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

[Mistwell]

That's the intention.
If better wording is necessary:
"When you Intercept, you prevent the enemy from Engaging an ally. If you weren't previously Engaged with this enemy, you are now Engaged with it."

I like that better, yes.

I don't know if you use feats in your games, but how would you rule the Sentinel feat in your system?

 

[volanin]

Some extra clarifications:

Melee ≈ Adjacent
Close ≈ Near
Distant ≈ Far

Normally it doesnt come into play, but it occasionally matters:

Distant/Far can be subdivided into:
• Short Distance
• Long Distance

Hmm - that's a good point. A few possible solutions:

1) A 3rd range band: "Very far" which would require two turns (move + dash) to cross
2) Some kind of skill check to see if the engager is successful
3) "Engage" is a bonus action only available to certain melee oriented classes? Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, ...

While these propositions are great solutions for TotM, just to be clear, this is not what these rules are trying to achieve.
The weakness of TotM is exactly keeping track of movement/position and mapping/AoE. It really struggles with that.
So the idea was minimizing these as much as possible, to keep things simple:

1. Engaged is treated like a condition.
2. Ranges are condensed in just Near and Far.
3. You can move freely in the Near range without affecting the Engaged condition.
4. And to move to the Far range, you must use a Dash action.

I would make engaging and disengaging each a bonus action.

This can't be done without causing major interference in classes that depend on bonus actions, like the Rogue.

That is a significant restriction for a character with many attacks. I am troubled by it. What if you could engage a new creature any time your attack drops an opponent?

Thanks for pointing this, I'll clear it up later.
The intention is that, if you have extra attacks left after dropping an opponent, you're free to move and engage another one again.

 

[volanin]

I don't know if you use feats in your games, but how would you rule the Sentinel feat in your system?

Actually, nobody has ever chosen that Feat in my games.
Anyway, here's my take:

1. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.

Right now, you can only make Opportunity Attacks when an enemy that's Engaged with you tries to Dash. If you hit the attack, you block the Dash.

2. Creatures within 5 feet of you provide Opportunity Attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.

No changes here. If an enemy is Engaged with you and tries to Disengage, you make an Opportunity Attack.

3. When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

Also, no changes here. If an enemy is Engaged with you and tries to Engage and Attack somebody else, you make a melee weapon attack.

 

[Mistwell]

Some extra clarifications:

This can't be done without causing major interference in classes that depend on bonus actions, like the Rogue.

You could make disengage cost a bonus action, and then treat engaging this way,

"It requires a bonus action (or a reaction in the case of intercept) to engage an additional creature after you're already engaged against a creature".

 

[volanin]

"It requires a bonus action (or a reaction in the case of intercept) to engage an additional creature after you're already engaged against a creature".

Hmmm... at first glance I kinda like that.
I will give it more thought when I get home later today!

 

[robus]

Thanks for taking our feedback so well [MENTION=69817]volanin[/MENTION] - I really do like where you're going with this

 

[jaelis]

So how does reach play into all this? As written it seems to have no effect.

Perhaps: If your reach exceeds that of your opponent, then you can engage without being engaged in return?

 

[Yaarel]

While these propositions are great solutions for TotM, just to be clear, this is not what these rules are trying to achieve.

The weakness of TotM is exactly keeping track of movement/position and mapping/AoE. It really struggles with that.
So the idea was minimizing these as much as possible, to keep things simple:

1. Engaged is treated like a condition.
2. Ranges are condensed in just Near and Far.
3. You can move freely in the Near range without affecting the Engaged condition.
4. And to move to the Far range, you must use a Dash action.

All right, I see what you are getting at.



But then, in the same spirit, I would still radically simplify all spell ranges and areas.

Range
• Engaged (A creature might be ‘engaged’ with its ally, within a step or two, yet not in combat against its ally?)
• Near
• Far

Area
• Engaged (Target one creature, and creatures that are ‘engaged’ with it, are also affected.)
• Near (Target one creature, and all of the creatures that are ‘near’ to it, are also affect)

For example.

A Fireball has a ‘far’ range with a ‘near’ blast. Target one creature, and any other creatures ‘near’ to it, are also affected.

Burning Hands has a ‘near’ range with an ‘engaged’ blast. Target one creature that is ‘near’, and any creatures ‘engaged’ with it are also affected.

Freezing Sphere has a ‘far’ range and blast. Pretty much, you can cover whatever area you want. But not necessarily sculpt. Everyone within can be harmed by the cold, whether hostile or ally.

And so on.



A spell always centers a Medium size space, roughly the size of a Human, and any spread comes from there.

Area (Circle ≈ Sphere ≈ Cylinder ≈ Square ≈ Cube ≈ Cone) is adjacent, near, or far, to target
Line (Line ≈ Wall ≈ Ray) is adjacent, near, or far, to target

For many spells ‘in sight’ is an important kind of range. Many spells require the target to be ‘in far sight’, or ‘in near sight’. (Heh, it works better with ‘in distant sight’ and ‘in close sight’, but far and near are clear enough.)

 

[volanin]

Thanks everybody that gave me feedback on these alternative rules. I gave everything a good thought, and made some modifications. I'll try to show my thought process as best as I can below, and respond to some comments. Of course, I'd love to have more feedback on these new rules:


Problem 1: By far, the greatest weakness of TotM over Grid is abjudicating distances and tracking positions. The official rules for movement, ranged attacks and spells, area of effects and opportunity attacks depend heavily on these. So let's eliminate this weakness.


