D&D 5E Roshambo-Style Theatre of the Mind Combat

[volanin]

I'm back!
Sorry for the long delay!
Year's end and everything! Hope you all had awesome holidays!

Thanks, very interesting rules. How about this optional rule:

Flanking: If two or more allies are engaged with a single opponent
and they do not have other engagements, they are considered flanking and gain
advantage to their attacks.

One can avoid being flanked by engaging with terrain features, such as walls or
pillars or, if your allies engage the attackers.

What do you think?

I actually think it's excellent! But Flanking was deliberately left out of the PDF because the intention was to focus on how to make TotM more interesting, while trying to stick as close as possible to the core rules, by adding the minimum necessary in order to address TotM tactical deficiences when compared to Grid play.

Flanking is something people have been asking for since 5e was out, and your implementation would be a great way to make Flanking work while using the Roshambo rules! Be sure I'll steal it someday if I ever expand this document!

How do you choose being ready to Intercept? Doesn't that require you to Disengage (giving up your turn just in case there's a chance to Intercept), and then hope no enemies engage with you before there's a chance to Intercept? Does anybody ever actually do this?

Maybe I'm not understanding something in these rules correctly, but as written it seems like melee characters will only have a chance to use Intercept in the first round, before they've had a chance to engage. Ranged characters, including casters, may have additional opportunities, but they won't want to Intercept and get into melee.

Or am I missing something important?

Sorry, that was bad wording. You don't choose to be "ready to Intercept" in the rules sense. Or you're able to Intercept, or you aren't... and you choose to set up this situation for your character beforehand.

But allow be to expand. Here what's "you're missing"...
Or as I prefer to put it, here is what "isn't very obvious and you're right in questioning it":

As I said to [MENTION=6794298]pehaimi[/MENTION] above, the focus of this document is how to make TotM more interesting, while adding the minimum necessary to address its deficiences. And basically, TotM has two colossal deficiences: distance and position adjudication, which these rules want to deal with.

When Intercept was created, it was not meant to be a new attacking option for your character. Just like Flanking, this is not the focus of the document. Intercept was created to address the tactical positioning that exists in Grid play. There are some "hot squares" in the Grid that have tactical advantages: The square in front of a door, that you want to hold. The square in the middle of a narrow corridor that you want to block. The square in front of the enemy alarm, that you want to prevent them from reaching.

Since Roshambo TotM makes movement freeform, there is nothing preventing the enemy from getting through you, and these "hot squares" or "advantageous positions" lose their meaning. And Intercept was conceived in order to allow these positions to be relevant. You can actually do something when an enemy tries to become engaged to the door, to become engaged to your allies behind you in the hallway or to become engaged to the alarm switch.

In Grid play, you'd have to hold your position at these spots (and as such, deliberately choose not to engage an enemy a few squares away). And that's why you have to be unengaged in order to Intercept, it simulates this "cost" of holding your tactical position.

Or, in another point of view: if a Goblin is charging the Wizard, the official rules never allowed you to use your Reaction to break your current engagement with the Orc, run a few squares and block the Goblin... you'd have to already be in a "hot square" in front of the Wizard in order to be able to do something (even if this something is just an Opportunity Attack). That's the Intercept intention.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thanks; that helps a ton.

The one thing I don't like (and overall I love this) is that you have to choose between engaging and being ready to Intercept. On a grid, you can often...but not always...have both: you get to engage and stand in a 'hot square'. One way you do that, of course, is by standing in the hot square and letting the goblin come to you.

But with these rules even if the goblin comes to you, by engaging with you, you are now engaged and therefore you still can't intercept. It seems like the only way to protect the wizard, in case somebody tries to engage with him, is by not only not engaging but also avoiding letting anybody else engage with you. Is that correct?

EDIT:

Thinking through this, I now see that for the first round it's very different. If you are either lower in the initiative order, or choose not to engage, then for the first round you can intercept anybody who goes for the Wizard. I've been thinking about later rounds in the fight.

