D&D 5E Can We Come Up With Better (but still simple) Movement Rules?

[Don Durito]

I wonder if intercept rules by themselves would be enough to make flanking workable.

Basically intercept from 13th Age means that you can move to intercept and engage someone who tries to get past you. If adding this to grid based 5e I would make this a special action* that can allow you to move up to half your speed in response to someone elses movement.

This would make getting flanking something that's more difficult to get - as if there's another enemy nearer than you, they can move to block your flanking or engage you before you get there. If you did this and just made flanking the traditional +2 it may work better.

*My first thought was that this should be reaction - but that doesn't work because you have already used your reaction to engage, so the threat of engagement would be toothless (this sort of thing is a common issue with 5E's action economy).

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm a bit confused by the OP. A lot of the discussion seems to follow concerns over tactical movement - but I don't see that in the OP

Yeah, it got threadjacked a bit... but I am interested in such things as well so shrug...

 

[NotAYakk]

A variant of flanking I intend to try out is "threatened flanking".

Basically, if you end your turn surrounded, you become flanked until no longer surrounded. When flanked, attacks on you have advantage.

Surrounding someone forces them to either get out of dodge, or suffer flanking penalties on all attacks (not just on the attacks of creatures doing the flanking).

I suspect this will reward dynamic positioning without making advantage trivial to get, or cause congo-lines. Offensive positioning (threatening a flank) becomes more valuable, as it forces the enemy into accepting the flank, disengaging, burning resources to get out of dodge, or taking one or more OAs.

This also breaks the trench warfare aspect of melee combat; if you have a line anchored at both sides, you do get glued, but efforts to extend your line around the enemy and induce a flank is valuable. As is breaking the enemy line. All of which are real concerns in warfare in real life, which is a bonus.

A sufficiently skilled PC can get out of that situtation. Pushing one of the key enemies so you aren't surrounded might be better than making an attack. Similarly, dropping foes attempting to surround you. Or accepting the OA to reposition, back to back with an ally.

 

[tetrasodium]

I wonder if intercept rules by themselves would be enough to make flanking workable.

Basically intercept from 13th Age means that you can move to intercept and engage someone who tries to get past you. If adding this to grid based 5e I would make this a special action* that can allow you to move up to half your speed in response to someone elses movement.

This would make getting flanking something that's more difficult to get - as if there's another enemy nearer than you, they can move to block your flanking or engage you before you get there. If you did this and just made flanking the traditional +2 it may work better.

*My first thought was that this should be reaction - but that doesn't work because you have already used your reaction to engage, so the threat of engagement would be toothless (this sort of thing is a common issue with 5E's action economy).

That has a big flaw in the asymmetric numbers between pc/monster on a battle. With strong monsters you will have fewer monsters than pc to somewhat nullify them under that. With weak monsters you will probably have more but not really care because they are weaker than the pcs. In both cases melee types are not really able to control the battle much without removing themselves with a grapple or something. Unless I'm really missing something with the thirteenth age thing you reference I cant see it doing anything positive with flanking.

 

[Don Durito]

That has a big flaw in the asymmetric numbers between pc/monster on a battle. With strong monsters you will have fewer monsters than pc to somewhat nullify them under that. With weak monsters you will probably have more but not really care because they are weaker than the pcs. In both cases melee types are not really able to control the battle much without removing themselves with a grapple or something. Unless I'm really missing something with the thirteenth age thing you reference I cant see it doing anything positive with flanking.

If the PCs outnumber the monsters then flanking becomes easy - but then it always was. If using flanking for these kind of monsters you probably need to up their AC a little.

If PCs are outnumbered then the enemy can move to intercept the PC who attempts to get into a flanking position. This potentially not only affects flanking but the ability to focus fire as well.

Fred the Fighter moves to engage Goblin 1. Bob moves to also engage Goblin 1, but Goblin 2 is unengaged so he gets to move to intercept and prevents Bob from getting to Goblin 1 (or at the very least moves into the position opposite Fred, preventing Bob from getting the flank and forming a line. (This is slightly more complex than 13th Age, where you can only intercept someone you are deliberately trying to go past, but then 13th Age doesn't have flanking.)

This would make it much harder to flank if you have smaller numbers but that sounds...about right.

And it's swings and roundabouts for melee characters. They can be blocked more easily, but it means they can also control much larger areas. The enemy skirmisher will have a much harder time moving past the Fighter to get to the Wizard.

 

[toucanbuzz]

should an increase to speed using Dash be based on STR, DEX, or proficiency bonus (in Athletics, perhaps?)?

Historically, with theatre of the mind, advanced Movement rules in 5E aren't a big deal. In 3rd, with a push for the grid map, minis market, and minis battles, it was a big deal.

Maybe meet in the middle of both systems?

D&D 3.5 had rules for variant movement in that the 30' per round was "tactical," reflecting the chaos of combat and not the freedom of an unencumbered, uninterrupted track meet. If you wanted to move x2, it used up your entire round of actions. That's roughly an 8m, 48s mile (a jog for most). You're walking, you're sprinting, you're tumbling, you're leaping. That's a tactical movement rate, and D&D preserves that idea with the Dash action.

3rd went a step further with RUN: x4 movement in straight line if no heavy armor, otherwise x3, and can't do this in rough terrain or if you can't see. Roughly, x3 movement is a 5m, 54s mile (solid pace, considering we're talking people wearing full combat attire, swords, money bags, etc.). At x4, that's a near-Olympic style 4m, 24s pace.