Premisses:

- Engaged should be treated like a condition (thus eliminating the need to adjudicate if a creature is adjacent to the attacker).

- Distances should be condensed into Near and Far (thus eliminating the need to adjudicate exact distances for movement, ranged attacks and spells. I've come to realize that more range bands just add tracking and complexity for very little gain).

- Area of Effects should be converted into Number of Targets as written in DMG 249 (thus eliminating the need to track creature positions).


Implementation:

RANGE CONVERSION

- Ranged weapons and spells with the original range of 30ft. or less can only target creatures in the Near range. If their original range is beyond 30ft., they can also target creatures in the Far range. It's up to the DM to decide if a creature is too far to be hit.

- If a creature has speed above 30ft., you can Dash as a Bonus Action. (this solves the problem of classes with high speed being ignored. But, a Rogue with Cunning Action and an speed boost is still ignored in this case, as Dash is already a Bonus Action...)


MOVEMENT

- During your turn, you are free to move as you want in the Near range (your current combat zone) without affecting your engagements. You can also simply state that you're moving away (retreating), thus breaking the current engagements and triggering Opportunity Attacks. (this makes combat more fluid and dynamic, and there is no need to track distances and positions)

- Using a Dash action, you can reach Far ranges (any other combat zone). If you're Engaged, this breaks the current engagements and triggers Opportunity Attacks. (while I understand that this kills the option of "walking while performing actions and eventually reach a far creature in 2-3 rounds", this also eliminates the need to track distances and positions, and make Near/Far positions very clear, so it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make).


ENGAGEMENT

- If you are unengaged, you can become Engaged with a creature as part of your movement or Dash. (Basically, you move close enough to a creature, and set the Engaged condition, which allows you to attack it with melee weapons and impose disadvantage in the creature's ranged attacks and spells).

- If you are already Engaged and decides to become Engaged with another creature, you break the current engagements and trigger Opportunity Attacks. (This solves the problem of these rules being too harsh on ranged combatants as raised by @Mistwell. This also makes combat more static, but these things seem to be different ends of the same spectrum, and I prefer to err in favor of ranged combatants).

- If a creature is defeated, you're free to keep moving and to become Engaged with another creature. (This clears the extra attacks problem raised by @jaelis)

- If you are Engaged with a creature, the creature is also Engaged with you. (no half-engagements, these are a nightmare to track, sorry @jaelis).


Well, this is the easy part. TotM now flows much better!
But this also creates another problem:


Problem 2: When distances and positions are taken away, D&D combat becomes tactically shallow. Examples: four brute ogres in front of a goblin wizard would be unable to protect it (since movement in the Near range is freeform). Classes with high mobility (like the Rogue with Dash as bonus action) would mean nothing in Near range melee combat.


Premisses:

- Create a more meaningful combat experience by simulating the Grid tactical situations without the need to adjudicate distance and track position.

- Keep things simple!


Implementation:

INTERCEPT/PROTECT

- If you are unengaged and a creature tries to become Engaged with any of your allies, you can use a Reaction to Intercept the engagement. The creature is now Engaged with you. (this solves the first exemple given with four ogres and a goblin wizard. Also, allowing you to only Intercept while Unengaged make things MUCH easier to track when you have lots of creatures, and also prevents abuse).


DASH

- This expands the Dash action: By using an Action, you can also Dash into a creature in the Near range. This allows you to become Engaged with this creature without the chance of being Intercepted. Remember that if you're already Engaged with another creature, this breaks the previous engagements and triggers Opportunity Attacks. (this solves the second example given, of classes with high mobility).


ENGAGE

- If you're already Engaged, you can use an Action to become Engaged with an extra creature without breaking current engagements. @Mistwell proposed this to be a Bonus Action, but this would make the Fighter "collect" Engagements without much consequence. Here, it becomes a meaningful option: trade an Action for the ability to impose disadvantage on ranged attacks and spells of the creature, and prevent it from Dashing without consequence).


Also, it seems that this triad of Intercept, Dash, Engage interacts well with each other like Rock/Paper/Scissors, being strong against one and weak against the other.


Well, this is it for now.
Small changes based on your feedback, but I feel that overall it made the system more robust.
Please tell me if I forgot something, or if there are even better solutions to some of these problems. I tried to show my thinking process as best as I could.
Thanks!

You could make disengage cost a bonus action, and then treat engaging this way,
"It requires a bonus action (or a reaction in the case of intercept) to engage an additional creature after you're already engaged against a creature".

For now I've made it an Action.
See if you agree with my thinking!

Thanks for taking our feedback so well @volanin - I really do like where you're going with this

It's me that should be thanking all of you!

So how does reach play into all this? As written it seems to have no effect.
Perhaps: If your reach exceeds that of your opponent, then you can engage without being engaged in return?

I had two solutions to this:

1. Your idea, but in my opinion it would add a lot of complexity for little gain.
2. Give combatants with reach weapons an Opportunity Attack whenever a creature with a shorter reach tried to Engage (there is an RPG that does this, but I forgot the name)... this would be cool for monsters, but if the same is applied to PCs, everybody would use only reach weapons!

In the end I decided it's not worth making the system more complex just to embrace reach weapons, and I guess I'll leave it in the hands of the DM! At least for now!

 

[volanin]

All right, I see what you are getting at.
But then, in the same spirit, I would still radically simplify all spell ranges and areas.

That's a nice proposal.
When I started doing this, one of the premisses was to break the least amount of mechanics.
And since there already was an official way of adjudicating Areas of Effect in the DMG, I went with it. =)