D&D 5E Conundrum: Ranged attack sequence/cover bonus for players

[Kinematics]

Moving on the same round as an ally is actually a notable advantage. In particular, trying to coordinate actions between two PCs usually requires that one of them drops to the same initiative as the slower, just so they can make it work. That's because being able to both act together is frequently more powerful than each acting separately. After all, the enemy can't move, or hide, or heal, or anything else in between the two characters' actions, and that limitation is a painful hindrance.

So while it's understandable that you want to deal with all the NPCs as a batch, instead of rolling and tracking initiative for a dozen nameless goblins, letting them act together is like getting a free coordination bonus, permanently.

If I had a large number of NPCs to work though, instead of rolling one initiative value, I'd probably instead split their individual initiatives up evenly across the spread of 20. So if there were 10 goblins, one goes at 20, one at 18, one at 16, one at 14, etc. A large number of monsters should average an even spread, so if you want to simplify the results, it's better to spread all the monsters out, rather than make one roll for all the monsters. If they are more coordinated creatures (say, militaristic hobgoblins), maybe you can take pairs at a time, since they naturally work together, though still don't have every single one act at once.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm curious....do people really think about a round being 6 seconds? I've been playing forever, and I've never paid attn to how long a round is, other than how many rounds a spell lasts.

The rule that one round is six seconds is vital for our understanding of how the world works. It's the only way we have any idea about how long it takes to do anything in combat, and it provides our only translation between in-combat actions and other actions whose durations aren't listed in rounds. Without that rule, we'd have no idea how fast people can run (60' per six seconds, although rogues are faster), or how long it takes to cast most spells (about six seconds). Can you get everyone healed up before those goblins climb down that rope? Do you have time to disable that trap before the kobolds finish digging through the rubble?

As silly as it may sometimes seem, that so many different things take effectively six seconds to accomplish, not having a concrete definition would be chaos. A world where an attack or spell takes six seconds to complete is a vastly different one from a world where such a thing takes a minute to complete.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Expanding on my previous post that started this 6-second discussion, probably 95% of what can happen in that 6 seconds, I can deal with or handwave somewhat. It is the specific situations, like in the OP, where PCs or enemies are moving in sequence and not at once. All realism is not thrown out the window just because we are playing a fantasy game. Those goblins, orcs, whatever do not suddenly acquire hyper-speed, letting them all move in sequence like that in just 6 seconds. I would maybe even have them doing that outside of initiative and let the PCs take potshots at them or just stay out of sight as the monsters work their way closer, til the PCs decide it is time to deal with them and then go for initiative.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Addressing the OP: I think that you ran the goblin squad different than I would have, but that you didn't run it in an unfair way.

I do my best to have enemies act in a way befitting their nature. A pack of wolves isn't going to fight with the same tactics as a bunch zombies might, who in turn would act differently than a commando squad of hobgoblins.

In your example you said bugbears and goblins.

Let's say I had a group of goblins 2 wide by 5 deep. Goblins aren't mindless, but also aren't known for Roman style group fighting training. I'd rule that they would move down the corridor at a walk then all fire at once. Two would have a good shot, the rest a tougher shot. This is because, to me, the cinematic idea of a group of goblins works out best that way in practice.

Now, if you had substituted hobgoblins, or duregar, or some other more skilled and trained foes, then the method you used....seal team sixing forward and keeping lanes if fire open makes more cinematic sense to fit the concept of the opponent.

That being said.....

To the player who chimed in....It's never OK to argue with the GM. It is OK to mention an incorrect rule use, or to ask questions to clarify how things work, but it's not OK to backseat GM and tell them how you would do things. When you run your campaign, you get to do things your way and OP can run things their way.

TLDR: OP ran things by the rules but not thematically how stereotypical goblins would act in combat.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Guess I wasn't clear. I've never paid attn to if it was 6 seconds, 20 seconds, 1 minute. Whatever. A round is a round.....where everyone gets to do something other than dance around the other combatants. Do people pay attn to the time it lasts, other than for spell duration?

How could a GM adjudicate improv actions without some idea of how long a characters "round" is?

If a player asked if they could kick over a table, move behind it, and prepare a swing if someone comes up to them....sure, that's a reasonable 6 second burst of activity.

If the player instead wanted to build an elaborate wall of tables interlaced with chairs to build a full on barricade AND prepare a swing is someone comes at them then no....not in 6 seconds you can't. But maybe if you forgo your held action you might be able to build a double wide table cover or perhaps a 3 wall nest for yourself...

If rounds were 1 minute the you could probably get a pretty solid fortress built. 3 minutes maybe you busted out a hammer and some nails...

 

[Charlaquin]

How could a GM adjudicate improv actions without some idea of how long a characters "round" is?

A round is as long as it takes for each creature involved in the combat to take a turn. A turn is as long as it takes for a character to take one action, interact with one object or feature of the environment, move their speed, and if they have any abilities that they can use as a bonus action, use one such ability. The system assumes that any possible combination of action, object interaction, movement, and bonus action can be taken within roughly 6 seconds, but the truth is it’s abstract. Actions aren’t actually categorized by how long they take.

If a player asked if they could kick over a table, move behind it, and prepare a swing if someone comes up to them....sure, that's a reasonable 6 second burst of activity.

More importantly than whether or not that’s a reasonable amount of activity to fit into 6 seconds (which depends on a lot of variables, like how quick the person is, how far they are from the table, etc.) is does it fit within the action economy? And I’d say yes. Knocking over a table is interacting with an object, getting behind it is unlikely to take up more than a character’s full movement unless they’re very far from it at the start of their turn, and preparing a swing if someone comes up to them is covered by the Ready action. Of course, if the character didn’t already have their weapon drawn, they’d need to ready an unarmed strike, be a they’ve already used both their object interaction and their action.

