D&D 5E Changing OA/disengage rules

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

If that were true, then you could attack the opponent and then disengage/retreat without penalty, because you're obviously keeping your focus on the opponent if you're attacking him. Disengage per RAW, however, is another beast entirely: you can't cast a spell, you can't attack your opponent, you can't attack anyone else, you can't do anything or you'll take an opportunity attack. By RAW, it is harder to retreat without getting hit than it is to stand toe-to-toe with him. For instance, casting Hypnotic Pattern while in melee with someone doesn't get you stabbed, but casting Hypnotic Pattern while backing away from him does. It's hard to tell whether you think that's plausible and realistic or not, because you seem to be on both sides of the argument. Oh well, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[El Mahdi]

If that were true, then you could attack the opponent and then disengage/retreat without penalty, because you're obviously keeping your focus on the opponent if you're attacking him. Disengage per RAW, however, is another beast entirely: you can't cast a spell, you can't attack your opponent, you can't attack anyone else, you can't do anything or you'll take an opportunity attack. By RAW, it is harder to retreat without getting hit than it is to stand toe-to-toe with him. For instance, casting Hypnotic Pattern while in melee with someone doesn't get you stabbed, but casting Hypnotic Pattern while backing away from him does. It's hard to tell whether you think that's plausible and realistic or not, because you seem to be on both sides of the argument. Oh well, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. Wouldn't be the first time.

I understand your disconnect. Let me try to explain it this way:


Action/resource economy is an important factor of combat, whether D&D or real-life; the idea being that one can only do x-amount in a certain amount of time and only has x-amount of mental focus.

Once someone is engaged in melee combat with an opponent, one is committed to defending oneself. Your opponent is actively attacking...continuously. You cannot simply walk away or they will hack you down. There is no calling time. They want to kill you. And unlike the player's view of combat as turn based, the actual combat taking place between the characters has no such artificial structure. From the character's perspective, the fight, though it contains natural ebbs and flows, is continuous with escape a dangerous endeavor; one requiring a controlled retreat.

A controlled retreat...a disengagement...requires shifting one's mental focus to finding that opening to disengage. Whether it's creating a misdirect in order to generate an opening, waiting for a natural break in the action, attacking with the purpose of forcing your opponent to shift focus to defense (in order to create an opening), or simply a quick focused lunge/jump/quick-step away from the opponent while maintaining defense, it requires a focus and economy of action that precludes doing other actions at that time. It uses up a measurable portion of the finite focus and time available during a round.

The reason why one doesn't get to cast a spell while disengaging is the same reason why one can't make an attack while disengaging. You have already decided to end the engagement. Further attacks or spells meant to actually harm, rather than misdirect or shift your attackers focus, are contrary to that mental shift. You're either engaged in the fight and actively attempting to injure your opponent, or you're not. Taking a middle approach is inconsistent with and too complicated for the game's rules, and even in real-life would almost certainly get you killed. Focus is everything in a fight. Split focus means death.

Remember also that a melee attack roll in this situation is not a singular representation of an actual attack, but instead an abstract representation of your cumulative attacks made throughout a round of engagement. The cumulative chance that your attacks inflicted injury on your opponent during that period of time.

Multiple attacks and parries and feints and movements and etc., are occurring throughout the entire round.

The Disengage action models the focused attempt to disengage from an opponent and that activity. In game terms, the expenditure of an action resource is traded for the ability to disengage without triggering a concerted attack. One can ignore that if you want and attack while moving away (or cast a spell) anyways, with the intention of doing harm, but the opponent is still in a position to attempt a counterattack as one did not focus on disengaging (thus an Attack of Opportunity).


Cheers.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I understand your disconnect. Let me try to explain it this way:


Action/resource economy is an important factor of combat, whether D&D or real-life; the idea being that one can only do x-amount in a certain amount of time and only has x-amount of mental focus...

The reason why one doesn't get to cast a spell while disengaging is the same reason why one can't make an attack while disengaging. You have already decided to end the engagement. Further attacks or spells meant to actually harm, rather than misdirect or shift your attackers focus, are contrary to that mental shift. You're either engaged in the fight and actively attempting to injure your opponent, or you're not. Taking a middle approach is inconsistent with and too complicated for the game's rules, and even in real-life would almost certainly get you killed. Focus is everything in a fight. Split focus means death.

