D&D 5E How Do You View the Combat Round in 5E?

[Charlaquin]

Here’s an interesting idea, based around trying to model the 6-second round with simultaneous action more closely. At the top of the round, everyone declares their actions in ascending order of Wisdom score, representing the more perceptive or quick-thinking characters being able to process the action and come up with a plan of action more quickly. Then everyone rolls a d6 for Initiative, regardless of what action they declared. The result of your roll is the second of the round on which your character successfully executes their plan of action. Dexterity score breaks ties, representing characters with faster reflexes being able to pull off their action that fraction of a second faster.

If you really want speed factors to be a thing, you can have fast actions apply a negative modifier to the d6 roll and slow actions apply a positive modifier, with values below 1 or above 6 superseding Dex mod as a tie breaker, but otherwise acting on second 1 or second 6 respectively.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here’s an interesting idea, based around trying to model the 6-second round with simultaneous action more closely. At the top of the round, everyone declares their actions in ascending order of Wisdom score, representing the more perceptive or quick-thinking characters being able to process the action and come up with a plan of action more quickly. Then everyone rolls a d6 for Initiative, regardless of what action they declared. The result of your roll is the second of the round on which your character successfully executes their plan of action. Dexterity score breaks ties, representing characters with faster reflexes being able to pull off their action that fraction of a second faster.

If you really want speed factors to be a thing, you can have fast actions apply a negative modifier to the d6 roll and slow actions apply a positive modifier, with values below 1 or above 6 superseding Dex mod as a tie breaker, but otherwise acting on second 1 or second 6 respectively.

Actually we went to a d6 months ago for one campaign (doing as you suggest for DEX to break ties), but then when another player started DMing (his first time) we went back to d20 so he could get experience more playing the game RAW. After that, we just went back to the d20 to remove the house-rule. shrug

If you are happy with a 6-second round (personally, I think 10-20 seconds would be better but that is just my preference) then a d6 is a nice way to go. Things like Alert could either help with ties or maybe grant advantage instead.

 

[Charlaquin]

Actually we went to a d6 months ago for one campaign (doing as you suggest for DEX to break ties), but then when another player started DMing (his first time) we went back to d20 so he could get experience more playing the game RAW. After that, we just went back to the d20 to remove the house-rule. shrug

Oh, cool! I just thought of the system as something conceptually interesting for how it would model the fiction mechanically, but I’d be interested to hear some firsthand reports of how it felt in actual play. How did you determine the order of action declaration? What would you say were the pros and cons of using a d6 over using variable die sizes based on declared action, or using a d20 (assuming a declare > roll > act round structure in all cases?)

If you are happy with a 6-second round (personally, I think 10-20 seconds would be better but that is just my preference) then a d6 is a nice way to go. Things like Alert could either help with ties or maybe grant advantage instead.

I’d think Alert would add to your Wisdom for the purposes of determining action declaration order.

EDIT: Oh, hey, your username changed. Did that just happen recently?

 

[Raduin711]

5e combat feels very blow-by-blow to me. There's wiggle room for a little bit of narrative seasoning, but for the most part, it feels like 1 die roll = 1 swing of your weapon. This isn't supposed to be the case narratively, but the mechanics tell a different story.

Looking at the last samurai clip, there is a lot going on there that isn't really modeled anywhere in the D&D rules. For example, Nathan has to parry a lot of blows. This is covered in the rules with AC, full stop. AC is completely passive, is based on what your character is wearing, and doesn't care whether you are fighting one human opponent, 8 human opponents, or 1 dragon. We can pretend that our PC is parrying all of these blows, but more than likely we are going to describe 3 failed attacks rather than 3 parried blows.

It's like the difference between the active voice and passive voice in writing. In D&D mechanics, the attacker is always active because they declare the action and roll the dice, and the defender is always passive, and this flavors our descriptions. It's the difference between "You blocked his attack" and "He missed." Since only the attacker participates in an attack roll, D&D favors "He missed." We can SAY "you blocked his attack", but it doesn't feel like it because we've done nothing but sit quietly or maybe remind the DM what our AC is.

