I like these rules a lot! It might need a chart or something to go through Engage, Dash, and Interrupt...I think it can take a few reads to really understand that.
My only concern is that this does a strong nerf to ranged combat. In current 5e, you can shoot a bow from 300 ft away, and that's not even getting in to warlock eldritch blast range shenanigans. For normal speeds, it takes 5 rounds to engage with that archer....assuming they aren't skirmishing (aka moving back). With your system, it can be done in 1 round.
[...]
"Extreme Range": A character using a weapon at extreme range cannot be engaged, unless the player starts their turn at near range to them. (or some flavor of that).
This way archers get at least 1 round before they can be engaged. Its still not nearly as strong as the base version, but it gives them something.
I agree with you. But I also think that a 300ft. distant archer leads to a very boring combat. This is not something you find in every game session, and when this happens, I consider it a situation to be treated more like a puzzle or social encounter than a combat encounter where you have to spend 5 rounds moving. So it currently falls under my "added complexity for very little gain" rule.
That said, the idea of somehow allowing an archer to get 1 round before they can be engaged is interesting.
Let me think about that a little more.
Ok so digging into the rules a little more...a few thoughts.
1) If I understand it correctly, when I do a move I can only engage 1 new enemy. Can I still split up my movement between attacks? For example can I move into an orc (engaging it), kill it with my first attack, move into a second orc (engaging) it, kill it with my second attack, and then move into a 3rd orc (engaging it)?
I feel something like this is needed as move/attack/move was a key flexibility 5e offered fighter types they did not have in the last 2 editions.
Yes you can. Movement in the Near range is freeform, you can move as much as you want. If you kill an enemy, you're free to move again and engage another. Even if you have only a single attack, and kill an enemy with it, you can still move and engage someone else (like the archer behind the just slain enemy...)
In theory, you could even engage and retreat from every single enemy in 1 round (and take a lot of Opportunity Attacks). It's ridiculous, but this is a side effect of a more freeform combat movement. Even in gridded combat right now, you can perform laps around an enemy without any consequence whatsover, and it's just as ridiculous! Veto power is always in the hands of the DM!
2) It looks like reach weapons have no benefit in this. They probably need something (like maybe the ability to engage an extra enemy on a turn or something).
Yes, this was a point already raised by @
jaelis.
Currently, reach is being deliberately ignored to avoid complexity.
I'm considering citing this as an optional rule to allow creatures with reach weapons to make Opportunity Attacks against whoever tries to Engage them (other RPG systems do exactly that)... but I fear it will be abused. I have to give it a little more thought.
3) I think intercept is a little too limited. Instead of requiring you to be unengaged, I think a player must simply break current engagements (which provoke AOOs) in order to intercept. It already requires their reaction so its fairly limited in its current form.
This would be really cool, but it's a nightmare to track! Imagine someone trying to Intercept (using a Reaction out of turn), and to do this he breaks engagement, triggering Opportunity Attacks (even more Reactions out of turn)... with enough combatants, it cascades into insanity! And the poor player whose turn is on... will never get to play!
Besides, the current form adds an extra layer of strategy: Remember I said that even if you have a single attack, and kill the enemy, you can still move and engage another (although you cannot attack again)? So, this new enemy you're engaging is a Bugbear that deals a LOT of damage. Do you prefer to engage it right away and risk that it might go for the wizard on its turn (even if it takes an Opportunity Attack from you), or do you prefer not to engage with him immediately and wait, so that if he goes for the wizard you'd be able to Intercept it?
Always being Engaged is not always the best choice: Roshambo (Rock/Paper/Scissors).
I think the system can be expanded a bit to simulate those specific scenarios that TOTM has trouble with. For example, the old 2 guards blocking the hallway scenario.
(Limited Terrain X)
Due to tight hallways or dense forests, certain fights do not offer the normal freedom of movement implied in standard TOTM. In this condition, use this special rule.
Engage: You cannot break your current engagements. A character can only be engaged with X targets...X = the number specific based on the terrain.
So example: The old 10 foot wide hallway scenario with 2 guards might be Limited Terrain 2. A guard can engage with only 2 characters at once, and people don't have the freedom to just move around as they would in a more open scenario. A 3rd character cannot engage with a guard already engaged with 2 characters (there's just not enough space in that hallway).
I can see the intention!
And in my opinion, that's Grid-style school of thought being used in TotM-style combats. You say TotM has trouble with this, but in truth this just doesn't apply, because the hallway isn't limited by two squares on a grid. In an old 10 foot wide hallway you can describe a massive wave of Goblins with spears, completely insane, climbing and jumping one over the other, hurting themselves, trying to pierce and kill kill kill the party! Easily a trainwreck of 10+ enemies! Add some Spiders in the ceiling, occupying the same "map area", locking the party in place with their webs, making them helpless while saliva drips on their heads... and that's the beauty of TotM!
I believe in this case, any limits for number of enemies and engagements must be adjudicated by the DM in real-time, not by the rules.
