Opportunity Attack...Your Allies?!? | Nerd Immersion
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Yup, there's been a change to the Opportunity Attack Rules and now it may be beneficial to Opportunity Attack your allies in combat!
Thanks for watching!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
📧 For marketing/business/sponsorship inquiries, email nerdimmersion@gmail.com
📬 Shipping: P.O. Box 416 Salisbury Mills, NY 12577
💻 Discord Server: / discord
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🔥 Support 🔥
📈 Patreon: / nerdimmersion
💵 Direct Donation: paypal.me/nerdi...
👕 Merchandise: teespring.com/...
🎁 Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🎤 Social Media 🎤
🎮 D&D Actual Play Channel: / nerdimmersionplays
🐦 Twitter: / nerdimmersion
🕒 TikTok: / nerdimmersion
📷 Instagram: / nerdimmersion
🎭 Facebook: / nerdimmersion
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🎵 End Credit Music: benbriggs.net/...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Nerd Immersion is an entertainment network focused on Dungeons & Dragons. Our RUclips Channel currently has over 1000 D&D videos covering everything from D&D advice, D&D product reviews/unboxings, Top 10 videos, DM's Guild Module reviews, and play throughs of over 13 different D&D campaigns, and more.
Any links to products or services may be affiliate links that give me a small kickback at no cost to you, with no influence on the content. #dnd #dnd5e #nerdimmersion
So the meme about the cleric healing the fighter with a slap on the a$$ when they run past is viable in RAW now.
Meme in question....
[This happened while I was playing as the cleric
Dm: Alright, Fighter....
You have 1 hp left
Fighter: With my main action dash and movement, I can move 60 ft so I will run past the cleric
Cleric: I get an attack of opportunity! And since I have the war caster feat, I cast cure wounds at 5th level on the fighter!
Dm: ... I don't want to DM anymore ]
Monsters that use a siren's song to lure your party members who fail the save, now you can grapple stop them
Oh wow. I was just thinking about that one stupid friend that wants to go 1v1 the boss and now I can stop him if he pass by imo
Also this works with War Caster, letting you substitute an attack for casting a spell on the ally...a drive-by buff using your reaction
@@jackhilton4285 Let em, they need to learn
This was exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. I think most DMs would have allowed this anyway, but the "technically they have to be hostile" part of the rule really sucks with a very RAW-oriented DM.
Dont think you could trade OA,s to grapples though, at that point why even have the sentinel feat, thats just sentinel light.
The wording of armor of Agathys has changed. Now it last while you have any temporary hp. It's now a spell moon druids will want.
It's on the list
Rune Carver background from Bigby's is going to be hot.
What did you just say to me? It does what? Who okayed this? Why is this a thing?
I love it.
Also, clearly not intentional but a result of reducing the word count. Ted, this video series is extremely misleading, which makes me consider unsubscribing
Only way to get it now is a 1 level warlock so you better not care about your spell slot progression xD
But true
You could also grapple an ally that is being forced to move by a fear effect, to keep them from running.
Possible tactic. You're a caster with low AC. You've gone up to heal a martial character whose turn has already passed with a touch spell. Meanwhile, you're being targeted by enemies using ranged weapons. You use the last of your movement to move away from the martial character and provoke a friendly opportunity attack. The martial uses shove to knock you prone. You voluntarily fail the Dex save. You have now imposed disadvantage on the hostile archers against you. I call it: "Get down, Mr President!"
Team Work must exist in DnD. lol
This is common to do in 5e. Why all the fuss now???
You can drop prone voluntarily without using any movement speed.
@@fivestringslinger
It works in reverse too.
@this_epic_name Hey good point. Forgot about that.
@@this_epic_name they now have a condition where you cannot drop prone if you have 0 movement speed left.
Leave it to Ted... War Caster making heals of opportunity is just so extra and I'm here for it. I assume the reason they removed "hostile" is to allow for you to use this on creatures that might be neutral or fleeing, or to grapple an ally that has been frightened and is running away, or a mind-controlled ally that you might not be sure is "hostile", etc. I think the limitation of "hostile" was always just a little too severe, and made using attacks of opportunity outside of initiative kind of impossible. And with the new unarmed strike rules clearly allowing for shove/grapple, there are so many situations where you might want to grapple a creature that isn't hostile, but might not be an ally, even outside of combat. The fact that this allows you to do this to allies though is really interesting, the shove thing feels like pretty typical rules shenanigans that's technically allowed but most people just won't bother with because it's kind of niche... but the War Caster thing could become an entire playstyle, if you can just run past the Cleric to get a Cure Wounds? That's huge. If they errata anything to do with this, I suspect they might tweak War Caster to only apply to hostile creatures, or to only allow spells that deal damage or apply a negative effect.
I think the context of the definition of an Opportunity Attack using the term "enemy" and "foe" doesn't let you use an opportunity attack on an ally...I see an errata very quickly with this thinking from so many.
Normally I would agree since enemy is a defined term, but those words are only used in the fluff/flavor text. The mechanical text only specifies creature.
This seems like intentional design. I actually think RAI and RAW are the same.
@@sillvvasensei You’re right that it’s mentioned in the flavor text, but I see it as the definition not flavor text personally, followed by an explanation of how to execute an opportunity attack according to the rules. The repeated use of "enemy" and "foe" before explaining the mechanics for me suggests that JC might have considered that sufficient information, or perhaps it is supposed to be a new interaction with opportunity attacks for players. I’m sure he’ll have to clarify it in a Sage Advice post soon enough though haha.
