D&D 5E Solving Static Fights

[jmartkdr2]

Yes, but if it's an attack you don't need to eat, why eat it?

In 3e we tried to stay as still as possible in combat and let the opponents do the moving, because provoking AoOs against ourselves was just plain dumb when we could be giving them out instead.

If you want to promote movement in combat, just get rid of any OAs that are provoked by moving past an opponent. It's that simple.

Since that's the only way to provoke OA's, that would mean removing OAs entirely. (Unless you're defining "moving past" in some very specific way.)

I don't think that would solve OP's problem, though, since the pc's still need a reason to move. A lack of reason not to isn't going to do it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, but if it's an attack you don't need to eat, why eat it?

Because you've got places to be and people to kill? You can't stand in one place forever just because you might take 1d6+3 damage if you don't! Also once one person has triggered an OA, they open a route for others to follow.

 

[Lanefan]

Since that's the only way to provoke OA's, that would mean removing OAs entirely. (Unless you're defining "moving past" in some very specific way.)

No, I'm thinking in 3e terms where standing from prone gave an AoO, casting a spell in melee gave an AoO, and various other things did as well; each of which being far more justifyable as an opening to be attacked than simply moving past someone - particularly if that someone is already engaged with another foe. (can you tell I've never liked most movement-based AoOs?)

Because you've got places to be and people to kill? You can't stand in one place forever just because you might take 1d6+3 damage if you don't!

Sure I can. If the opponents want to kill me that badly they'll come to me to do it. Failing that, if I've nothing better to do I'll just move to - but not past - the nearest ongoing combat and join in, giving us better numbers against that foe.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure I can. If the opponents want to kill me that badly they'll come to me to do it. Failing that, if I've nothing better to do I'll just move to - but not past - the nearest ongoing combat and join in, giving us better numbers against that foe.

I feel like you must play a lot of games where this doesn't lead to you and the others eating a lot of area-effect spells/attacks/abilities, and face instead of a lot of high-damage melee opponents.

 

[Lanefan]

I feel like you must play a lot of games where this doesn't lead to you and the others eating a lot of area-effect spells/attacks/abilities, and face instead of a lot of high-damage melee opponents.

Why would either side throw AoE into the melee, unless the caster didn't care about the welfare of the front-liners? (I don't allow precise targeting/aiming of AoE effects like 3e-4e-5e do, the caster has to roll for it, and at best it's very difficult - more often it's impossible - to line things up such that you only hit the enemy)

 

[Fenris-77]

If I have a bunch of pretty static PCs I'm quite happy to assault them from above, or from the rear, or whatever. Defensive fighting is fine, but I want it to be a conscious decision on the part of the players, and decisions have consequences.

 

[Eltab]

Does your group have a Rogue 2+? Bonus action "this movement is a Disengage" get behind Tough Front-Line Monster and sneak attack him for a bunch of damage.

I have a halfling Arcane Trickster with the Sweeping Blades cantrip, so I move through clusters of enemies and set off my 'grenade' in the middle. Gets them chasing me instead of holding good defensive positions.