Penalty: no DEX bonus when running, check required if running longer than your CON score. I wish. I also was a track runner and would have loved to maintain an absurd pace for longer than 10 minutes. So, the 3rd edition check probably isn't realistic. If you fail, you can't try again for at least 1 minute. In D&D, the pace is reduced to 3 + CON modifier (Dash), probably more realistic, and if you fail the check, exhaustion. Ouch, you can die running!

Summary: could meet in the middle. Everyone can try to move x3 (heavy armor) or x4 movement as part of their Dash, if they can move in a Straight Line. You can move this way for up to 3+ CON modifier rounds before making a DC10 Athletics check (+1 DC per check), checks made each round. Failure = 1 level exhaustion (any runner exhaustion goes away after a short rest?) Once you cease moving in this way (whether voluntarily or by failing a check), you must wait at least 1 minute before moving this rate again.

It won't differentiate (everyone with a CON 12 will act the same), but there's not a good way to make D&D reflect real life when it comes to movement. This offers an idea, off previous editions, to move faster than D&D rules normally permit.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Didn't read the whole thread. So...yeah...
My idea?

Simply put, define the "Win State" of the chase; in other words "If he gets to the dock...he looses you and 'wins'", or "If you get to the stairs up to the next dungeon level...you win". As long as everyone at the table agrees that that is the "end result" of the Chase, and everyone abides by it...period...then this would work.

Now, how? Easy, really. Come up with a few 'broad chase things' that can take place during a chase. Have them be basic DC (Personally, I like 10)...which can be modified up or down as the DM sees fit. The DM should also have a "Random" section where there's some chance that something happens that allows for an opportunity for either or both Runner and Chaser to either help or hinder themselves. Anyway, when the "runner" and the "chaser" decide to try a 'broad chase thing', they make an appropriate check. If the Runner initiated it, he either gains distance...or looses it. If the Chaser initiated it, same thing....he gains or looses distance. This distance can be constant, or a fraction of their base move, whatever the DM has on his "Broad Chase Things" table. The DM may roll on the "Random" section if both Runner and Chaser do 'nothing' (re: just run).

Example:
PC (30' move; 60' dash) is chasing NPC (30' move; 60' dash) from a tavern. The Win State is if the NPC gets to "The Nest"...a twisty slum of confusing streets and ramshackle buildings.
..
Round 1. GO! The distance started is 20' away from each other. The NPC immediately chooses the old "toss big item in path" from the Broad Chase Thing table. The NPC leaps up from his table, and head for the door...pushing a poor bar maid carrying drinks, behind him. The NPC makes a DC 12 (10, but the DM adds +2 because she doesn't want to fall and is obviously in 'opposition' to doing so) Strength Check. The NPC succeeds with a 16. The bar maid is grabbed and flung backwards towards the PC...she drops her tray of drinks and falls on her plump buttocks! The NPC gains "1/3 bonus". The PC is chasing and doesn't risk anything (like trying to jump over the bar maid, or throw a chair at him...to much of a chance to hurt someone else). The NPC moves 80' (60', + 1/3, or 20'; so 80'). The PC moves 60'. They are both outside on the street. The NPC is 40' away from the PC.
..
Round 2. They head off down the street. It's a typical day, with average 'traffic'. The PC decides to throw his buckler at the NPC's feet to trip him up. The PC makes an Attack Roll against DC 10; not too hard a target, but there are other people that might get in the way. The PC succeeds! The buckler smacks the NPC in behind the knee on one leg, causing him to stumble. The PC gains 1/3...so he moves up 80' feet. They are back to the default 20' away now.
..
Round 3. The NPC tries to duck into an ally, the PC follows. No change. Both move their 60'.
..
Round 4. The DM rolls a check to see if something Random happens along the way (a 1 in 12 chance; as per his Broad Chase Things page of goodies). A roll of 8 indicates nothing special occurs to help or hinder either.
..
Round 5. The NPC decides to take to the rooftops and starts to 'scamper up a building'. He makes a Dexterity Athletics against DC 12 (again, the DM figures the buildings have enough beams, handholds, and whatnot...but they aren't designed to be climbed). The NPC fails with a 3! The PC is now RIGHT behind him. The PC decides to try and use a barrel nearby as a springboard to try and leap up to grab the NPC as he's climbing. The DC is going to be a DC 12 Dexterity Athletics as well...and the PC gets a 14. Success! With a leap worthy of an action hero, the PC springs off the barrel, then uses the side wall to jump even higher and tackles the NPC off the wall! ... ... Chase Ended.

The Key Points. Allowing for the Player and DM to "make things up on the spot" in order to try and 'win' the chase. It avoids specific "min/maxing" or "rules lawyering" or "RAW says so!" absolutes. Absolutes, imnsho, are never a good thing for something as chaotic as a chase scene. So the 'rules' need to be fluid and SUPER interpretive/narrative. The results need to be quick and easy to mechanically adjudicate. It's a CHASE! Pacing/timing is super important! Detailed movement rules would slow this down and not feel anything close to a 'nail-biting chase scene'. Broad 'checks' with simple, 'broad' results...and expected results at that (re: "+/- 1/3rd movement is gained...if successful...or lost...if unsuccessful").

It's the general "style" I use for all my chase scenes for virtually ANY RPG that I play (unless it has cool 'chase' rules or movement rules; example, I generally use the Vehicle Movement Rules with slight modifications when doing a vehicle chase scene when playing Star Frontiers...but not when I'm playing Shadowrun).

^_^

Paul L. Ming