I think it should stay. It’s more useful than it is harmful
@dhavaram8064 how can it seem "intentional" and "RAI" when the definition of Opportunity Attacks explicitly spells out "enemies" and "foes"? They have significantly condensed the rules glossary and spell descriptions by removing redundant flavor text, so what makes you think that these paragraphs are the exception to be ignored and the change isn't just another attempt to avoid repeating themselves with the sole purpose of reducing word count?
Because the Charger Feat doesn't require that the line of movement is directed at the target you are attempting to hit.
If you use the Charger Feat, you can charge around corners or at least obstacles if you have one or more allies that can push the character sideways as a reaction when you charge past them to change the line of movement.
Writing mechanics is basically the same as programing. You add or remove one minor piece and it can entirely change how the code runs, sometimes its minor, but other times it can affect every other piece of the cide creating a ripple effect or loops (exploits in D&Ds case). I think one of the biggest focuses for the wording of this update is the switch to logic and fine tuning definitions so pieces connected more as intended instead of leaving to interpretation.
In terms of Opportunity Attack. 5e has always worked on Creatures, hostile or not. It's extremely limiting (from Players and DMs) by going back to the archaic ways of rules.
Sure, 2024 5.5e is terrible, but in this regard. This has been a thing since 5e.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. "
@@WalkOnNick
Oh, and did you tell that to the Rogue who will betray anyone on a moments notice???
Define "enemy" to me because being Hostile and an Enemy go hand to hand.
I understand the simple design but in reality, "the only enemies are the ones with a Health Bar over their heads".
@@WalkOnNick I'm saddened by it, but I actually have to agree with @absolstoryoffiction6615. The word "hostile" in the 2014 rules is non-specific. If an ally of yours is fighting against its enemies, that ally is hostile (toward their enemies). If you don't want your allies to provoke opportunity attacks from you, the wording needs to be:
"You can make an opportunity attack when a creature hostile towards you that you can see moves out of your reach."
Crushing the skulls of your allies as a reaction without a second thought... to me, that feels very accurate for a Berserker. WoTC is just trying to improve and offer new ways to enhance roleplaying as a barbarian.
That's funny we've have not used the Hostile word on opportunity attacks for 10 years. Your friend goes to run and jump over you and you can help them leap to strike the dragon in the face. We all know that these rules were all hastily put out due to the artificial timeline of 50 years. Didn't help firing a thousand people.
Evil Character: "I have no enemies."
That's awesome, but most likely unintended. Grappling someone as they are moving away seems too powerful, although it does make sense.
I think THAT is exactly what they WANT you to be able to do. It's the funny stuff with War Caster that goes a bit too far.
@@Lord_zeel maybe, but I don't think a playeris going to like it when the ogre can stop their movement with a reaction
I've allowed Grabble and Trip on Opportunity Attacks years ago and found it was very powerful. The party swamped a dangerous enemy who was trying to run away with a plot macguffin.
I do think it makes sense logically though.. someone runs past you put out your foot or weapon to trip them, or grab their arm.
I haven't see anybody else mention this, but did you notice they added you can no longer drop prone if your speed is "0".
As far as I remember in 2014, you were able to drop prone on your turn with no other requirement.
You'll now need to sacrifice at least 5 feet on your turn if you want to willingly move and fall prone to help avoid ranged attacks, or more importantly for rogues, fall prone to gain full cover against low terrain objects, like a low wall, boulder, tree trunk, etc.
To gain the "Invisible" condition for a rogue to get advantage for sneak attack they need at least 3/4 or full cover and falling prone on your turn can help achieve that.
RAW the "Invisible" condition is going to likely open up a whole new can of worms regarding the discussion over obtaining advantage for sneak attack.
As soon as you come out of cover you lose the Invisible condition so you no longer have advantage (Unless the creature turned away or is engaged with a new threat or distraction?)
And what about the strange language for the Hide Action in the rules glossary regarding line of sight? "If you can see a creature you can discern if it can see you".....but.... if you can see a creature you are no longer in full cover (unless that's where the 3/4 cover comes in because you are peeking around the object?) or does that line mean if you can see a creature they can also see you? What about crack and peepholes or arrow slits?
I know how I will run these rules, but the point is for new players and DM's this language is very confusing and 2024 has not tried to remedy so many of the confusing topics players have had for a decade, and in some cases have made things worse.
And why would you call it the "Invisible" condition?... when your not actually invisible? why not call it "Hidden" or "Unseen"?
Maybe an interesting video talking point there.
Hiding. Pg 368
Invisible Condition. Pg 370
I think RAI is that you can’t do it, although RAW seems to allow it.
The (flavor?) text in Chapter 1 states:
Oppurtunity attacks: Combatants watch for **enemies** to drop thier guard. If you move headlessly past your **foes**, you put yourself in danger of provoking an OA.
Mentioning enemies several times beforehand indicates to me that it shouldn’t be possible. But yeah, def gonna see if my GM will allow it. Warcaster is so strong if this is allowed.
Sometimes the flavor text doesn't mesh completely with the mechanics. In the monster manual "sneak peak" the flavor text has minotaurs wielding battle axes and traps and such for the Green Dragon's lair. Battleaxes were removed from the minotaur stat block in favor of a more complex gore attack and it seems that lair actions have been removed from the Green Dragon stat block. They still have months before the 2025 MM goes to print and things could change but that is what we saw.
