D&D 5E How precisely do you run combat encounters?

[Li Shenron]

Do you run everything by the book, do you cut corners, or even outright ignore certain aspects? Do you otherwise add more precision with variant/house rules?

Consider the question from the separate points of view of being precise on the following:

1- creature positions and movement (e.g. TotM vs battlemat, step-by-step movement around obstacles, counting diagonals x1.5)
2- distances and weapon/spell ranges (e.g. measuring exact ranges vs ballparking near/far)
3- elevation, angles and directions (e.g. adjudicating cover carefully from different directions)
4- terrain and obstacles (e.g. ignoring vs taking small objects on the ground into account, like a chair)
5- lesser actions on someone's turn (e.g. handwaving/enforcing object interaction rules, switching an object between hands)
6- spells somatic/material components (e.g. checking against free/occupied hands)
7- light sources and visibility (e.g. keeping track of exact areas of bright light, dim light, darkness)
8- any particular tactical area (e.g. hiding in combat, flanking, facing)

 

[Tallifer]

When I run 5E (although nowadays I have gone back to 4E):

1- creature positions and movement: Theatre of the Mind with a not-necessarily-precise image for the scene so that players can more easily visualize their environment.

2- distances and weapon/spell ranges: ballpark

3- elevation, angles and directions: I take them into account roughly

4- terrain and obstacles: serious obstacles hinder movement somehow; set dressing can be as interactive as players want

5- lesser actions on someone's turn: I try not to let players do too many things for free

6- spells somatic/material components: not usually worth the botheration

7- light sources and visibility: I am too cheap to spring for dynamic lighting in roll20. In Theatre of the Mind it works very easily

8- any particular tactical area (e.g. hiding in combat, flanking, facing): gaining advantage from that stuff is verboten in my 5E games

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Do you run everything by the book, do you cut corners, or even outright ignore certain aspects? Do you otherwise add more precision with variant/house rules?

Consider the question from the separate points of view of being precise on the following:

1- creature positions and movement (e.g. TotM vs battlemat, step-by-step movement around obstacles, counting diagonals x1.5)
2- distances and weapon/spell ranges (e.g. measuring exact ranges vs ballparking near/far)
3- elevation, angles and directions (e.g. adjudicating cover carefully from different directions)
4- terrain and obstacles (e.g. ignoring vs taking small objects on the ground into account, like a chair)
5- lesser actions on someone's turn (e.g. handwaving/enforcing object interaction rules, switching an object between hands)
6- spells somatic/material components (e.g. checking against free/occupied hands)
7- light sources and visibility (e.g. keeping track of exact areas of bright light, dim light, darkness)
8- any particular tactical area (e.g. hiding in combat, flanking, facing)

1. Virtual battlemat nowadays, used both TotM and battlemat before that. Counting diagonals as 1.5 is an optional rule which we don't use because we haven't yet had issues with "strafe-running" (as it were). I think we'd go with 10-5-10-5 etc. (rather than 7.5) if that became an issue (which I doubt it ever will.

2. Currently using exact. I don't think that anything would be lost adopting a system like Age of Sigmar Soulbound and its zones, though.

3. Loosely. It's adjudicated on an individual basis but not closely measured or tracked. If someone is intentionally in cover it will be counted as long as the angle is reasonable, but if it's just "accidental" cover we don't always deal with it.

4. Not sure this is actually a thing in the rules? As such it may or may not matter depending on the exact situation.

5. Moderately. Generally questions are only asked if someone wants to do what seems like an unreasonable amount in six seconds, or to do stuff which would give a significant mechanical advantage.

6. Literally never come up in the entire time we've played 5E. People do endeavour to build PCs who can actually cast their spells (i.e. their default setup allows for a free hand, or shield counts as focus because they're a Cleric, or whatever), and thinking back, in virtually all cases, we do have the requisite free hand/focus, but it has never come up.

