D&D 5E Changing OA/disengage rules

[jbear]

While you are at it why not add a 5ft step ... you could call it ... shift? And you could say that each creture has 1 OAtk per turn ... You are probably aware that these are 4e OAtk rules. They work just fine but keep in mind that that system has a whole lot of powers and tricks built into many classes that allow you to get around those restrictions.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Interesting. I wouldn't kind playing under these rules once or twice. It will tend to make teleportation abilities like Misty Step more important. This is basically the AD&D rule for disengaging, anyway.

Most important ramification: it eliminates the goblin conga line as a tactic. So it benefits the players.

Yeah that's what I had in mind - an AD&D like approach to melee and free hits if someone moves past you...?

 

[Psikerlord#]

While you are at it why not add a 5ft step ... you could call it ... shift? And you could say that each creture has 1 OAtk per turn ... You are probably aware that these are 4e OAtk rules. They work just fine but keep in mind that that system has a whole lot of powers and tricks built into many classes that allow you to get around those restrictions.

Yeah I'm not really keen on any free ability to get out of melee (except for limited ones, like magic teleport).

Otherwise I want there to be a risk to moving away - ie the free attack - but if a person REALLY wants to get away with low chance of being wounded, they can just use Dodge (which is very similar to disengage really - costs your action, but instead of no OAs on you, instead everyone has disad on attacks on you [plus you get adv on dex saves for a round]). They are different, but I much prefer the risk involved with Dodge, than the auto-success of Disengage. This creates a meaningful choice for the player. They have to weigh up the risk against the gain of repositioning.

 

[Psikerlord#]

No disengage: not a bad idea. 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).

No OA limits: I'd call that a step away from tactics. Instead, I'd look at adding limits to defenses (AC) before removing limits.

You also might consider that melee isn't as hazardous as you might think. All smart combatants have headgear on, which adds limits to their sight and hearing in addition to the physiological sight problems and din of war. Basically, many melee combatants can't see or hear anything anyway.

The thing I dont like about OA limits is how a fighter or other character can only hold the attention of one enemy. In DMG the optional marking rule frees that up a bit. But I'm inclined to just drop the limit altogether. If there is some big warrior blocking a hallway and the 5 enemy orcs want to bust through - they need to push that warrior away, or drop him, or something... not simply waltz past him after his single OA is done... Or at least my thinking behind it.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think letting people take more than 1 reaction is a bad idea.

I wouldn't alter disengage myself but what if you changed it to.

Disengage: As your action you focus your attention on one enemy and and do not provoke attacks of opportunity from that creature, in addition you gain the benefits of the dodge action if that creature attacks you before the start of your next turn.

This keeps people from using Disengage to move through groups of enemies, Dodge would be best for that, but does allow for someone to escape one on one combats.

Yep I dont mind this actually as another alternative.

 

[Sunseeker]

The thing I dont like about OA limits is how a fighter or other character can only hold the attention of one enemy. In DMG the optional marking rule frees that up a bit. But I'm inclined to just drop the limit altogether. If there is some big warrior blocking a hallway and the 5 enemy orcs want to bust through - they need to push that warrior away, or drop him, or something... not simply waltz past him after his single OA is done... Or at least my thinking behind it.

I would suggest tagging additional OAs on to either the Defense fighting style (available to several martial classes), or into the Sentinel feat.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I agree with shidaku. Eliminating Disengage significantly impacts Rogue since that action is a big source of mobility for that class. It makes melee Rogues even less viable. It impacts Monk, too, but somewhat less so since they can Dodge, too.

Honestly, no matter what you do you're not going to replicate 4e's Combat Challenge that well, and I truly believe that was the core mechanic of 4e combat. The game is simplified to the point that it's easy to play with theater of the mind, which is just going to significantly alter the tactical aspect of the game. The problem is that the game isn't built around being able to deal damage and manipulate NPCs like that anymore. Abilities that teleport and push aren't very common, so it's actually much more difficult to get out of melee combat, and characters don't have the survivability they do in 4e, either.

 

[Li Shenron]

Uhm... I am still trying to understand how OA/Disengage/Dodge work in 5e so forgive my mistakes...

What do you think of the following houserules for OAs/disengage:

• There is no disengage action.
• There is no limit on OA reactions in one round.

The idea is to make positioning more important, and to make it more risky to escape melee once you're in it. Combatants could use Dodge to increase their chances of avoiding damage when fleeing/repositioning elsewhere.