This was RAW in 5e. It hasn't changed when PVP exists.
"You are a Creature."
Another possible reason is if you charm an enemy who is no longer a "hostile" creature
Opportunity Attacks don't care if the creature is hostile, an enemy, or neutral etc. RAW.
Even in 5e and now in 2024 5.5e.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615except no
The 2014 needs the target to be hostile so a thief robbing you an running away wouldn’t have trigger it but now it does
Did you even watched the video
@@thomasquesada7248
What a poor understanding of "hostility" if you think being robbed is not hostile.
California Style of a thought process, much?... Evil smiles.
Oh, you act like people are never on their guard in shady places.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 ok maybe
Vegetarian wild animals are not hostile and would have not count
@thomasquesada7248
Only enemies have health bars.
The grapple or knock prone could come in handy preventing an ally from being compelled into dangerous movement.
I think it was more about non-hostile creatures that were trying to run away, but the players either don't know they aren't hostile, or actively have reason they want to harm them. (Like a thief running away with another NPC's purse.)
100%. Some kid snatches the Cleric's purse, and the Barbarian says "I try to grab him" and the DM says... well TECHNICALLY the thief isn't hostile to you, so you can't make an attack of opportunity... like lolwut? How was that ever the rule? But this version is perhaps a little... too permissive. I'm just not sure how you word it in a way that allows you to catch a thief or stop a mind-controlled ally, without also allowing you to shove allies on purpose or for War Caster to heal them. Maybe it's fine though, is that really all that broken? Or is it just super cool?
@@Lord_zeel I think it's mostly just cool. A bit weird, but cool.
People used to do this in 2014 as well to help the barbarian keep his rage. (Melee hit not nessesarally war caster)
A lot of those exploits about a jar of bees and such could have been fixed with a single sidebar that said something like, "The game makes multiple mentions of enemies or hostile creatures. These phrases are intended to refer to enemies that are not helpless or insignificant. Unless your dungeon master approves their use, do not assume tiny insects, helpless creatures, or other such options work with features that refer to enemies or hostile creatures unless they are in a situation where they could actually harm you." That way DMs could say, "yeah, that doesn't work on the jar of bees since there are helpless to whatever you do in that jar. Even if they were out, they probably couldn't really harm you so killing them won't let you trigger features that work when you kill an enemy either."
I feel like this is BETTER for the game, not worse. D&D is a team game. A lot of people give the example of casting Haste or Cure Wounds on a Fighter as they run past. Haste is one of the biggest trap spells in the game because it's a 3rd level spell: It competes with the likes of Hypnotic Pattern, Fireball and has a huge downside if your concentration gets broken. In 5e, area of effect spells are the main perpetrators of the martial/caster divide. When we talk about spells that just severely outclass anything a martial could even hope to do, we're talking about shutting down most of an encounter with Hypnotic Pattern, doing 2-3 rounds worth of fighter damage with a Fireball and crippling and scattering enemy forces with Spirit Guardians, Spike Growth and Sleet Storm. Even single target healing spells are pretty bad besides picking an ally up because they are so inefficient.
Being able to cast spells on allies as they run past encourages the use of teamplay and single target spells. The wizard might think twice about even picking or casting Hypnotic Pattern if the plan is that they are going to cast Haste on the fighter because they can't concentrate on two spells at once, even though the "optimal" play 95% of the time is to cast the former, the more fun one is obviously the latter because both the caster and the martial get to feel cool. The cleric or druid might actually consider using Cure Wounds on an ally because it doesn't take up their precious action they could be using to cast their AoE shutdown spells.
MORE TEAMWORK is good for the game. One of the worst aspects of the martial/caster divide is that the powerful things spellcasters do are very selfish in terms of how fun they are for the party. Most of their AoE spells cripple what a martial can do, Sleet Storm and Spike Growth being two of the worst offenders. Hypnotic Pattern basically default ends a combat with minimal conflict because now you just focus down the enemies that made the save, and after that annihilate the ones that failed the save one by one.
Spike Growth can make more martials feel cool with the Push mastery and the Grapple feat.
I do agree about this being a way to cause more teamwork, but having that happen through the opportunity attack rules as far as the shoving, and through the Warcaster feat. Warcaster is now a tax for just about any mage, given the +1 ASI combined with the ability to reaction cast full action buffs and healing on your best pals. Every mage already felt like they needed Warcaster, but now every mage really does need it.
@@pederw4900Let's see.
If I'm a cleric or pally and want to heal someone with war caster they need to move past me, right?
How exactly would they do that without taking a bunch of opportunity attacks from the enemies? If they disengage or use an ability that prevents opp atks then warcaster won't work either.
@@mappybc6097 let’s say you’re a Paladin and your ally is in melee with one or two enemies, and he’s hurt. You can run up next to him in such a way that he can move within the enemy’s threatened area while leaving yours, allowing you to get the opportunity heal. Now if there are two enemies, they have to be positioned on diagonally opposite sides of you to prevent you from moving at all without provoking. As long as you ally can move at all without provoking, you should be able to position yourself to get the heal off.
