannot attack with both weapons using TWF (because neither is a light weapon). If this person attacks an orc 10' to the west with the whip, and the orc moves from 10' to the west of the person to 5' to the north of the person to 5' to the east of the person to 10' to the east of the person, can that person attack the orc with the flail when the orc goes from 5' to the east of the person to 10' to the east of the person for an Aoo, or is the flail unusable for an Aoo because the person attacked with the whip when it was their turn?
#33 DemoMonkey Jul 09, 2014 10:41:59	"Damage is doubled if their beard does not extend to their neck." You've never successfully done double damage to a male player, have you. It's a coin toss whether you've ever done it to a female player either.
(Reply to #25) theliel	thehobb wrote:
(Reply to #34) Person_Man	IIRC, in 1E and 2E if you tried to move away from combat your enemy got a free attack or attack routine. So Fighters could hit a retreating enemy multiple times, and trying to move away from a monster with lots of multiple attacks like an old dragon was basically suicide. Basically every edition of D&D other then 5E punished creatures in a meaningful way for moving away from melee, which is a big part of what makes melee worthwhile. (And in 1E/2E higher level spells took longer to cast, could be disrupted if you damaged the caster while they were being cast, and spellcasters were much much squishier. In 3E there were AoO combos, and in 4E there were a lot of worthwhile melee Powers). In 5E it's much much harder to trigger an Opportunity Attack, and creatures are limited to just 1 per round. So if melee is basically the same thing as ranged combat, then why should any class risk putting yourself anywhere near enemies? Why not just take your Action to make a ranged attack or cast a spell against your enemies and then fall back your full movement speed every turn, attempting to hide being cover if possible so you can't be counter attacked?
#36 theliel Jul 09, 2014 18:05:58	Person_Man wrote:
#37 pukunui Jul 09, 2014 18:18:34	Person_Man wrote:
(Reply to #35) thehobb	Person_Man wrote:
#39 Leugren Jul 11, 2014 4:53:30	Particle_Man wrote:
(Reply to #39) Particle_Man	Leugren wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Person_Man

Jul 08, 2014 14:08:21

Opportunity Attacks in 5E are triggered when a hostile creature moves out of your reach. In 3.5, it occured when an enemy leaved your threatened square.

This means that in 5E a creature does not trigger an attack of opportunity when they move next to or around an enemy. They only trigger one if they move AWAY from a creature. This means that:

It's a lot easier for monsters to surround a player, since they can move next to and around the player without triggering an Opportunity Attack, as long as they don't move outside of the player's reach.
Moving across the battlefield directly towards an enemy with a Reach weapon (ie, charging someone armed with a polearm) does not trigger an Opportunity Attack.
Players with a Reach weapon are actually LESS likely to trigger an Opportunity Attack in many circumstances, since there's a larger space for enemies to move within once they enter a player's threatened area.
If a player with a Reach weapon is adjacent to one or more enemies using a Ranged weapon, the enemies can take a 5 ft step backwards and fire their weapon without Disadvantage and without provoking an Opportunity Attack.

When combined with the ability for all creatures to move before and after their Action and in between Attacks, and the fact that Opportunity Attacks are limited to your 1 Reaction, the net result is that combat movement is very wobbly, battlefield control barely exists, and players who choose a Reach weapon because they want to improve their battlefield control could actually have the opposite effect, which means that it's a trap option.

I was wondering if this was the intent of the new Opportunity Attack and Reach rules and what the rationale for it is, or if this is an oversight caused by poor wording. This is particularly important for those of us who are used to playing with miniatures, which was the default mode of play for most players for 4E, Essentials, Pathfinder, 3.5, and 3.0.

mellored

Jul 08, 2014 14:16:53

I don't see any reach weapons.... so i don't know how you can claim anything with that.

AaronOfBarbaria

Jul 08, 2014 14:20:24

Person_Man wrote:

Hurin88

Jul 08, 2014 14:32:37

Question though: I am in combat with a goblin, and each one of us is facing the other. On the goblin's turn, what is to prevent that goblin from moving around behind me to get a back attack every round?

