D&D 5E Changing OA/disengage rules

[El Mahdi]

Disengage is pretty meta anyway, since it focuses entirely on opportunity attacks, which are pretty meta. (Fighting is simulated by attack actions and unlimited defenses, but opattacks are more attacks that fall outside this framework).

I disagree...that is unless you consider all mechanics to be Meta.

Once one is engaged in combat, one cannot simply choose to arbitrarily end it. The other participant in the engagement still has a say in it. If one just simply attempts to walk away, you're shish kebab.

Instead, you have to DO something to gain some separation, to gain a momentary break in the engagement. If not, your attacker is going to press that sudden opening; an Attack of Opportunity.

So, Disengage is an action; an action that takes a mental choice, a physical action, and an expenditure of time and focus.

That physical action could be a misdirect in order to disengage (rather than a misdirect to create an opening for an attack), or passing up an opportunity at a riposte from a parry in order to use an opponents attack to instead gain separation, etc.

Much like an attack roll, it's an abstract representation of a multitude of possible actions that all functionally result in the same thing.

So, no more Meta than any other game mechanic.


As to Attacks of Opportunity, IMO those are no more meta than any other mechanic either. However, I do feel that they were overused in past iterations of the game. For instance, a character engaged in combat with another is far too busy to suddenly take an Attack of Opportunity on a third party. That is unless they don't mind taking their focus off of the enemy in front of them, if they don't mind giving their currently engaged opponent an opening for them to take an Attack of Opportunity also. In most situations, the answer would likely be it's not worth opening oneself up to an Attack of Opportunity themselves, unless they had a good reason for it; like keeping somebody from bypassing them to get to a weaker target, or keeping them from the McGuffin in the room, trying to keep them from escaping, etc.

 

[redrick]

Yeah sure, but these examples are part of group c) in my example above, and as such IMHO the game didn't necessarily have to penalize them with an OA in the first place.

Not sure that I follow. The point of OA's isn't solely to discourage fleeing combat. It is also to create costs for moving through various zones of combat. If anything, the latter is far more important than the former. I want my players (and my monsters) to see retreat as an option, but I also don't want combatants strolling around combat effortlessly. So people taking option c) from your list should absolutely be hit with an OA if it means moving past or away from a threatening melee combatant. (There is no penalty in 5e for taking a non-attack action while within an enemies melee range. There is a penalty for making a ranged attack within 5 feet of an opponent, but it does not draw an attack of opportunity.)

So, looking at your list above, I'd re-order it to:

Free attacks create a cost for:

1) Moving past front lines to vulnerable targets in the back-field
2) Withdrawing from the front lines to the backfield
3) Ignoring currently engaged opponents to move to another part of the battlefield (say to rush to a fallen comrade and administer a healing potion or stabilize that character)
4) Total retreat

Free attacks allow melee combatants to control a battlefield by doing more than just standing in a doorway. Basically, don't turn your back on the dude with the sword.

Disengage allows combatants to counter some of this control, but at the cost of taking other actions. I want my cleric to be able to withdraw from the front lines, but he should give something up for that. This is what disengage is designed to do, and it works.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Disengage allows combatants to counter some of this control, but at the cost of taking other actions. I want my cleric to be able to withdraw from the front lines, but he should give something up for that. This is what disengage is designed to do, and it works.

Trouble with disengage (in my view, and the reason for my opening post) is it works too well. It completely counters melee control. I prefer a more 2e like battlefield movement - where significant repositioning comes with risk.

 

[El Mahdi]

Trouble with disengage (in my view, and the reason for my opening post) is it works too well. It completely counters melee control. I prefer a more 2e like battlefield movement - where significant repositioning comes with risk.

And this, for me, is the trouble with getting rid of it. Most people will avoid risk for their characters. Adding risk to movement, means less movement for most. If the 3E games I played in are any indication (and not just completely anecdotal) then it means a LOT less movement. IMO, it makes for very static combats rather than dynamic, moving, varied combats. So much "melee control" that battlefield movement is virtually eliminated.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I prefer a more 2e like battlefield movement - where significant repositioning comes with risk.

Huh? 2e, as I recall, had semi-optional rules for facing and rules for flanking. Or were you one of the three people who actually used Player's Option: Combat & Tactics?

 

[Larac]

Trouble with disengage (in my view, and the reason for my opening post) is it works too well. It completely counters melee control. I prefer a more 2e like battlefield movement - where significant repositioning comes with risk.

Well it uses a Action, so it is not Free.
If you want to make it a harder choice, make it use all Actions to do, The Normal Action, The Bonus Action, and their Reaction.
As they are using it all to get away.

I do not think it is an issue, but that is me.

If you have a Thief doing it all the time and that is bothering you, then that is another issue as it is at the core of that class.
Taking it away will weaken them more so than most.

You can always give a few humanoids an ability to do the same.

But Disengage is part of combat, as breathers are needed.
Removing it would need something added which may add too much.

 

[Larac]

Tangle foot bags could be a good way to counter it as well.

 

[Li Shenron]

The point of OA's isn't solely to discourage fleeing combat. It is also to create costs for moving through various zones of combat. If anything, the latter is far more important than the former. I want my players (and my monsters) to see retreat as an option, but I also don't want combatants strolling around combat effortlessly.

Yes but this is just your preference. I don't think there necessarily need to be a cost for "moving through various zones of combat" in general, just in one or two specific cases (fleeing, and getting past a defensive line).

I haven't played 5e enough yet, but I've played 3e a lot, where there was a similar set of rules for AoOs, and YMMV but what I've typically seen is players avoiding doing what caused an AoOs almost always, unless they actually had some special abilities which negated AoOs in the first place. And it sounds to me like this could be the same in 5e, OAs & Disengage working against a highly-mobile combat, but then many combat-oriented characters having a special ability that bypasses the problem.

I guess in a 3e/4e-style of highly tactical combat game it can be useful, but for us I think it's going to end up being reduntant complexity.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Once one is engaged in combat, one cannot simply choose to arbitrarily end it. The other participant in the engagement still has a say in it. If one just simply attempts to walk away, you're shish kebab.

Eh. That's not my experience with fencing (epee). Retreating is the easiest tactical maneuver in the world. In no way is it more risky than standing your ground.

Retreating too far does make it harder to riposte but if the intent is to disengage entirely, you obviously don't care about ripostes.

 

[El Mahdi]

Retreating is the easiest tactical maneuver in the world. In no way is it more risky than standing your ground.

If you mean relatively safer (relatively less risky), then you are absolutely correct, excepting one tiny thing...

I never said retreating is more risky than standing your ground.

What I did say is that simply turning around and walking away from an opponent is very risky, as opposed to retreating in a manner that keeps your focus on your opponent until you've reached a point of safety (whether using a misdirect or not) - and that is what the disengage action simulates.

Retreating is not "simply walking away." It's a controlled disengagement, thus the Disengage Action.