The more important part of this is the buffs though. Combat starts, the barbarian runs past the wizard who casts haste on them as a reaction, or casts vortex warp on the rogue to put them literally anywhere on the battlefield. As a cleric or sorcerer, maybe this battlefield has a lot of difficult terrain, so you cast freedom of movement on the fighter as he runs in. All these things normally require your whole action on your turn, but now you can devote your turn to controlling and damaging your enemies while buffing or healing nearby allies with your reaction. The action economy is BOOMING. But you need Warcaster to take advantage of it, and that’s fine because Warcaster protects your concentration and buffs your casting stat and lets you cast with your hands full, all way better than what other caster-oriented feats get you
@@pederw4900 Yeah, this is supper awesome for early-round buffs, when the high-dex high-movement characters break off from the slower casters. Allowing the casters to get off spells like Haste, Freedom of Movement, etc. before they even get a turn completely changes the battle strategy. The Wizard might act last in the round, but has already Hasted the fighter who just went out and used their attack, extra attack, Nick attack, Duel Wielder attack, Haste attack, action surge attack and extra attack, for a total of 7 attacks before the Wizard finally get their turn to drop a Fireball.
So, another obvious use of the new Opportunity Attack wording, but if an ally is charmed or in an effect that makes them move towards something you don't want them to do (IE: Strahd has Irina under his Dominate ability and commands her to come to him), you can use your Opportunity Attack to grapple them and hold them in place until they break out of whatever is negatively effecting them.
1:40
The wording here might disagree with you. A creature compelled to move does not provoke an opportunity attack only if it does not use its movement or the actions listed. So if it forces the creature to move without using any of these options, then yes, the creature is safe. Yet (at least in the 2014 PHB) many such effects force the affected creature to use their reaction in conjunction with the movement. Therefore, they would clearly provoke opportunity attacks in such cases.
It’s funny, because most of the time it won’t come up. Because you aren’t forced to make opportunity attacks, you choose to make opportunity attacks. So you don’t have to attack your friends every time they leave your side. But since you can choose… well that gives you options. Other people have said it, grapple to stop them, War Caster to buff them, could actually be useful. It’s like certain spells that say to choose a certain amount of creatures in range. Sometimes it says hostile, sometimes it doesn’t. You can choose whether or not you effect your friends.
this one actually gives way to cool, fun, thematic scenarios. And it makes sense; if you can attack you ally, you should be able to do so as an opportunity attack as well!
Ally under the effect of a Suggest/Charm spell... Grab Ally so he/she can't act against the party.
If I'm hearing this right, if you had a cleric with spirit gaurdians up and they run past an ally, that ally could shove them so that the push an enemy into the emanation. If the cleric had any more movement, they coudl then run past a different ally, provoking an opportunity attack shove catching a new enemy in the emmanation, and then repeat through all of your allies as long as the cleric had the movement to provoke the opportunity attacks. Radioactive pinball cleric ftw!
I still am baffled on how after all this years they don't pay a hundred optimizer/ minmaxers to proof read and find obviously not intended exploits for stuff like this, or the infinite gold with an origin feat stuff.
That's probably why a min/maxer wouldn't willingly move to the greater Seattle metro on a WotC salary ;)
I went on a journey with this one. At first I absolutely hated it and thought I wouldn't allow it in my games, to actually kind of liking it. The big thing here is it's a Resource. There's a lot out there that can cost a Reaction. Lot of classes and subclasses play off them quite a bit now, so it's not always worth it just to give your party member an extra 5 ft on their turn, etc., and half the time it's going to be a waste of time to even attempt it. Plus do you think the Wizard is going to want to forgo being able to cast shield or some other spell every other turn just to get the fighter slightly better positioned? And now with War Caster you can set up some huge opportunities to be able to heal/buff, etc. There's a lot more strategy that can be involved and it's still going to cost something.
Although I can totally see some groups positions them selves in a way where they shove train a fighter an extra 15 feet on their turn just because they can.
Oh god, is this the new Peasant Cannon, but instead of infinite damage we just unlocked infinite movement?
The old grapple rules were totally fine, I don't know why they would change them.
A contested roll is fast in play, and easy to learn.
Now, its a specific type of Attack "Unarmed Strike" (even though you can technically grapple while you are "Armed" haha confusing to new players much?)
And instead of a quick roll-off of Athletics vs Athletics / Acrobatics, the players and GM now have to remember there is a set DC 8+StrngthMod+ Proficiency contested against the receiving creatures Strength or Dexterity Saving Throw (No longer Skill check because we need fewer instances of using Athletics Or Acrobatics in the Game?)
It's way more fun (especially in live play) to do a contesting roll at the same and seeing the results simultaneously, it feels like a true contest.
Now the exciting moments will just be replaced with "uhhhh whats the save?....How do I calculate that?
The more I read this PHB the more I realize how slow it's going to be for EXISTING GMs to adapt or discover all the little changes. Unlike with 5E and the majority of players fully converting, we are going to have a very divided player base with many sticking to original 5E, Or mixing and matching by cherry picking which particular rules they prefer out of both. Right now, even if I try to fully convert to 2024, I forsee a lot of game slow down while we all keep debating these new rules and changes. Eventually I wont be surpsrised if many GMS go *#@#$ it!, im just sticking to 2014 with my small list of house rules.
I will mention that Athletics/Acrobatics are still rolled to break out of a grapple, just not the initial grapple attempt
Weird exploits aside, you are also missing the chancey to stop allies under charm effects. If the BBEG casts Suggestion on a party member to hand over the mcguffin, you can opportunity grapple the player character to buy yourself a turn.
In a comical sense, I picture a drunken bar fight with your party. One of your drunk party members walks\stumbles your way and you shove them away from you or grapple them to stop the fighting.
targeting a creature instead of only friendly or only hostile creature is pretty much always better IMO.
it doesn't affect normal gameplay in any way but it does open weird interactions you can play with if you're creative.