There is a tactical advantage to choosing the engagements, so maybe if you forego choosing your engagements you get some intercept ability. For example:
- If you have not engaged an enemy, you may choose to Protect an ally. For the rest of the fight, until you take the Engage action or Protect a different ally, you are able to Intercept attempts to engage this ally.

Or something like that. It represents positioning yourself, rather than moving toward the enemy, and it means the enemies get to choose the engagements (possibly avoiding you if you're a badass).

Admittedly it clutters up the elegant symmetry you've created.

 

[pehaimi]

Thanks for your kind words! Flanking might add some interesting tactical
decisions. Feel free to use it if seems worthwhile. Maybe it could be an optional rule like in the DMG.

 

[volanin]

The one thing I don't like (and overall I love this) is that you have to choose between engaging and being ready to Intercept.

I'm laughing right now because, in the end, you used the same bad wording that I did to explain the situation!
"Ready to Intercept"!

On a grid, you can often...but not always...have both: you get to engage and stand in a 'hot square'. One way you do that, of course, is by standing in the hot square and letting the goblin come to you.

But with these rules even if the goblin comes to you, by engaging with you, you are now engaged and therefore you still can't intercept. It seems like the only way to protect the wizard, in case somebody tries to engage with him, is by not only not engaging but also avoiding letting anybody else engage with you. Is that correct?

That's true, you're right in both aspects:

1. You can't be Engaged and control a "Hot Square" at the same time...
2. As soon as you Intercept someone, you can't Intercept anybody else because you will already be Engaged. This makes being outnumbered something really hard to deal with...

And honestly, since TotM and Grid shouldn't play exactly the same, since each style has it's own strengths and weaknesses, I am willing to accept these differences. But, having said that...

If you have not engaged an enemy, you may choose to Protect an ally. For the rest of the fight, until you take the Engage action or Protect a different ally, you are able to Intercept attempts to engage this ally.

This seems really nice!
Instead of a Intercept Reaction, on your turn you could have a Protect Action. Allow me to rewrite (loosely):


"Protect (Action): Choose an ally, object or terrain feature to Protect until your next turn. If a creature tries to become Engaged with the Protected target, you can force it to become Engaged with you instead (unless it Dashes...)"


With this approach, "Hot Squares" are relevant, it keeps the Roshambo logic, you can do it while Engaged and you can keep using your Action in order to Protect repeatedly until you decide to stop being a meat shield. Also, it changes the dynamics from "unable to deal with while outnumbered" to "able to deal with while outnumbered, but very risky"... and at first glance, I love it!

The disadvantages I can think of are (arguably):

A. It makes the game more predictable, since this has to be a more premeditated action than Intercept. With Intercept you can take the decision on the spot, as the situation changes during the round.

B. It might be a little overpowered, since a Fighter could become engaged with 10 Goblins who are trying to reach the Wizard... giving some real meaning to "controlling the battlefield".

C. If you Intercept an enemy and it decides to break engagement on the same turn, you still get an Opportunity Attack against it. If you Protect an ally and 10 enemies are forced to engage with you on their turn, but they decide to break engagement on the same turn... what happens? You hit only the first one, since you have only one Reaction? They can't break engagement in this case? They can break engagement, but if they try to engage with the Protected target again, they actually re-engage with you while Protect lasts? (Actually, I like this last one).

I'll have to think better about this!
But I am really digging it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think you're making it a little more complex than I intended. I was trying to model the situation where an unengaged Fighter (for example) has a choice between moving to engage a bad guy, or placing himself in the path of the Wizard and waiting for the bad guys to come to him.

For as long as neither he nor the Wizard takes an action that changes their position (for example, by engaging an enemy) then nobody can engage the Wizard without the Fighter intercepting him. And the fighter can do that without breaking current engagements because he doesn't have to actually move.

