D&D 5E 5/30 Q&A: Charm, Chases, and Combat Free

[pemerton]

I found that rather weak: combat itself is an immersion-challenging mini game, as are the exploration rules, etc. So it's just the transition from one immersion-challenging minigame to another.

Saved me from posting!

in the case that a particular chase *does* lead to a fight, I'd have some rules which basically say: "Once the pursuer successfully catches the prey, the prey is cornered by terrain/circumstances and cannot run away again without extraordinary mitigating circumstances (e.g. a teleportation spell or stealing an enemy's winged mount)."

Woah! Is that "Schroedinger's terrain" I see ahead of me? (Or just Schroedinger's circumstances?)

And more seriously - and relating what you (Quickleaf) said to what Kobold Stew said - while there is this bizarre conviction that combat is not a minigame with strong metagame element but naturalistic and transparent (despite its turn sequence, its action economy, etc), there will also be an ongoing allergy to the metagame mechanics necesary to make these other areas of the game work well.

 

[Leatherhead]

And how do you do so without encountering the problem identified in the article - transitioning into an immersion-challenging minigame?

By making it a fun minigame.

 

[Cyberen]

The distinctive element of combat is not to-hit rolls nor damage, but the initiative track, turn order and action economy it entails. This time framing isn't suited at all to handle chases !

 

[GX.Sigma]

The distinctive element of combat is not to-hit rolls nor damage, but the initiative track, turn order and action economy it entails. This time framing isn't suited at all to handle chases !

I think the issue there is that the combat system sucks and needs to be fixed.

 

[Cyberen]

I think the issue there is that the combat system sucks and needs to be fixed.

It could be, but this kind of endeavour is definitely out of the scope of D&D Next. (Killing Initiative would make to big a sacred steack for a consensual e, I suppose).

 

[Blackwarder]

It could be, but this kind of endeavour is definitely out of the scope of D&D Next. (Killing Initiative would make to big a sacred steack for a consensual e, I suppose).

Just roll it for each round and your done IMO

Warder

 

[Cyberen]

I agree that rolling for initiative each round opens up opportunities for fleeing, but :
1. The mini-game it creates between evenly matched opponents is about as tactically engaging than Head or Tails RPG.
2. In combat, I suppose it comes down to screw big time any wannabee tank. (I would place my bet on the mobile archer / ranged spellcaster every time). It could be realistic (Azincourt !) but kind of sucks for heroic fantasy emulation.

 

[GX.Sigma]

It could be, but this kind of endeavour is definitely out of the scope of D&D Next. (Killing Initiative would make to big a sacred steack for a consensual e, I suppose).

Round-by-round initiative was standard in 5 editions. Individual initiative was only standard in 2 editions.

 

[Blackwarder]

Round-by-round initiative was standard in 5 editions. Individual initiative was only standard in 2 editions.

Woot!?!? Was I asleep for a decade? I remember only 4 editions...

Warder

 

[Cyberen]

I am certainly not advocating against rolling initiative each round (neither in favour of it, actuaaly).
What I was trying to say :
Combat is built upon the assumption of having each party/individual acting back and forth with a precise measure of what they can accomplish on their turn. It doesn't work very well when the actors are running and/or playing hide and seek. Cycling Initiative makes it imposible, random initiative makes it clunky I would say you need another system to handle this kind of flow, and I bet it would need to be quite abstract (and can thus be resented as an immersion-breaking minigame).