D&D 5E Changing OA/disengage rules

[FormerlyHemlock]

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....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.

It makes sense in that I understand how you view retreats. To put on your terms though: my original statement was (in your terms) that my experience with fencing is that transitioning from Engaged to Disengaged is less risky than remaining Engaged. It's fine to play by RAW in this case but one does have to admit that RAW is unrealistic. A more realistic rule would either remove the penalty for ending Engaged or impose a penalty (opportunity attack) for interacting with anyone but the person who has you Engaged. I've given several examples already so I won't repeat them.

 

[El Mahdi]

It makes sense in that I understand how you view retreats. To put on your terms though: my original statement was (in your terms) that my experience with fencing is that transitioning from Engaged to Disengaged is less risky than remaining Engaged. It's fine to play by RAW in this case but one does have to admit that RAW is unrealistic. A more realistic rule would either remove the penalty for ending Engaged or impose a penalty (opportunity attack) for interacting with anyone but the person who has you Engaged. I've given several examples already so I won't repeat them.

Yeah, I can see that. I just can't imagine a different mechanic that would allow one to disengage and also be realistic without being clunky. I didn't say there's no meta to the mechanics, just no more than any other mechanic. I guess we'll just have to wait for holodecks before we can completely get away from meta-mechanics. I'm thinking we'll have them in about 5 to 50 years.

There is a need though for a disengage mechanic, I just don't know how to make one that addresses your concerns. If you can come up with one, it could make you rich...or at least relatively rich from an RPG standpoint.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There is a need though for a disengage mechanic, I just don't know how to make one that addresses your concerns. If you can come up with one, it could make you rich...or at least relatively rich from an RPG standpoint.

Mechanically, I have no need for a mechanic that penalizes retreating. GURPS gives you a defensive BONUS for retreating, and it doesn't break anything, just makes combat more tactical. The key mechanical need is to allow space control, so if I were motivated to houserule I'd look first for ways to allow you to form a defensive line. E.g. opportunity attacks are triggered by overrunning, not retreating.

But I don't feel a strong need to improve 5E combat verisimilitude. If I want rich combat options I'll play GURPS; if I want rich magic systems I'll play D&D. I didn't enter this thread in order to complain about the status quo, merely to observe. I says then that RAW on disengaging works all right for game purposes, and it's still true.

I.e. I don't have concerns that need addressing.