This all contributes to the feeling that your character only ever really does 1 or 2 things a round, and why it can be kind of a struggle to fill in the gaps.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Oh, cool! I just thought of the system as something conceptually interesting for how it would model the fiction mechanically, but I’d be interested to hear some firsthand reports of how it felt in actual play. How did you determine the order of action declaration? What would you say were the pros and cons of using a d6 over using variable die sizes based on declared action, or using a d20 (assuming a declare > roll > act round structure in all cases?)

It worked well really and if it wasn't for allowing the new DM to learn everything RAW we would probably still be using it. We did reverse declaration, so lowest roll declared first. At the time we had 4 players in the group. At the time, we use the Alert feat for a +1 modifier to the d6 roll, so a roll of 6 with Alert in essence was a "7" and would always go first (except if another creature got a 6 with Alert as well of course). It became the benefit of having Alert, you always won ties. That is probably a better way of using it now that I think of it...

Otherwise, DEX plus any other ability mod added feature (like Tactical Wit adds INT) broke ties. So, my War Magic Wizard with DEX 16 and INT 18 (at level 20) got a "+7" for breaking ties. Also, because most monsters/NPCs had lower DEX scores anyway, we eventually just ruled it that PCs win ties over NPCs/monsters to keep it simpler.

So, this is how I would do it now:

• Everyone rolls 1d6. If you have advantage due to a magic item (Sentinel Shield) or a class feature, roll 2d6 and use the higher die.
• The Alert feat wins all ties. Alert does not add +5 to Initiative.
• The higher DEX mod (plus any other ability modifiers due to class features that benefit initiative) wins in a tie.
• Monsters/NPCs lose all ties.

PROs:

• Quicker to count out for the DM. Instead of asking 20 or higher, then 15-20, then 10-15, etc. counting down in groups, it was 6's? 5's? etc. With only a handful of PCs, the DM quickly remembers whose PCs will win ties.
• No adding of DEX or others to your dice roll. One of our members is very mathematically challenged. Even now he sometimes has to think about what he is doing. He has a barbarian and has to remember to add STR along with his Rage damage when he hits. It is like, mentally, he only wants to add one or the other. shrug
• The rules on breaking ties makes it quick. Under Initiative, we used the DEX mod plus whatever else. So, if you tied, you just called out your number when the DM asked. If you had Alert, you just said "Alert" and the DM knew you automatically won.

CONs:
* As expected, you get a lot more ties LOL! But, it adapts quickly IMO.

Otherwise, narratively it works the same, but you can more image the "timing" of the round. In "action", each countdown is a second of time passing.

EDIT: Oh, hey, your username changed. Did that just happen recently?

Two days ago. TCoE and the discussions on race, alignment, etc. recently made me realize it is time for 6E IMO before 5E gets worse.

We played our Frostmaiden game yesterday and one of the players got TCoE and was asking me about this option and that option and this new subclass, etc. It was SO frustrating! I just told him, "No, I haven't had time to review it all in depth and I don't want to just start adding things." I hate letting players down in that sense and denying them options they think would be fun, but I have to judge everything from a gameplay balance issue as the current DM.

Anyway, I wish WoTC had left all such things as UA material, but with the intent to gather feedback to determine if such concepts would be well received in 6E instead of just throwing more and more into 5E.

 

[DND_Reborn]

5e combat feels very blow-by-blow to me. There's wiggle room for a little bit of narrative seasoning, but for the most part, it feels like 1 die roll = 1 swing of your weapon. This isn't supposed to be the case narratively, but the mechanics tell a different story.

Looking at the last samurai clip, there is a lot going on there that isn't really modeled anywhere in the D&D rules. For example, Nathan has to parry a lot of blows. This is covered in the rules with AC, full stop. AC is completely passive, is based on what your character is wearing, and doesn't care whether you are fighting one human opponent, 8 human opponents, or 1 dragon. We can pretend that our PC is parrying all of these blows, but more than likely we are going to describe 3 failed attacks rather than 3 parried blows.

It's like the difference between the active voice and passive voice in writing. In D&D mechanics, the attacker is always active because they declare the action and roll the dice, and the defender is always passive, and this flavors our descriptions. It's the difference between "You blocked his attack" and "He missed." Since only the attacker participates in an attack roll, D&D favors "He missed." We can SAY "you blocked his attack", but it doesn't feel like it because we've done nothing but sit quietly or maybe remind the DM what our AC is.

This all contributes to the feeling that your character only ever really does 1 or 2 things a round, and why it can be kind of a struggle to fill in the gaps.

I agree with a lot of this, but not everything about AC.

Remember, AC is not just wearing the armor and standing there, it is using the armor as well, so turning with an attack so it can deflect off of the armor's surface instead of just biting into it. Also, DEX adds to AC which is dodging, and using a shield encompasses "wielding" the shield, not just holding it. So, the AC bonus from shield is a lot of using it to block blows, not just having it hang from your arm/held in your hand.

As a DM, many times I describe attacks that miss as the PCs deflecting the blow with their shield, turning in their armor to the blade tip scraps along the breastplate, using the haft of their battleaxe to catch and push an enemy's attack aside. This is all included in the passiveness of AC for me, anyway.

FWIW, many times I also describe an attack that "hits" as the PC expending enormous effort to avoid a lethal attack. That expenditure is represented by a decrease in HP--which is most likely "not-meat" narrative plot armor which allows a creature to keep fighting. As attacks "hit" or as I prefer to think of it, succeed, that plot armor (i.e. HP) is worn away until it is gone and the next hit take the PC down and strikes them solidly--they can't avoid it or shrug it off or whatever--and they drop to 0 HP and go unconscious.

 

[Oofta]

I personally don't worry too much about exactly how long a round is because there is no good way to model action sequences with a game while retaining simplicity. Even though we have turns, it's really all happening at once.

You could have everybody declare at the start of their turn, but it takes far less than 6 seconds to change what you were going to do based on developments. To put that it in context the next time you're driving, see how long 6 seconds is (do the old 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi so you can keep your eyes on the road please). You'll travel almost 2 blocks depending on your city if going 60 mph. Now think about this - if a car slowed down in front of you do you think it would take 6 seconds for you to decide to apply the breaks? I would sure hope not. Now assume you have the reaction speed of a professional race car driver.

Another way to think of it is that the average amount of time the ball is in play in (American) football is probably less than 6 seconds (probably around 4 according to this answer). Yet obviously there's a lot going on. In addition while some are over quickly other's take a fair amount of time.

So I don't ever worry about exactly how long a round takes other than to say it averages around 6 seconds when I need to track time that isn't measured in rounds or turns.

 

[NotAYakk]

In D&D rounds:

Round 1: Nathan grapples with the sword of enemy #1, dodges a sword blow, blocks an attack by enemy #2, karate kicks enemy #3, and flips his grappled target to the ground in a somersault. Enemy #4 comes charging into the fray but isn't close enough to attack.

If we assume that is a 5th level Battlemaster.
Round 1, action surge
Attack 1: grapple
Attack 2: unarmed strike (possible an attempted disarm that fails)
Attack 3: shove grappled prone
Attack 4: miss (maybe an attempted disarm)

Round 2: Nathan disarms enemy #1 and blocks attack by enemy #4 while prone. He blocks multiple attacks while getting on his feet and kills off one of the bad guys with one slice to the stomach.

Attack 1: unarmed strike, disarm, object interaction.
Attack 2: kill

Round 3: While parrying blows, Nathan disables an enemy, who falls to the ground dying and takes a sword from another, now dual wielding.

Attack 1: kill
Attack 2: disarm, object interaction pick up weapon.
Bonus action second wind.

Round 4: In a dizzying flurry, he flips enemy #4 to the ground and kills off 2 others.

Attack 1: shove
Attack 2: kill
Bonus action: off-hand attack, kill

All doable by a 5th level fighter.

 

[Helldritch]

Strange, this a movie called the Last Samurai. Yet, everyone think of a battlemaster. I said it in a few threads, we had the samurai way before 5ed gave us one. Ours was a battlemaster... God do I like that class.

 

[Shardstone]

@6ENow! you know you're starting to convince me that maybe I should be on the 6E Now train too lmao