During a fight this would happen:
1) In the first round, if by the time the fighter gets to take his turn no enemies have engaged with him, in which case he choose to Protect instead of engaging. He gives up his turn in order to pick a 'hot square' that currently doesn't have enemies in it.

2) If, at some point during the combat, the Fighter finds himself unengaged, he would be able to do this again, picking a 'hot square' to protect somebody.

3) Maybe he could also protect companion if already engaged, but doing so would provoke AoO's because he has to move in order to do it.

So I guess it's really like a "pre-Intercept" that lasts until the situation changes (instead of one round), but it only applies to a single ally or terrain feature.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

For myself, I've been testing out a different way of running Intercept, as I also have some issues with it.

This is what I've done:

1) You can Intercept even while Engaged, however you suffer Opportunity Attacks and other negative consequences of leaving the Engagement as normal.

2) A creature cannot Engage another creature in a turn it has been Intercepted.

These changes make it so you can successfully have a protector in the front to block at least 1 attacker from going after your Wizard, at the cost of taking frequent Opportunity Attacks. It also makes it so an enemy cannot simply ignore the protector who has Intercepted him and continue on.

The Dash action becomes more important, because it is now the only way to Engage enemies without the chance of being intercepted. It also makes Movement Advantage more useful.

So far the changes have gone over very well. There's more Opportunity Attacks, which means fights actually go faster, not slower, with this change. It also makes my player with a fighter PC feel more like a protector, as he can keep Intercepting threats to the Wizard, and his high AC helps protect him from the Oa's.

 

[Guest 6801328]

For myself, I've been testing out a different way of running Intercept, as I also have some issues with it.

This is what I've done:

1) You can Intercept even while Engaged, however you suffer Opportunity Attacks and other negative consequences of leaving the Engagement as normal.

That's the first change I made as well. What it omits is the 'hot square' idea we're discussing above. I.e., that with strategic positioning you shouldn't have to take AoOs to defend an ally.

2) A creature cannot Engage another creature in a turn it has been Intercepted.

These changes make it so you can successfully have a protector in the front to block at least 1 attacker from going after your Wizard, at the cost of taking frequent Opportunity Attacks. It also makes it so an enemy cannot simply ignore the protector who has Intercepted him and continue on.

Well, just like your protector can still intercept while engaged at the cost of an AoO, an intercepted creature can still choose to reach its target, but at the cost of an AoO. Not sure I like ruling that they simply can't reach the target, because couldn't the protector just intercept again the next turn as well, except now without even having an AoO since they are engaged?

I guess it depends on whether the goal of Intercept is to make it impossible to reach the target, or to impose a cost for doing so.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Not sure I like ruling that they simply can't reach the target, because couldn't the protector just intercept again the next turn as well, except now without even having an AoO since they are engaged?

I guess it depends on whether the goal of Intercept is to make it impossible to reach the target, or to impose a cost for doing so.

Yes, the protector could just Intercept again the next round, unless the monster Dashes. That is the niche of Dash, it let's you get past defenders at the cost of your Action.

 

[Lapasta]

Maybe you are overthinking this "hot square" thing?
If the fighter is on a very narrow passage, or right in front of the door, so that nothing can pass to hit the wizard, then the player just has to say "I stand in front of the door" and just like that no monster can get to melee range of the wizard. I don't think you need any other ruling in this case. Maybe allow an acrobatic check for the monster to tumble past the fighter...
If, on the other hand, the passage is not so narrow, then allowing for the fighter to intercept just the first monster and not the others is just fine. If playing on a grid, he would be able to AoO only once anyway, and if more than one monster tried to pass through him, he would not be able to stop them all.

 

[robus]

[MENTION=69817]volanin[/MENTION] - I was just rereading the latest version (1.4) and something confused me.

This:

If you're already Engaged, attempting to become Engaged with another creature will break your current engagements.

Seems to be in direct conflict with this:

If you're already Engaged with a creature, you can use an Action to become Engaged with an additional Near creature of your choice, without breaking your current engagements.

What am I missing? Why does one break engagements and the other not?