DemoMonkey

Jul 08, 2014 14:53:49

"Question though: I am in combat with a goblin, and each one of us is facing the other. On the goblin's turn, what is to prevent that goblin from moving around behind me to get a back attack every round?"

The fact that there are no facing rules, so there is no such thing as a "back attack". The goblin is either adjacent, or not adjacent, and that's that.

SeanCaruso

Jul 08, 2014 14:57:10

mellored wrote:

mellored

Jul 08, 2014 15:11:33

SeanCaruso wrote:

Paraxis

Jul 08, 2014 15:38:41

There was a feat in the playtest to help out polearm users.

Polearm Master

Brodomir_Rumblegut

Jul 08, 2014 15:59:14

DemoMonkey wrote:

#10

Brodomir_Rumblegut

Jul 08, 2014 16:02:40

Paraxis wrote:

#11

Skoldorf

Jul 08, 2014 16:14:54

Also, the 5-foot step is dead. There is only Disengage, or eating the AoO.

#12

souldoubt

Jul 08, 2014 17:25:03

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#13

Rastapopoulos

Jul 08, 2014 19:08:10

I don't intend to use Attacks of Opportunity. I honestly don't get this idea of "leaving someone's reach triggers an extra attack"... seems very strange to me, and mechanically I don't think I like it either, or keeping track of who's leaving whose threatened area...

As someone who's practiced a few different martial arts over the years, I can state that stepping away or aside from someone's reach and line of attack is one of the basis of defense in any form of combat. Just watch any MMA fight or any other such fighting competitions and you'll see guys constantly moving forward and backward, as they look for openings.

Stepping away from someone's reach is actually the safe thing to do in a fight, not some "reckless" move that should be penalized by you receiving an extra attack. And it's not some sort of "complex" move either that should required a special action Disengage to perform, it's just normal part of movement and stepping during combat and in my opinion shouldn't spend your action.

So... I probably won't be using attacks of opportunity.

Now, concerning some tactical moves that some people commented earlier, there are a few things that I intend to incorporate. Here are some:

Ready weapon: If you ready a reach weapon against a charging opponent (or anyone moving into your reach), you get to perform one attack before him even if you lost the initiative. The rest of your round is resolved on your normal initiative turn.

Ranged weapons in melee: If you start your turn in melee with an opponent, you have disadvantage with ranged attacks even if you move away from him first.

(Since I don't use AoO, that's to avoid ranged attackers simply stepping back and firing every round, thus ignoring the disadvantage.)

#14

frothsof

Jul 08, 2014 19:36:25

Re: OAs. I really think Disengage works well in play. It doesnt just prevent OAs from the first creature you move away from, but for the whole turn. Allows you to cut and run from multiple foes. Again, worked really well at the table. Very clean. The more I play the more I like what they did with movement in melee.

#15

Jenks

Jul 08, 2014 20:31:16

I actually MUCH prefer this style of OAs. This way combat doesn't lock down in 2 to 3 rounds. creatures can still move around, just not away.

#16

souldoubt

Jul 08, 2014 21:17:18

Rastapopoulos wrote:

#17

Azzy1974

Jul 08, 2014 21:20:18

Person_Man wrote:

#18

Particle_Man

Jul 08, 2014 21:44:40

I like mounted combat. If you can control your mount, the mount disengages as its action and you can attack with a "ride by attack"! The mount doesn't draw an Aoo, and since you are moved by the mount rather than your own power, neither do you.

Sadly, Basic doesn't have the riding dog, for halfling warriors to take into dungeons with them.