If the player instead wanted to build an elaborate wall of tables interlaced with chairs to build a full on barricade AND prepare a swing is someone comes at them then no....not in 6 seconds you can't.

More importantly, that sounds like far more than one action and one object interaction. A thief with fast hands could get two tables together and take the Ready action though.

But maybe if you forgo your held action you might be able to build a double wide table cover or perhaps a 3 wall nest for yourself...

Sure, if you Use an Object instead of Readying, and a second table is within the range of your movement, you can get two tables together. Or the rogue could Use an Object twice to get a third table involved, movement allowing.

If rounds were 1 minute the you could probably get a pretty solid fortress built. 3 minutes maybe you busted out a hammer and some nails...

“Action” would probably have to be defined differently in such a case.

 

[Coroc]

You intended this to be a tactical (positional) combat scenario with obstacles and geometrics/marching order/formation allowing for cover.

In that case you really should use single initiative, your players are complaining rightfully.

If I use group initiative for the mobs then it is rather in scenarios which are more like an open field battle just to save time and get the combat more dynamic. The PCs always get single initiative in my game.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

More importantly than whether or not that’s a reasonable amount of activity to fit into 6 seconds (which depends on a lot of variables, like how quick the person is, how far they are from the table, etc.) is does it fit within the action economy? And I’d say yes. Knocking over a table is interacting with an object, getting behind it is unlikely to take up more than a character’s full movement unless they’re very far from it at the start of their turn, and preparing a swing if someone comes up to them is covered by the Ready action. Of course, if the character didn’t already have their weapon drawn, they’d need to ready an unarmed strike, be a they’ve already used both their object interaction and their action.

I think we mostly agree on how things play out round-to-round, and my example may happen to fit perfectly in the RAW as what a player can accomplish in a round, however it really wasn't meant to illustrate RAW. For example, in my "Run behind a table, kick it over, and ready an attack" scenario I would also allow the character to draw a weapon (something you explicitly call out that RAW wouldn't allow you to do) because in my minds eye I can picture "A guy runs behind a table 10' away, kicks over a table while drawing a sword from its sheath, and takes up a defensive posture" as being something you could do in 6 seconds.

I wouldn't allow a character to also throw out a flask of oil on the floor and hang a quiver on a table leg in the same round not because its against RAW, but because it stretches the 6 second round. If you went back to 1 minute rounds of 2e then I would allow a player to "Run behind a table, kick it over, throw out a flask of oil, hang my quiver on the table leg, draw my bow, and shoot the next person that come in the door." because that can all be accomplished in 1 minutes time.

So, to me, the length of a round is important to keep in mind as I divide up what the players want to do in meaningful "What you can accomplish this round" chunks when they want to do something not codified by the rules and especially when doing something that takes multiple rounds to accomplish.

*********************

To go slightly more in depth into my though process, I really like to encourage players to do things aside from just move-attack-attack-attack-move-attack-attack-move-attack-etc. I want each combat to be interesting in how the players interact with the scene and encourage doing so by making interaction with the environment more beneficial than just charging and swinging. If I break the RAW because I allowed the character to draw a sword AND kick over a table then its worth the price of admission for the characters interacting with the environment.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think we mostly agree on how things play out round-to-round, and my example may happen to fit perfectly in the RAW as what a player can accomplish in a round, however it really wasn't meant to illustrate RAW. For example, in my "Run behind a table, kick it over, and ready an attack" scenario I would also allow the character to draw a weapon (something you explicitly call out that RAW wouldn't allow you to do) because in my minds eye I can picture "A guy runs behind a table 10' away, kicks over a table while drawing a sword from its sheath, and takes up a defensive posture" as being something you could do in 6 seconds.

I wouldn't allow a character to also throw out a flask of oil on the floor and hang a quiver on a table leg in the same round not because its against RAW, but because it stretches the 6 second round. If you went back to 1 minute rounds of 2e then I would allow a player to "Run behind a table, kick it over, throw out a flask of oil, hang my quiver on the table leg, draw my bow, and shoot the next person that come in the door." because that can all be accomplished in 1 minutes time.

So, to me, the length of a round is important to keep in mind as I divide up what the players want to do in meaningful "What you can accomplish this round" chunks when they want to do something not codified by the rules and especially when doing something that takes multiple rounds to accomplish.

The problem I have with that approach is “how much you can accomplish in 6 seconds” isn’t quantifiable. It depends on too many unknown variables, so what you end up with is an arbitrary amount of activity based on what the DM thinks “feels right.” And that becomes a problem when the DM and the player have different ideas about what amount of activity “feels right” within a 6-second time span. This undermines the player’s ability to reliably predict what they can or can’t accomplish on their turn, which is vital to making informed tactical decisions. I would much rather the precise amount of time a turn takes be abstract and have a clear, consistent action economy then go purely by my own arbitrary assessment of how much can be accomplished in a fixed amount of time.

To go slightly more in depth into my though process, I really like to encourage players to do things aside from just move-attack-attack-attack-move-attack-attack-move-attack-etc. I want each combat to be interesting in how the players interact with the scene and encourage doing so by making interaction with the environment more beneficial than just charging and swinging. If I break the RAW because I allowed the character to draw a sword AND kick over a table then its worth the price of admission for the characters interacting with the environment.

I do too, but I find that players are generally more willing to employ unconventional tactics when the action economy is clear and consistent than when they have to estimate roughly how much they can accomplish in a given time frame.

 

[Dausuul]

... anything that calls attention to the turn structure calls attention to the least realistic part of the rules.

I don't know about that. Hit points and XP are pretty strong contenders.

Still, point taken.