Yeah, I definitely like this change and can see how too much nuance/grey areas could lead to confusion
When I read Opportunity Attacks on page 371 of the 2024 PHB its says, "Take a Reaction to make one MELEE attack with a weapon or unarmed strike ." The intent is to do a melee attack just like it has always been. I would think if the new intent would be to expand the types of reactions you could make with an Opportunity Attack they would clearly list Melee Attack, Shove, Grapple, etc.
But I admit the language can be interpreted that way.
I think they eliminated the word Hostile just to expand the condition in which you can trigger the attack of opportunity.
E.g. a Mole or betraying PC or NPC can surprise the players when they use an AO against one of the players as they charge away from them. They wouldn't be able to do this before RAW because they wouldn't be hostile at that point.
Well an Unarmed Strike is a melee attack, and that's how you grapple/shove now. You can't just grapple or shove anymore. You have to make an unarmed strike and can choose either grapple or shove instead of damage
@@NerdImmersion oh, oh dear haha. I knew it was under unarmed strike category but just read the clarifying language in the phb that grapples and shoves are considered melee attacks. I wish WOTC would clearly list the intentions of their updates and changes so we don’t have to treasure hunt for the obscure rule changes and then wonder if they are intentional or an oversight.
This is something that I would love it for you to demo with figures on a little make shift map or something for us.
If the party monk has the grappler feat you can now hitch a ride without costing them an attack now just an arguably just as valuable reaction
Been doing this for a long time already with polearm master having removed that restriction. Very fun stuff, they changed the wording on polearm master so I thought it was dead but they fixed it in another way so all is well in the world.
Reason I like the change intended or not, is that in game Im in OAs are an inconvenience since fors never move so we get to do them, just to make us have to disengage or stay put. This change would at least give us more tactical options for teamwork.
I'm confused about the shoving part. If someone was in melee with me, I can only probably shove them 5 ft right? So how would that get them past the next person? They would still be in melee with the enemy cuz 5 ft would not move them completely out of that person's range.
Also means the DM is free to have their monsters all use this too!
Warcaster guidance (which normally is a waste of an action)
I'm pretty sure there are few classes/subclasses that can redirect attacks, so you could potentially attack of opportunity an ally and they could redirect the attack against an enemy?
oooo, I like that too. I hadn't even thought of that!
But as per Crawford words as well: Grappling and Shiving are part of the ATTACK ACTION (PHB.195) so in order to use them you must use your reaction for the ready action. An opportunity attack is not an attack action.
Then. How is Attack action worded in the 2024 ph? That could change things.
Well... In 2024 5.5e, any Melee Attack is of the choice between Damage, Shove/Prone, and Grapple.
No longer as it was in 5e. So 2024 Opportunity Attacks can Shove, Prone, Grapple, or deal Melee Damage.
Some Feats and Class let you Deal Damage on top of a Shove or Prone.
The Attack Action isn't relevant now, because attack of opportunity says you can make an "unarmed strike", and grapple/shove are now part of the unarmed strike rules in 2024. They did that to allow features that allow unarmed strikes to be more versatile, and to simplify the rules for shove/grapple. The ability to grapple a fleeing enemy is very clearly RAI in 2024, which makes a lot of sense - if someone is trying to escape and you really don't want to let them, that's practically the only situation in which grappling even makes sense, and needing Sentinel in order to have any chance of stopping someone from running away is silly. So they very much wanted you to be able to do that, I'm not sure they really meant for you to be able to do Cure Wounds though...
So you can now vortex warp the barbarian right next to the enemy mage on the barbarians turn? That's gonna be abused.
I was thinking of the ally who is pulled by a vine or whip or pushed by eldritch blast by me and i can catch them.
This makes me wonder, are there any changes to how falling works? Specifically if it calls out these new Opportunity Attack rules? Because it might allow you to grab or catch an ally who's falling, if it allows an exception to how Opportunity Attacks now work. Just curious.
Thanks for all the work, Ted!
Well, the rules don't actually mention forced movement now. They just say the movement must be the result of one of the creature's actions.
I would certainly consider a failed athletics or acrobatics check an action willingly taken by the creature, even if the fall itself wasn't the intended result.
@@mappybc6097
Depends... If you made the Jump Action (2024) to jump off the ledge, then Opportunity Attack does work.
If the floor caves in under your feet, then Opportunity Attack doesn't work because that's forced Movement... Unless you have Glide, Hover, Levitation, Flight, or Magical Flight, etc. being active.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 "If it's not the result of a movement, action, bonus action, or reaction." Jump is an action, so it would trigger the opp atk as would climb.
@@mappybc6097
Read it again... Because you clearly saw nothing.
5e is like this... Force Movement doesn't apply opportunity attack.
JUMPING is not forced movement. Or did you think I forgot this???
2024 is the very same rule.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Sigh. You are hopeless. I just pasted the actual text, that was on the screen for half the video, and you are still clinging to a term that is not mentioned anywhere on the new rules.
So now the fighter go first on initiative (can be arranged with the alert feat), and the wizard cast haste on the fighter as a reaction when the fighter leave his reach starting combat with the fighter closing on the enemies with increased speed from haste (combined with another attack and bonus to AC), and possibly another buff from another caster with warcaster (such as protection from evil and good if you are fighting creatures of the right types).
It is a huge boost to players action economy, especially on the first round of combat when the party start next to each other, so the wizard can both cast a fireball as his action and cast haste as his reaction.