That's wrong. Mechanically and in practice, disengage doesn't end the engagement unless you're faster or a third party intervenes. You want to retreat backwards down the corridor while fighting off attackers? That's a Disengage in 5E. (Hope you weren't planning on making any attacks yourself.) There's no mental shift in this scenario, but mechanically you're penalized by either losing your attack to Disengage or taking an extra OA which you wouldn't have taken while standing still.

GURPS actually gives a defensive bonus if you retreat from an attack (but it costs your movement). 5E penalizes you for retreating. 5E's way works okay for the game, but it's less realistic.

 

[El Mahdi]

That's wrong. Mechanically and in practice, disengage doesn't end the engagement unless you're faster or a third party intervenes. You want to retreat backwards down the corridor while fighting off attackers? That's a Disengage in 5E. (Hope you weren't planning on making any attacks yourself.) There's no mental shift in this scenario, but mechanically you're penalized by either losing your attack to Disengage or taking an extra OA which you wouldn't have taken while standing still.

GURPS actually gives a defensive bonus if you retreat from an attack (but it costs your movement). 5E penalizes you for retreating. 5E's way works okay for the game, but it's less realistic.

It's not wrong, we just disagree. If you don't like the mechanic in D&D, then change it. Problem solved.


Cheers.

 

[GMMichael]

one can only do x-amount in a certain amount of time and only has x-amount of mental focus.

This is an interesting point. People have only so much attention to give. The limitation seems to point away from using OpAttacks.

Picture this: you're in a melee. Attacks can come from multiple directions, and you're hoping to defend yourself from all those attacks. However, you've somehow had the luxury of focusing on one opponent. When that opponent backs away, are you going to ignore all the other threats around you - long enough to try stabbing the opponent in the back? Or will you breathe a sigh of relief that one less person is trying to cut your head off?

Suppose you're in a duel instead. There are no other threats. Your opponent chooses to disengage (the activity, not the Action). If you're the only opponent he's worried about, do you suddenly present a greater threat because he's moving away? Or less of a threat?

Nevermind the problem that you get only one attack to make each round, but can attempt to block 4 or more attacks per round (AC). Seems to imply that your character is defense-focused anyway...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's not wrong, we just disagree. If you don't like the mechanic in D&D, then change it. Problem solved.

It's wrong in the sense that reality (RAW) doesn't match the prediction of your model. To make it work the way you claim you'd have to houserule in additional opportunity attacks e.g. when someone in melee fires a bow at someone other than his current opponent. RAW doesn't work that way. There's no reason you couldn't change it to match your ideas though. It's your table.

 

[El Mahdi]

It's wrong in the sense that reality (RAW) doesn't match the prediction of your model.

Nope, still not wrong. My model doesn't fit your perception of the mechanics. It fits mine perfectly...or at least as perfectly as any mechanics can model anything and still be usable for play.

There is almost nothing black & white about RPG's, and especially this version of D&D, unless one wants them to be black & white for themselves. The mechanics...the RAW...has been left as light and vague as it is on purpose; intentionally written in a manner to be open to interpretation. This makes it your game and my game; a million flavors of D&D in one ruleset.

*There is no right and wrong in this edition.

I gave a view as to how it's not as meta as some people have said, or at least not any more meta than any other mechanic. I think I effectively made that case. Now I have a final essay to go finish. I'm finding that college is both easier and harder at 47. I have more to experience to call upon, but it takes me far longer than others to accomplish the same work. But today and tomorrow, and then I get a break. I'm only taking one online class over the summer instead of a full course load. My brain needs a rest...


Cheers.



*(The argument could be and has been made that there was no right and wrong in any edition of D&D, but this is the first time it's been explicitly stated to this degree and designed with this in mind.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My model doesn't fit your perception of the mechanics. It fits mine perfectly...or at least as perfectly as any mechanics can model anything and still be usable for play.

Okay, here's my perception of the mechanics:

Marvolo the Sorcerer is in melee with an Iron Golem. Forty feet away, Ruvella is dueling with three Blue Slaads and barely holding her own.