I am not really sure how Disengage is useful in the game at all, except for Rogues.

IIUC, Opportunity Attacks are meant to make the following tactical options risky (in order from most to least important IMO):

a) running away from combat
b) moving past the enemies front line to do something more convenient (e.g. attack the enemy wizard or take the McGuffin)
c) stop fighting to do something else on the battlefield
d) change your current target to another

I am not sure how option d) is common in reality, it is practically always more convenient to stick to your target (unless you are being ineffective against it). Either way, I want to point out that IMHO there is no reason why c) and d) should be penalized with an OA, in fact I think that suffering the OA is rather the consequence of the OA rules, but these scenarios were not what the designers had in mind when designing OAs.

Anyway the scenario a) is probably the original reason for "suffering a free attack against" in older editions of D&D. But what does Disengage really accomplish in the game, if you want to run away from a fight?

Without disengage:
- you take a double move ("Dash + Move") and suffer an OA
- enemy takes a double move and you're back to melee range

With disengage:
- you take a single move but no OA
- enemy takes a single move and attacks you

The problem is that unless your speed is higher than the enemy's, you'll never run away in either case, and you'll die since the enemy keeps making attacks while you don't (actually, you'll die even faster by disengaging if the enemy has multiple attacks). If instead you are faster, with disengage the enemy needs to take 2 moves and can't attack but can still "stick to you" if they want, so it's probably better for you to just eat one OA and put enough range so that this will be the only attack you'll ever get against you, and then flee.

This is just a very basic case, ground features and other stuff can make things more interesting of course. But overall it makes me think that disengage doesn't add much to the game, and it would be simpler to have an even more "meta" rule saying that if you want to quit a combat, you all get an attack against and be done with it.

Yeah I'm not really keen on any free ability to get out of melee (except for limited ones, like magic teleport).

Otherwise I want there to be a risk to moving away - ie the free attack - but if a person REALLY wants to get away with low chance of being wounded, they can just use Dodge (which is very similar to disengage really - costs your action, but instead of no OAs on you, instead everyone has disad on attacks on you [plus you get adv on dex saves for a round]). They are different, but I much prefer the risk involved with Dodge, than the auto-success of Disengage. This creates a meaningful choice for the player. They have to weigh up the risk against the gain of repositioning.

I think since Dodge also takes an action, again you are never going to flee combat unless the enemy lets you so or you find something more creative than just dodging or disengaging.

I don't fully understand why you would prefer the risk of Dodge rather than Disengage. They both cost you an action, Dodge gives all the enemies a penalty while Disengage gives them no OA (which is a bigger penalty). I thought in fact Dodge wasn't meant for running away or past the enemies but instead it was meant for:

a) standing in the front line defensively, giving up offensive in exchange for better protection (e.g. if the foe is stronger than you are, and you are waiting for a spell or another event that will flip the tide in your favor)
b) when you are cornered or outnumbered, and again waiting for help
c) when you are clueless about what to do this round

I agree with shidaku. Eliminating Disengage significantly impacts Rogue since that action is a big source of mobility for that class. It makes melee Rogues even less viable. It impacts Monk, too, but somewhat less so since they can Dodge, too.

Indeed the Rogue's Cunning Action is the only* thing that makes IMO Disengage an interesting addition to the game, since it allows a Rogue to disengage without using up the regular combat action.

But if remove Disengage from the game, you can then achieve the same by saying that 2nd levels Rogues are immune to OA, as long as they don't use Cunning Action (for Dash of Hide).

* I forgot there is also Fighter's Action Surge, and I guess there might be some spells also granting extra actions

 

[redrick]

Uhm... I am still trying to understand how OA/Disengage/Dodge work in 5e so forgive my mistakes...



I am not really sure how Disengage is useful in the game at all, except for Rogues.

IIUC, Opportunity Attacks are meant to make the following tactical options risky (in order from most to least important IMO):

a) running away from combat
b) moving past the enemies front line to do something more convenient (e.g. attack the enemy wizard or take the McGuffin)
c) stop fighting to do something else on the battlefield
d) change your current target to another

I am not sure how option d) is common in reality, it is practically always more convenient to stick to your target (unless you are being ineffective against it). Either way, I want to point out that IMHO there is no reason why c) and d) should be penalized with an OA, in fact I think that suffering the OA is rather the consequence of the OA rules, but these scenarios were not what the designers had in mind when designing OAs.