That's so ridiculous but fun imo
If you want to nerf this via homebrew, split warcaster into two separate feats, one of which granting the reaction spell, the other one granting advantage on concentration saves.
This increases the cost of opportunity and both feats are still very viable picks on their own.
@@Rubycule If I want to nerf it then I will just use the old attack of opportunity attack. Though I am still considering wethter to nerf it or not when I move to new rules.
@Rubycule
Nah... There's another Feat that does Con Saves but without casting spells.
Terrible homebrew.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 That's not Advantage on Concentration checks but proficiency on Constitution saves. That's quite a big difference.
Also, I didn't elaborate on the exact way I'd homebrew those feats. As you might have noticed I didn't mention anything about spell components, which are also a part of the Warcaster feat.
Next time you should ask about specifics first before calling an idea "terrible".
I just wanna say - the top paragraph of the Opportunity Attacks doesn't have any significance. It's just a flavor text, basically. The only thing that's of any actual meaning is the 2 other paragraphs.
Also, I wanna say, why did they put "Avoiding AoO" before "Making AoO". That's an interesting choice.
Also also, I don't wanna be a buzzkill, but I don't think that shoving an ally out of AoO range can actually work, at least not in any scenario I can envision on the fly. Because shoving always pushes someone away from you directly. And, if they haven't provoked an AoO from an enemy, then shoving them won't get them out of the enemy's reach. And if they have provoked an AoO from an enemy, then shoving them doesn't prevent the AoO, since both effects happen simultaneously, and one doesn't cancel the other. There might be like 1 very extremely specific placement where this might just work, but I can't think of it right now. The only way I can see this working is if the DM is pretty chill and decides to bend the rules a little to make it more fun for the players.
This. The first paragraph is a flavor text example and more of a warning to the players. The second one is rules text on how to avoid them. And the third one is the rules text on how to make one yourself.
btw, I'm pretty sure you can get a flat bonus to arcana of +11 at lvl 2. (WOW!!)
I dont care if this is intentional, im going to do this. Its too late to take it back, im going to buff of oppourtunity my allies!
Idk, I feel like if they didn't intend for war caster to be used like that they wouldn't have changed the syntax for the various rules involved. They could have just kept things the same.
I find these changes painful and I am glad I switched to Shadowdark.
With war caster could you cast the new true strike on them
Seems like blinding people is slightly better now, and blindsight slightly worse.
I would have no objection with it being used exactly like you described. I support party shenanigans when they use a resource obviously a spell slot, sure go ahead. Even a reaction. if they want to use their reaction for that go ahead I play a very tactically minded game. My enemies always seem to move as much as the players move. They burned a reaction, now that enemy may move away to attack a less defended target
hi , off topick, Dose Gloom stalker still give wisdom bounce to initiative?
8:41 I doubt it's that since Hostile is in the rules glossary.
true though this just refers to attitude when using the Influence action
Reaction hasting seems a little too strong. Not the buff that warcaster needed, lol
lol it's like collage books, you change 10%, and rearange the info in the chapters its a new book. Got to pay the big mark ups for the shifting of chapters and cost of letters on a page.
Thanks 😊👍 that's cool!
This edition of "rules as written" has broken so many things.
That's normal coming from 5e. This was always the case.
@absolstoryoffiction6615 yes, but it was also always the case that there was no such thing as meaningless flavor text in 5e, so you're not supposed to ignore that the definition of Opportunity Attacks starts by spelling out that it's something that you make against "enemies" and "foes". RAW doesn't mean taking a single paragraph out of context and ignoring the paragraphs that contradict your clearly unintended reading.
@@SortKaffe
RAW Stealth Rules are broken. This isn't a perfect TTRPG with perfect rules, both for 5e and 2024 5.5e.
Well now you can hea and buffl with warcaster.
The "check out this broken thing" videos are souring me on 5.5E. Not your fault- I'm just turned off as a DM at the idea of dealing with all this sort of stuff at the table. I might just have to pass on this one and stick to the narrative style TTRPGs.
Imho still seems less broken than 5.0, and you can always HR stuff like this, also PF2 exist if you want balance but mote combat focused system.
Check out this broken thing videos are also just people abusing the rules and that’s gonna happen regardless of the system
Previously in the 2014 rules you couldn’t attack a non hostile creature leaving your reach which would have included someone fleeing away without a fight like a thief or any herbivore wild animal
Now you can attack them and everything else beside that you can now push and grapple as an opportunity attack is just abusing the rules
I'm not sure I'd call this a broken thing, tbh. Yea, you can attack your allies, and yea, that has value with Shove, Grapple and Warcaster, but that value doesn't seem THAT overpowered, nor is it a ridiculous concept like dual-wielding with one hand while holding a shield.
Friend is about to walk into bad stuff, you push him away or grab him-that sounds like a thing that should just be possible.
The Warcaster interaction is closer to broken, but I'd say "This feat whose purpose is to let you better use magic in the heat of combat lets you reflexively aid an ally in the right circumstances" is still at least a reasonable concept.
That is really cool
If your friend leaves your reach, because it topples down a ravine, you can make a grapple opportunity attack.
Makes sense.
Can you though? Are they falling under their own power?
Yeah, I don't think this works. Forced movement doesn't provoke AoO. So unless your friend just blindly walks out of your reach towards a ravine, then it won't work.
@@NotsogoodguitarguyTrue. But on the flip side, as long as you used a move action you provoke the opp atk, it doesn't matter if it was willingly or not.