7. Loosely tracked. Most parties have most members with Darkvision, which is what tends to come up. If we're exploring someone will have a lightsource or two, typically (fr'ex, in one party my staff has Continual Flame on the top of it).

8. We don't do facing and it's antithetical to 5E's design. People still go "I'm flanking, does that help?" and the DM still goes "No, this is 5E". Hiding in combat has come up a few times, but it's not a routine issue - the Rogues I've seen have largely used other ways to get SA after the first round.

 

[Tonguez]

Theatre of the mind, using approximate zones, terrain aspects and rule of cool - so nothing is precise

 

[Imaculata]

I should note that I play 3.5E, as this question was asked in the context of 5th edition.

1- creature positions and movement: I do all of my battles on a grid. So creature positioning and movement is very important. I also design my maps as to encourage strategic positioning, so the players can take advantage of the terrain and funnel their opponents through areas that offer a strategic advantage.

2- distances and weapon/spell ranges: Again, since I use a grid, we always measure distance. The majority of our battles feature firearms (since I run a pirate campaign), so distance is always a factor.

3- elevation, angles and directions: Elevation does occasionally affect my combat, but I don't change cover based on direction much, unless the direction of attack clearly negates some of the cover. I do place enemies in positions where they may have a height advantage, and present my players with opportunities to get a similar advantage. In one particular big battle, my players fought mobs of cultists in an underground cathedral, by surprising them from the top floor. The cultists had to make their way up the stairs, where the players had strategically placed traps. Also, they dropped a massive chandelier on top of a procession of cultists. It was glorious, but of course purposefully designed by me with that strategy in mind.

4- terrain and obstacles: I always take these into account. I use rules for difficult terrain, and ask for skill checks when obstacles need to be overcome. I also deliberately place obstacles in my battles, to make my players think about their movement and positioning.

5- lesser actions on someone's turn: I use the default rules regarding free actions and standard actions.

6- spells somatic/material components: I take somatic components into account for any enemies that the players face, but rely on my players to check if they can cast a spell or not. Maybe I should keep a better eye on this as a DM. We have discarded the rules for material components entirely, because who wants to keep track of all that?

7- light sources and visibility: I do occasionally ask my players if they have dark vision or low-light vision, or if they carry a light source. But in truth, I find this difficult to track, since we always have someone playing an elf in the party (if only for the benefit of seeing in dark places). Its kind of hard to maintain the mystery and menace of the dark, when you have to follow that up with: "Except you Jeff, you can see just fine."

8- any particular tactical area (e.g. hiding in combat, flanking, facing): I keep track of all of these. But using a grid makes these elements clearly visible to my players.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

1- creature positions and movement. TotM.
2- distances and weapon/spell ranges. Ballpark estimates.
3 - elevation, angles and directions. I love using elevation in my dungeons. Often times, I will map dungeons vertically rather horizontally. Climb up and down is more exciting than moving and right.
4- terrain and obstacles. I find terrain is the most important factor in separating interesting fights from slogs. Lava, acid pits, campfires, and ledges, balconies, rooftops, bridges, rivers, trees & bushes, spider webs - they're all good.
5- lesser actions on someone's turn. don't use the standard initiative rules. All the players act simultaneously. Then all the monsters. The game is more chaotic and tactical that way.
6- spells somatic/material components. A free hand is necessary for somatic components. Material component are ignored. We don't use arcane foci.
7- light sources and visibility. During combat, we don't normally keep careful track of lighting until it becomes important. While exploring, visibility is crucial to determining what PCs can and cannot see. I've also removed darkvision from all PC races.
8 - any particular tactical area. We keep track of hiding, but not flanking or facing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Do you run everything by the book, do you cut corners, or even outright ignore certain aspects? Do you otherwise add more precision with variant/house rules?