Option 1: Marvolo backs away from the Iron Golem while casting Hypnotic Pattern on Ruvella and the Slaads (and using Careful metamagic to avoid hitting Ruvella).
Option 2: Marvolo remains in position while casting Hypnotic Pattern on Ruvella and the Slaads.
Consequence: in Option 1, Marvolo takes an opportunity attack from the Iron Golem.

Do you agree with that interpretation of the RAW mechanics? I.e. does Marvolo take an opportunity attack in #1 but not #2?

If you do, do you believe that the mechanical consequence is consistent with your model? Is backing away more dangerous than standing still? If you don't like that consequence, you need a house rule to make the rules in play match your model.

 

[Agamon]

If you do, do you believe that the mechanical consequence is consistent with your model? Is backing away more dangerous than standing still? If you don't like that consequence, you need a house rule to make the rules in play match your model.

Moving away and casting a spell is more dangerous than just casting a spell. I think that's the idea, and it makes sense to me.

 

[El Mahdi]

Ah. Now I get what you've been saying, and I get where the disconnect between us is. This:

Is backing away more dangerous than standing still?

Simply put: Yes, backing away is more dangerous than what you call "standing still"; because what you call "standing still" is not standing still.

When engaged in melee, whether one is rolling the dice for an attack or not, one is assumed to be constantly engaged in combat (not explicitly stated in this edition, but an assumed conceit throughout D&D's history). One is constantly attacking, parrying, feinting, dodging, ducking, repositioning (within your 5-foot square if using a battlemat/grid rather than theater-of-the-mind), etc., etc. One is most certainly not "standing still."

In effect, one is under an Engaged Condition, though there is no real altering of your character's capabilities other than they must Disengage to end the condition.

In my own houserules, I actually list Engaged as a condition, to avoid confusion with my players.

Also, a melee attack roll is not representative of a singular attack*, but a roll to determine the likelihood that a rounds worth of your attacks may have succeeded in inflicting injury on your opponent. Multiple attacks means multiple dice rolls. Multiple dice rolls mean a higher percentage chance of success during a round.

It's the disconnect between the fluid and complex aspects of a real combat, and the artificial breakdown into a turn-based mechanic.

With the assumption that one is constantly and actively engaged in combat with an opponent, and the assumption that your opponent is also, the conclusion is that one cannot simply stop fighting and step away because your opponent hasn't also stopped. They are still actively trying to kill you, therefore you must continue to defend against that or suffer injury.

Defending against those attacks while also disengaging from an opponent requires actively maintaining focus on that opponent, using misdirects or similar actions, and moving away in a controlled manner. Thus a Disengage Action.

If it was fencing, disengage would be a combination of Displacement or Feint (or In Quartata, Passata-sotto, etc.) with the purpose of covering a Retreat, or using a natural break like a Recovery to initiate a Retreat. (It wouldn't be called Disengage in fencing since Disengage is actually a type of attack).

What you can't do is simply drop your guard and walk away, which is what you're doing if you don't take a Disengage action.


If it makes more sense for you, perhaps rename Disengage as Retreat, which is basically what it is. I'm thinking the writers of the game didn't call it Retreat though, in order to keep it from being confused with things like the Expeditious Retreat spell, or the idea of a group Retreating from an Enemy(though in many ways it's the same thing, just on a larger scale).

Maybe call it Individual Retreat, though I'm not sure if that's any better or not. (I know I don't like it...too clunky.)


Anyways...Does this make more sense? If not, that's cool. It just means we likely have different narratives in our heads as to what's going on in D&D combat, though in the end, the mechanical effects are the same.


Cheers.




*Ranged attacks are singular attacks, melee attacks have traditionally not been so. However, I did notice that the PHB says "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." This is a bit of a departure from the concept, though I believe it was meant less to reimagine the concept as it is meant to inform the player to take one attack roll, and not confuse them with the idea that an attack roll actually represents all of a character's attacks in a round. But if one wants, you can still think of it as one attack, even though you're actually making multiple attacks during a round, and just consider it as the one attack that matters. The one attack that is actually a fully focused, intensive attempt to injure your opponent, rather than just an attack to set up a real attack. Multiple melee attacks can then simply mean that more than one of those multiple attacks you make in a round are real, fully focused attacks.