Thank you for all the feedback.
Let me try to reply to everybody:
‘melee’ (body space, hand to hand)
‘close’ (upto 30 foot move, thrown weapon, close range, close quarters combat)
‘distant’ (beyond 30 feet)
‘short distance’ (upto 300 feet, distance of an arrow shot, city block)
‘long distance’ (beyond arrow shot, upto 3000 feet)
That's exactly how I did it initially, with slightly different terms.
It was Adjacent, Near, Medium, Far, Very Far... and it didn't work at all in table. =(
Too many range divisions (and added complexity) for too little gain.
One thing that is a bit lacking is the fact you can't really methodically move through the battlefield.
Since you have to dash to go far away, it means you have to give up an action at some point. While an actual battlefield your cleric might continue to cast spells and just take 2-3 turns to get to a far away encounter.
That's true.
While you can freely move in the current combat zone (Near range), you indeed have to sacrifice an action to Dash and move to another combat zone (Far range). This was deliberately created this way, because it would give full mobility to melee combatants (making combat much more fluid), while giving an advantage to ranged combatants who wanted to stay distant, firing away.
A Fighter would have to spend his action to Dash and reach the Goblin Archer, but would not be able to attack it in the same turn (which is the whole point of being distant). But the Fighter didn't Dash for nothing: he could still Engage the Goblin Archer, giving it Disadvantage on this ranged attacks. So the Goblin would have to attack the Fighter, fire with Disadvantage, or Dash away (risking an Opportunity Attack).
I really liked your ideas! It looks similar to how Numenera handles distances too.
Just some observations:
1) having no limits to how many engaged enemies you can have is a bit weird to me... there should be a limit, either fixed or dependent on class and/or size.
2) there is no way to break an engagement in your rules. Maybe a character can use his movement to either engage another enemy or to break an existing engagement on him. This way ranged characters can sort of keep their distance from melee, if there was only one enemy engaging him.
3) there was nothing as the intercept action at the original game rules. I liked it, but this point should be stress-tested. For example, what happens if more than one character wants to intercept the same opponent? Can I intercept another character’s interception attempt?
4) even though you are trying to avoid numbers, there should be any point to character speed, in order to keep balance to the game, and that some magic items or spells are still valid. I liked the approach by OB1, but following his line of thought the “dash action” (spend your main action to double your movement) should be different to the “move to far distance by spending X feet of movement”.
1. This is something easily ruled by the DM. It's such an individual thing that I guess I prefer not to codify it in rules. I love the idea of a Fighter trying to Engage a swarm of Goblins!
2. An Engagement ends by using the Disengage action or Dash action (risking an Opportunity Attack). But I see your point there. I have to think about this... it would work if you could choose to break Engagement by risking an Opportunity Attack... but let me think a little more. Nice catch.
3. You can only Intercept attempts to Engage someone. In a party of 4 characters, when the Ogre tries to Engage the Wizard, any one of the other characters can Intercept. There is no reason to dispute who is Intercepting "first" (unless two characters wants to impress the one being Engaged, but this is something apart from combat!)
4. This is a point I am indeed thinking about.
Once you have engaged an opponent, how does that end?
In your example, where the fighter intercepted the goblin, would the goblin be able to engage the wizard on its next turn? Could the fighter intercept again?
An Engagement ends by using the Disengage action or Dash action (risking an Opportunity Attack).
In the example, the Goblin could try to Engage the Elf Wizard again in its next turn, but the Fighter could again Intercept the Engagement by using a Reaction. Effectively, the Fighter could keep Intercepting one enemy every round if this enemy tries to Engage someone. That said, the Goblin has Nimble Escape. It could Disengage the Fighter as a Bonus Action, and shoot the Elf Wizard with its Shortbow without Disadvantage.
Nice stuff @
volanin - I've not been happy with the arbitrary distances I've been using for TotM combat: "Oh that's about 30ft away, that's 50ft away..." etc etc being able to just say "it's nearby or far away" would make things a lot more natural IMHO.
Looking forward to trying it out when we shift campaigns.
Thanks!
If you ever use these alternative rules, I'd love some feedback.
Even if it's an one shot adventure! =)
But if you have them, I think it works OK. Your attackers can get to you, but they have to eat OAs to do it.