Consider the question from the separate points of view of being precise on the following:

1- creature positions and movement (e.g. TotM vs battlemat, step-by-step movement around obstacles, counting diagonals x1.5)
2- distances and weapon/spell ranges (e.g. measuring exact ranges vs ballparking near/far)
3- elevation, angles and directions (e.g. adjudicating cover carefully from different directions)
4- terrain and obstacles (e.g. ignoring vs taking small objects on the ground into account, like a chair)
5- lesser actions on someone's turn (e.g. handwaving/enforcing object interaction rules, switching an object between hands)
6- spells somatic/material components (e.g. checking against free/occupied hands)
7- light sources and visibility (e.g. keeping track of exact areas of bright light, dim light, darkness)
8- any particular tactical area (e.g. hiding in combat, flanking, facing)

Random encounters are nearly always ToM.

Dungeon crawls and planned scenarios are mapped out with precise movement, line of sight, lighting, etc. on a powerpoint grid via 55" display.

 

[Lanefan]

Consider the question from the separate points of view of being precise on the following:

1- creature positions and movement (e.g. TotM vs battlemat, step-by-step movement around obstacles, counting diagonals x1.5)
2- distances and weapon/spell ranges (e.g. measuring exact ranges vs ballparking near/far)
3- elevation, angles and directions (e.g. adjudicating cover carefully from different directions)
4- terrain and obstacles (e.g. ignoring vs taking small objects on the ground into account, like a chair)
5- lesser actions on someone's turn (e.g. handwaving/enforcing object interaction rules, switching an object between hands)
6- spells somatic/material components (e.g. checking against free/occupied hands)
7- light sources and visibility (e.g. keeping track of exact areas of bright light, dim light, darkness)
8- any particular tactical area (e.g. hiding in combat, flanking, facing)

1. Grid and minis. I usually don't have to worry abut diagonals vs straight lines, my rounds are long enough that movement from one part of the battle to another is often a trivial matter; and...
2. ...if I do have to worry about distance that precisely I'll just pull out a piece of string and measure it in a line, ignoring the grid. Ranges are usually easy to eyeball using the grid as a guide; if someone or something is right on the edge I'll usually give a special saving throw, success meaning the potential target is not in the area or range, before any save that might otherwise be needed.
3. Cover is something I often kinda handwave.
4. Situationally dependent. A chair, for example, is going to have much more effect on movement in a narrow passage than it is on an open field. If something's big enough to be relevant given the scale of the area, I'll take it into account. (never mind that the chair also counts as a potential weapon both melee or ranged )
5. Switching objects between hands comes under the heading of 'free action' for me (i.e. you can do it whenever you like) unless the objects to be switched are heavy, bulky, or in some way tied on or awkward to remove or don. So, if you've a dagger in one hand and a wand in the other you can switch them whenever you like, or swap the wand out for a second dagger; if you're trying to doff a shield in order to draw a second weapon that's probably going to eat up your round.
6. Very strict - your movements must be free and unencumbered in order to cast anything* or else you're very likely to blow the casting (and risk a wild magic surge), and if the M component carries any cost it needs to be noted as present. * - exception is a very few combat-related spells mostly belonging to War Clerics.
7. For ranged combat or spells, very important. For melee it's not as vital unless the fight's in complete darkness and one or more combatants don't have night sight.
8. I don't use facing nearly as much as I probably should. Hiding is common - in my game a Thief usually can't backstrike two rounds in a row, she has to spend a round fading into the shadows between strikes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

All my combats are ballpark. Position, areas of effect, speed, object interactions, angles, die rolls, hit points... everything is fudged because it's not worth any of our time spending it counting little squares and drawing straight lines. Move where you want to go... attack who you want to attack... be sensible and don't over-indulge at the expense of your fellow players.

If we wanted balance and precision in moving pieces around a grid, we'd play board games instead. I hear Scythe is very nice.

 

[R_J_K75]

Theatre of the mind, using approximate zones, terrain aspects and rule of cool - so nothing is precise

Pretty much how we play. Only time I get any more in depth is when theres a major encounter or the encounter needs clarification. I try to keep opening books to a minimum at the table.