So if your pal is mumbling some nonsense about awakening the old ones as if walks towards the cliff and into the Aboleth's loving tentacles you can now try to stop him with your reaction.
@@mappybc6097 you know what, at that point, I'd let them walk off the cliff. I wanna meet the old ones xD
Sorry... No.
RAW, Forced Movement (mind control or shove etc.) Doesn't provoke an Opportunity Attack, both in 5e and in 2024 5.5e.
The creature must willingly leave your melee hit range in order to provoke the Opportunity Attack. Unless OA is modified by a feature(s).
Warcaster reaction dimension door to teleport the moving ally
Cheese player: "and that's why I am going to opportunity attack my allies, it will..."
DM: "no. you're not doing that"
Honestly, this doesn't seem that bad, other than high level warcaster shenanigans.
"Ally is about to walk into a bad thing, so I shove him out of the way or grab onto him" just seems like a thing that should exist.
It’s an Opportunity ATTACK, *not* and Opportunity ACTION. Shoving an ally to get them out of harm’s way or buffing someone with spell is not an attack, so you wouldn’t be able use your Opportunity Attack to do it. An ‘attack’ is, by definition, harmful. No erratum required.
Shove is now part of Unarmed Strike, which you take, as an Attack. A spell is used from Reactive Spells from War Caster, which explicitly states you can cast a spell instead of making an Attack with an Opportunity Attack, as long as it only targets one creature and has the casting time of one action
WotC nerf twin spell, it is to overpowered (I agree) also WotC let's male everyone cast haste (or any buff) as a reaction. If anyone plays with this RAW the spell slots sure will go away fast. 😂
This Interpretation is really not intended. No way you can use AoO triggered by allies to shove or even use Warcaster. Just....No.
I am assuming this not ToV, so this is not for me
this is just getting silly at this point. If only they had playtested this hmm
Even if this true and intended, it's dumb and lame and I can't see people doing this in practice. If a table tried to do this it would have to be in the kind of extreme RAW table or min max group that would enjoy that and balance it on the DM side. Good job rules lawyers for finding this.
Yeah more stupidity that players are going to get upset over when the dm has to say no you can't do that it doesn't make any sense. Was looking forward to 5.5 but the more of these videos I see the more I just see it as a big headache instead of clearing up rules they are just making new problems. Tv
Old version didn’t allow you to attack sometimes because the target wasn’t hostile
So no I think it’s better that way
I'm very excited to see that the 2024 PHB is just as full of loopholes as the original 2014 PHB was. It really is the same ol' 5e!! 😃
Of course it is. It's called a repackage.
Nothing innovative but a remake of 5e that is much more terrible going into their VTT under Hasbro and the agenda of going Woke.
(The irony is that this is real. The creative heads are long gone.)
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 I was all about to agree with you, up until the "agenda of going Woke" part. People's unhealthy obsessions with "Woke" need to stop.
@TonyCrenshawsLatte
It's the truth. You haven't kept an eye on Hasbro if you think that isn't part of their plan with DnD as a franchise.
Of course, that's expected when no one asks "why". So when 2024 5.5e makes changes beyond being a TTRPG? You really think WotC changed a few words to be inclusive??? Given their actions against their own consumers and community.
Get grappled by an ally near the end of your move. Then on the grappler's turn can move, extending your travel at half the speed of the grappler, or if they've got the Grappler feat, 100%, provided the grappled target is the same size or smaller than grappler.
I seriously don’t understand the controversy over this. Certainly groups that think of OA as being against enemies only can play that way, but allowing PCs to interact in this way when the situation makes it viable can also be interesting and more tactical if the group wants that.
5e was always like that. I am amused that this 20 year old issue is known today.
Smells like VTT but for video games, not for TTRPGs. A shame.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Huh? 5e is only 10 years old, and how does this have anything to do with VTTs and video games?
@@Lord_zeel
You haven't heard of Hasbro if that is your claim. Especially given why 2024 was designed.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 You're making no sense at all. The new ruleset wasn't designed for VTTs, it's not any more VTT-oriented than 5e which itself isn't VTT oriented. As someone who uses a VTT, there are a lot of things about 5e that don't work particularly well in a VTT, that could be heavily streamlined. And they didn't. Just look at some of the weirdness Baldur's Gate has to do to make 5e work as a video game. This VTT conspiracy is just silly. And again... 20 years? Are we talking about 3.5 for some reason?
I had a group that would trigger my cleric's Warcaster feat by cursing at me as they ran past- thus becoming "hostile." Dm thought it was hilarious so he allowed it. 😆
It's always been RAW in 5e. Why do people think PvP was never a thing in 5e???
Or... Do they not have Team Work???
Random thing is if I have a negative strength I can opportunity attack punch my ally and use the rules for taking weapons out to take out my shield as part of my reaction.
Shield isn't a weapon in 5e. It is closer to armor. Anyone can wield a shield, but you need shield training to benefit from the +2 AC.
@@XanderHarris1023
In 2024 5.5e, Shield is also both Armor and Improvised Weapon. (5e is the same but you had to take a while to draw the Shield. Unlike the rules for weapon swapping in 2024 5.5e.)
I don't think the rules allow you to draw a weapon as part of a Reaction, only as part of an Attack Action.
@@Lord_zeel I think it depends on the wording. I don't know the exact wording but people were saying you could with a bonus action as well. The way I understood it was an attack of opportunity is a type of attack action.