(Reply to #18)

Luciender

Particle_Man wrote:

(Reply to #3)

Particle_Man

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #20)

AaronOfBarbaria

Particle_Man wrote:

#22

Particle_Man

Jul 08, 2014 23:58:30

Another problem with your interpretation is that it does not allow an Aoo if someone leaves one's 10' reach to 15', despite having that weapon's slashy/pointy bits at that range to hurt someone. It also means I am somehow changing my grip both before my attack (to get 10' reach) and after my attack (to lose that 10' reach) automatically, even if it would not be to my advantage to do so.

So no, it doesn't wash.

Also, my interpretation is the simpler implementation. You don't have to remember that your reach changes; you just have a static reach set by the weapon.

I am confident that the RAI interpretation is the simple one that if you have a reach weapon, you have 10' reach, period. It does allow warriors to "circle each other like mad dogs" with a bit of a wider circle, but I can live with that.

(Reply to #3)

Person_Man

I agree with Particle Man's comments above. (And probably any other They Might Be Giants enthusiasts on this forum).

In addition, the first step under the "Making an Attack" rule is "Pick a target within your attack’s range." If a Goblin is standing 10 feet away from you, it must be within your range for you to declare an attack. If the reach weapon property does not add to your range prior to you declaring an attack, then you can never target a creature beyond 5 feet.

Also, the (poorly worded) Reach weapon property says "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." I read "when you attack with it" to mean that you only gain 5 feet of reach with that specific weapon, and not all weapons. For example, if I'm armed with a whip and a flail, I only gain 5 feet of reach when I attack with the whip. If they wanted it to only apply during your turn, then they would have said something like "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it until the end of your turn" or "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, but this reach does not apply during other creatures' turn or Opportunity Attacks."

Futhermore, it does not make any sense that you would be able to attack an enemy 10 feet away during your turn, but only 5 feet away during someone else's turn. It's a physical object that reaches an additional 5 feet, not a magical property or special combat maneuver.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the fact that I might be wrong. My primary issue is the default 5E rules are for the "theater of the mind" but they tried to incorporate many elements from 3.0/3/5/4E where the default was using miniatures on a physical map. And thus we get poorly worded rules like "when a hostile creature moves out of your reach" and not "when an enemy leaved your threatened square" because a "square" doesn't exist in the theater of the mind. And if I try to play 5E with miniatures on a physical tabletop (which is how I've played D&D since 1st edition) the movement and Opportunity Attack rules function very poorly.

5E uses the exact same vocabulary from previous editions for certain rules, but has changed those rules entirely. If they wanted those rules to function differently, they should have picked different words. For someone who has been playing 3.0/3.5/4E/Essentials for a number of years, Reach and/or Opportunity Attack and many other D&D terms mean something very specific. If they want it to function some other way, fine, go ahead and do that. I expect a new edition to have new rules that function differently. But don't tell me that a Red Light now means Yield, because for the rest of my life Red Light has meant Stop.

#24

ivstin

Jul 09, 2014 7:01:51

As a practiced combatant in various combat simulation styles and martial arts practices, something that broke my brain in 3.0/3.5/4.0 was the whole concept of an "extra attack" because I'm circling a target. We pace around each other for long periods of time, focused on defense, in the sparring world. We do not focus on this "opportunity" where I can hit someone because their leg moved passed an imaginary line five feet away...

Humor aside, I lovexinfinity the new rules brought to Attacks of Opportunity in the playtest and now in the new game. Now, I can sensibly move around my enemy - staying in the engaged range - without worrying about their attacks of opportunity ruining my positioning. No more of this "first square you leave..." nonsense. I am either in the same distance as I started, closer, or farther away. The assumption in this case is that "moving away" means turning your attention to your surroundings because of your field of vision changing, etc. When I hear people say "I run around behind him..." I see people who have not fought on a battlefield with live weapons. If someone gets behind you and you are fighting them alone... ? What were you facing? When engaged in melee combat, you are constantly adjusting, moving your feet, turning your head... it's a very intense situation, especially when your life is truly on the line and not just for some fun Live Action Roleplay (LARP).