Anyway the scenario a) is probably the original reason for "suffering a free attack against" in older editions of D&D. But what does Disengage really accomplish in the game, if you want to run away from a fight?

Without disengage:
- you take a double move ("Dash + Move") and suffer an OA
- enemy takes a double move and you're back to melee range

With disengage:
- you take a single move but no OA
- enemy takes a single move and attacks you

The problem is that unless your speed is higher than the enemy's, you'll never run away in either case, and you'll die since the enemy keeps making attacks while you don't (actually, you'll die even faster by disengaging if the enemy has multiple attacks). If instead you are faster, with disengage the enemy needs to take 2 moves and can't attack but can still "stick to you" if they want, so it's probably better for you to just eat one OA and put enough range so that this will be the only attack you'll ever get against you, and then flee.

This is just a very basic case, ground features and other stuff can make things more interesting of course. But overall it makes me think that disengage doesn't add much to the game, and it would be simpler to have an even more "meta" rule saying that if you want to quit a combat, you all get an attack against and be done with it.



I think since Dodge also takes an action, again you are never going to flee combat unless the enemy lets you so or you find something more creative than just dodging or disengaging.

I don't fully understand why you would prefer the risk of Dodge rather than Disengage. They both cost you an action, Dodge gives all the enemies a penalty while Disengage gives them no OA (which is a bigger penalty). I thought in fact Dodge wasn't meant for running away or past the enemies but instead it was meant for:

a) standing in the front line defensively, giving up offensive in exchange for better protection (e.g. if the foe is stronger than you are, and you are waiting for a spell or another event that will flip the tide in your favor)
b) when you are cornered or outnumbered, and again waiting for help
c) when you are clueless about what to do this round



Indeed the Rogue's Cunning Action is the only* thing that makes IMO Disengage an interesting addition to the game, since it allows a Rogue to disengage without using up the regular combat action.

But if remove Disengage from the game, you can then achieve the same by saying that 2nd levels Rogues are immune to OA, as long as they don't use Cunning Action (for Dash of Hide).

* I forgot there is also Fighter's Action Surge, and I guess there might be some spells also granting extra actions

In a white room/open plains combat, disengage isn't going to help as a way to flee a combat, but it is very useful once you add even simple variables.

For instance: a cleric gets into melee combat, along with the fighter. The monsters start focusing on the cleric, because he keeps doing interesting magic things, and the cleric gets dangerously close to going down. On his turn, the cleric can now use the disengage action to withdraw from the front lines, without suffering any risk of an attack. The fighter remains in place, hopefully discouraging monsters from rushing past the front line and engaging with the cleric. (Obviously, the more characters able to hold a line, the safer it will be to retreat behind that line, so a second fighter would make this option even more attractive.) Once the cleric withdraws, another PC might even be able to step in and close off a choke point, allowing the party to spread the damage around.

There could be any number of other valuable positions to withdraw to. Maybe a character can get to a door? (A door can be opened or closed as part of a character's normal movement.) Can the character swim or climb better than the opponent? Can the character withdraw to a protected position which can't be surrounded by melee combatants? Better to run and face 1 or 2 opponents than stand in the middle of a room with 5 or 6 attacks against you every round.

It's also worth noting that many other classes can do useful things with a bonus action. For instance, our cleric can disengage, retreat, and cast Sacred Weapon as a bonus action. You can't cast a bonus action spell and another leveled spell in the same turn, so this is a good use of action economy. A sorcerer could use sorcery points to "quicken" a spell, and cast that as a bonus action. Disengage from a group of enemies, and then use quicken an area of effect spell to target the place you were just standing. (Burning hands. Or web.)

Disengage isn't so useful for total retreat (where you'll need a better contingency), but it's very useful for limited tactical withdraw during a combat. It is very common for an individual character to get in over their heads with a group of opponents, either because of a tactical miscalculation, or because of monsters attacking from an unexpected direction. The threatened character disengages, and the front line types step in. (I have seen so many situations in my game where a player should have taken disengage to withdraw, but opted to attack instead, and got knocked unconscious, raising the danger a lot for the rest of the party.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Disengage isn't so useful for total retreat (where you'll need a better contingency), but it's very useful for limited tactical withdraw during a combat.

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.