@@Richinnameonly No, check out Teds previous video on attacks he shows the full wording of the Attack Action. The "Attack Action" is what contains the rules about drawing and stowing weapons, and it describes a capital A Action, not the mere act of making an Attack. Making an attack as part of a Bonus Action or Reaction isn't covered by that rule. And attack of opportunity is an attack, but not an Attack Action.
This is dumb. The first clause sets the stage for everything else by using "a foe" as the standard for all the later clauses.
the first clause is flavor text, not mechanics
Seems like all these shennanigans are unnecessary in a game with action points like Pathfinder or DC20...
Dispel Magic on a charmed creature as a reaction.
Be careful, some people *react* very negatively when you bring up this rule change.
I was downvoted into oblivion for pointing it out on reddit and I have no idea why.
(It's reddit, that's why.)
@@Rubycule yeah Reddit can give upvotes or downvotes to two different people saying the exact same thing word for word
@@Rubycule yeah Reddit can give upvotes or downvotes to two different people saying the exact same thing word for word
@@Rubycule yeah Reddit can give upvotes or downvotes to two different people saying the exact same thing word for word
You’re deliberately abusing the rules, it’s stupid and shouldn’t work
@@thomasquesada7248 yeah I know. But how about not shooting the messenger?
6th Edition Rules as Written, you can make opportunity attacks on allies. Including shoving them as they leave your reach, giving them forced movement that doesnt provoke attacks from enemies, or even, the war caster feat allowing you to cast full action spells such as Cure wounds or HASTE on allies as a reaction. And people are calling this anything but 6th Edition? When you can cast haste as a reaction using warcaster? The rules are NOT COMPATABLE, its a NEW EIDITION, and all of you people are dogs lapping up everything Wotc says despite the fact that theyve tried to ROB US BLIND AND PRETEND THEY DID NOTHING WRONG
The irony... When 5e Opportunity Attack is just that. Being hostile or not, doesn't matter to Opportunity Attack.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Do you not know where you are?
@vortraz2054
You're 20 years out of time if you asked that. 2024 5.5e doesn't change it.
Define "hostile" to the Rogue who will betray all and has no enemies.
Buddy, it's not that deep. It's basically just one word different from the old version, I really don't get why people are attached to this narrative that WoTC is pulling something over on everyone by saying it's "not a new edition" but somehow actually making a new edition... like, they really actually aren't. If they wanted to trick people, they wouldn't have put out the Unearthed Arcana and wouldn't have done pre-release copies to people like Ted. If it was a trick, they would have just put the books out and waited for people to buy them and realize... "holy shit this is a totally different game." But that's not at all what's happening. Furthermore, at the same time that people are calling this 6th edition like you, others are saying it's a cash grab because it's "basically just selling us the same thing" again. Which is it? Is it a whole new edition, or is it a reprint scam?
And so what? It's been 10 years, they could have made a new edition if they wanted to, a lot of people would have been on board for that. Instead they chose to do a refresh that didn't completely break compatibility with every adventure and every bit of content for the last 10 years, allowing people to keep using stuff they already paid for. If WoTC just wanted to get more money, they could have broken compatibility on purpose in order to resell every single book from the last decade by making cheap updates. But instead they tried their best to make it still work while improving some things. Maybe this very tiny adjustment is a little more impactful than intended, but it doesn't actually break anything from 2014-2024.
And to the idea that this is just a cash grab reprint... huh? Did you see how much new art is in this book? They could have actually just reprinted the 2014 PHB with new art, and people would have been super excited for an updated printing. There is nothing wrong with releasing a new version of an old product, especially if it comes with a bunch of new (and expensive) art. They aren't forcing anyone to buy this, they aren't coming and taking your old books away.
Just chill out, and have fun.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 The 2014 version specifically says "when a hostile creature...", limiting AOO. As for what constitutes "hostile", that's up to the DM not the players. It's certainly not something the Rogue can just decide, nor would that even make sense. Maybe the Rogue is hostile TO all other creatures (sounds like a problem player murder hobo, but you do you), but that doesn't mean all creatures are hostile to THEM. The NPCs are controlled by the DM, and therefore the DM decides who they are hostile toward. As such in 2014 AOO only applied to creatures the DM determined to be hostile to the creature making the AOO. While in the 2024 version, it doesn't matter because the word "hostile" was removed.
It's been like that since 5e. As if this is an issue for the past 20 years??? While Players can always choose to PvP in DnD if they wanted to during a campaign.
The 2014 rule uses the term "hostile", in a PVP situation an ally becomes hostile which allows this to work. But in a normal combat, an ally is not "hostile" and therefore the AOO rule doesn't apply. Note that the rules for Attacking and the Attack action in 2014 do NOT specify a hostile target, which does mean you can make a PVP attack at any time, but the AOO rule specifies "hostile" so you can NOT make one against an ally at any time. The 2024 version removes the term "hostile", allowing more possible uses. Furthermore, "hostile" is determined by the target of the AOO - the rule doesn't say you need to be hostile toward the target, but that it is hostile toward you. As such you couldn't just say "oh I hate the Barbarian", the player of the Barbarian would need to clarify that THEY are hostile toward you. And hostility is a pretty high bar, it's not just enmity or dislike, you can hate someone and not be hostile toward them. But take the word "hostile" out, and now you can use an AOO on someone friendly to you without any need to pre-emptively provoke hostility, and in the case of War Caster the "AOO" might not even be an attack or overtly aggressive action, it could be healing. It's a much different dynamic for a single word.