As a DM, it has made life ten million times easier on the limit of information coming and going from my players. I do not need to micromanage their movement for attacks every step. I just need to know:

Character moving? Yes

If Yes: Using Disengage action?

If No: is movement Closer, Farther, or the Same?

If Farther: then Attack. Resolve.

If any other: Any special abilities?

If no: Done.

Compared to:

Character moving? Yes

If Yes: 5 ft step? No.

Then: Ignore first square. Ask: How many targets threaten second square?

Calculate. Then Attack(s). Resolve.

Is movement finished? If no, ask: How many targets threaten third square?

Ask: If Same targets as previous, do any have more than one attack of opportunity? If yes: Then Attack.

Then New targets attack.

Repeat for each square.

The logorithm in my head got shorter, therefore I am able to focus more time and energy on enemy tactics and descriptions.

I approve of this rules change.

(Reply to #13)

thehobb

Rastapopoulos wrote:

#26

Rastapopoulos

Jul 09, 2014 7:24:27

souldoubt wrote:

#27

Rastapopoulos

Jul 09, 2014 7:28:15

thehobb wrote:

#28

The_Lone_Cleric

Jul 09, 2014 7:43:57

I do like how it makes pike/lance/glaive uers WAY more useful in keeping skirmishers off your casters and ranged warriors. This is very fun.

(Reply to #27)

AaronOfBarbaria

Rastapopoulos wrote:

#30

souldoubt

Jul 09, 2014 9:07:31

Rastapopoulos wrote:

#31

MrHotter

Jul 09, 2014 10:14:33

I handle opportunity attacks a bit differently. If someone gets up from the table for any reason I throw a d20 at them. If they fail to doge it their character takes damage equal to the roll/throw. Damage is doubled if their beard does not extend to their neck.

#32

Particle_Man

Jul 09, 2014 10:18:26

Now I wonder: if someone has whip in one hand and flail in the other, I know that they cannot attack with both weapons using TWF (because neither is a light weapon). If this person attacks an orc 10' to the west with the whip, and the orc moves from 10' to the west of the person to 5' to the north of the person to 5' to the east of the person to 10' to the east of the person, can that person attack the orc with the flail when the orc goes from 5' to the east of the person to 10' to the east of the person for an Aoo, or is the flail unusable for an Aoo because the person attacked with the whip when it was their turn?

#33

DemoMonkey

Jul 09, 2014 10:41:59

"Damage is doubled if their beard does not extend to their neck."

You've never successfully done double damage to a male player, have you.

It's a coin toss whether you've ever done it to a female player either.

(Reply to #25)

theliel

thehobb wrote:

(Reply to #34)

Person_Man

IIRC, in 1E and 2E if you tried to move away from combat your enemy got a free attack or attack routine. So Fighters could hit a retreating enemy multiple times, and trying to move away from a monster with lots of multiple attacks like an old dragon was basically suicide.

Basically every edition of D&D other then 5E punished creatures in a meaningful way for moving away from melee, which is a big part of what makes melee worthwhile. (And in 1E/2E higher level spells took longer to cast, could be disrupted if you damaged the caster while they were being cast, and spellcasters were much much squishier. In 3E there were AoO combos, and in 4E there were a lot of worthwhile melee Powers). In 5E it's much much harder to trigger an Opportunity Attack, and creatures are limited to just 1 per round. So if melee is basically the same thing as ranged combat, then why should any class risk putting yourself anywhere near enemies? Why not just take your Action to make a ranged attack or cast a spell against your enemies and then fall back your full movement speed every turn, attempting to hide being cover if possible so you can't be counter attacked?

#36

theliel

Jul 09, 2014 18:05:58

Person_Man wrote:

#37

pukunui

Jul 09, 2014 18:18:34

Person_Man wrote:

(Reply to #35)

thehobb

Person_Man wrote:

#39

Leugren

Jul 11, 2014 4:53:30

Particle_Man wrote:

(Reply to #39)

Particle_Man

Leugren wrote: