D&D 5E (2014) My most basic advice for DMs who want more interesting & dynamic combat

[el-remmen]

Since at least the days of 3E (and honestly I remember it being an issue for some back in 2E days, too), a common complaint/concern of Dungeon Masters running D&D is that their combats are too static and boring and/or too short (tho that latter complaint is one I have literally never dealt with personally). In light of how common that seems to be I have a very basic piece of advice for DMs who want more out of combat that comes in two parts:

1. Don't be afraid of opportunity attacks. Have monsters make "risky" moves to do things the PCs don't want them to do. Esp. early on in the combat where they can take a hit or two.
2. Put the PCs in situations where they have to consider risking an opportunity attack to accomplish some thing mid-combat that they want to do.

That's it. There is a lot of other stuff I do (or try to do), but this is the basic idea from which very fun and tactical combats arise and that I then build upon.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For whatever weird reason I have always found that players seem to be more afraid of OAs than any other attack. I've seen players stay in melee combat against creatures with Multiattack, taking multiple attacks on those creature's turns... rather than try and move away from them and possibly taking that one OA. It's almost as though players think that no matter where they move, to the creature will automatically follow and move with them, and thus that OA becomes just one extra attack they weren't ordinarily going to have to absorb. When point of fact, as the DM I'm usually thinking these creatures have much better places to move to themselves, rather than chasing down the PCs (especially when the PCs move towards their back line, because no creature is stupid enough usually to place themselves so far away from their own allies.)

It's very odd.

 

[el-remmen]

For whatever weird reason I have always found that players seem to be more afraid of OAs than any other attack. I've seen players stay in melee combat against creatures with Multiattack, taking multiple attacks on those creature's turns... rather than try and move away from them and possibly taking that one OA. It's almost as though players think that no matter where they move, to the creature will automatically follow and move with them, and thus that OA becomes just one extra attack they weren't ordinarily going to have to absorb. When point of fact, as the DM I'm usually thinking these creatures have much places to move to themselves, rather than chasing down the PCs (especially when the PCs move towards their back line, because no creature is stupid enough usually to place themselves so far away from their own allies.

It's very odd.

I have found that too. I have actually suggested to players as much between sessions and a handful of times in the middle of combat - and of course, how enemies behave is also a model of tactics.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think a big reason players don't like risking opportunity attacks is there's often no reason to. I'm playing a heavy-armor fighter; I can back off and only risk one attack that probably won't hit. But what do I gain? The enemy either goes after me and gets their full multiattack anyways (so all I've done is given them an extra attack) or the enemy goes somewhere else - and if I hadn't moved I would have gotten an opportunity attack when it did that.

In 3x, at least moving might set up a charge attack, but 5e doesn't have those (which I'm okay with).

In a knock-down fight, there's just rarely any reason to move. That's why no moves. Even without OAs, it's not worth the effort. In a fight with objectives other than 'reduce enemy hp to zero' this changes pretty quickly.

 

[touc]

Good advice. While the list may be a dozen long of things you could do, that's an easy one for the DM to apply. From there, we can branch out to concepts of why they'd take those risks (do you use flanking rules of some kind, is there a valuable gem on the ground one greedy goblin wants to get before leaving his comrades to fight, is there an NPC to protect or abduct, is there advantageous terrain, and so on).

 

[el-remmen]

Good advice. While the list may be a dozen long of things you could do, that's an easy one for the DM to apply. From there, we can branch out to concepts of why they'd take those risks (do you use flanking rules of some kind, is there a valuable gem on the ground one greedy goblin wants to get before leaving his comrades to fight, is there an NPC to protect or abduct, is there advantageous terrain, and so on).

Someone gets it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I've sometimes thought of reversing the whole idea of Opportunity Attacks... Something like if you start and end your turn in the same space, enemies gain advantage to their attacks.

One challenge I have with creating dynamic combats is that in 5e combat usually only lasts 2 or 3 rounds. It can be difficult to create interesting stakes within such a short timeframe.

I want to build up a list of "twists" that I could drop into the second or third round of combat.

 

[MichaelSomething]

To a lot of players, "you can but at a penalty" is functionally "you can't."

 

[jmartkdr2]

To a lot of players, "you can but at a penalty" is functionally "you can't."

Or at least "you shouldn't" - especially if there's no bonus if you succeed.

I see a similar dynamic with creative movement: I want to swing on the chandelier to get at the enemy. If I succeed on an acrobatics check, I do so and am standing next to the enemy; if I fail I'm flat on my face in front of the enemy and lose my attack.

Or, I could just walk up to the enemy and attack with the same bonus to hit.

Then the dm wonders why players never do anything creative.

 

[Bupp]

Need more carrot and less stick.