D&D 5E Optional Combat Rules from the DMG - yay or nay?

[Motorskills]

I'm running LMoP for a large group of relatively new players, so I've deliberately kept things simple and fast-flowing.

One of my players is using an online character sheet builder and the print-out made reference to some weird combat options. That caused some headscratching until we located from whence they had come, namely the DMG.

I'm unfamiliar with those options, but I'm not automatically opposed to introducing them.

Are they interesting, are they balanced, will they slow my game down?

 

[Harzel]

Which options in particular are you interested in?

 

[Motorskills]

All of them I guess. I don't have my DMG to hand.

My initial thinking was to allow them all or to disallow them all, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

 

[The_Gneech]

Not everything in the DMG is intended to be used all at once and some of it is contradictory, so you'd probably want to give things a pass on a case-by-case basis.

That said, the "Action Options" on pp 271-272 (Climb Onto a Bigger Creature, Disarm, Mark, Overrun, Shove Aside, and Tumble) are probably fine; they're pretty simple and mostly there to add back in some elements that 3E/4E players might miss.

-The Gneech

 

[One_Shots]

They're great and well worth adding to the game for a player group who can handle the additional complexity.

 

[Lanliss]

I am going to be adding some of those listed above by Gneech, given that one of my players is going to be playing a fancy footwork sword fighter. I think she will wind up going Champion/Swashbuckler, and find good use it these options. Will let you know how it goes, when we eventually play.

 

[pukunui]

I allow my players to make use of all those extra combat options except for Marking and Flanking, as I feel they're a bit OP as written.

That being said, I can't recall a single instance where any of my players have used any of those combat options, as I'm just not sure they're aware of them really. That and they tend to prefer the direct approach. They tend to view things like disarming an opponent as a waste of time.

I have probably used a few (like Shove Aside and Overrun) as a DM, and I made great use of the Climbing onto a Bigger Creature rule when I was playing a paladin who liked to leap onto the backs of dragons and things.

 

[Rune]

If you opt to use the flanking rule as-written, strongly consider using the facing rule, as well. Because of the way 5e opportunity attacks (normally) only trigger when you exit a creature's threatened area, it is ridiculously easy to get into flanking position without retribution. Facing makes it a little harder to do (at least when coming from the front), because the threatened area is narrowed to exclude the rear arc.

 

[77IM]

Most of these maneuvers are in-line with the general guidelines for balanced improvised maneuvers:

1. If you spend an action but make no check, you can get some advantage or impose some disadvantage. Examples: Help, Dodge.

2. If you spend an action AND make an opposed skill check, you can create MULTIPLE advantages/disadvantages. Examples: Grapple, Shove, Hide.
​

In general, improvised maneuvers shouldn't be any more powerful than this. Because if they were, people would do them ALL THE TIME, and they would no longer be improvised maneuvers -- they would just be, the maneuvers.

In non-general, unusual circumstances may allow more powerful maneuvers, or even just grant advantage/disadvantage straight up. This encourages people to play creatively and take advantage of the situation.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Most of the alternate combat action/maneuver sorts of things (Climbing Onto a Bigger Creature, Tumbling, etc) are perfectly fine. They just provide you some examples of things you might otherwise be improvising.

However, Mark is not like that. Mark gives everyone a new and automatic capability they didn't already have. It really shouldn't have been in the same section as those other actions. It is a combat variant, not just another action option.