D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[FrogReaver]

In such a system you don't say "I move 30 feet and attack the archer". You say "I'm going to attack the archer" and the DM describes you chasing that archer down and whether or not you get close enough to succeed.

The whole "Everyone goes at once" style essentially gets rid of gridded maps and movement rates except as a rough approximation or framework for the DM to base the description on.

Then you'll have to elaborate more on that system than to just claim it's 5e but turns happen simultaneously.

 

[Voadam]

I don't think such a system would work well for 5e mechanics. That kind of system using 5e mechanics (except cyclic turns) would poorly handle basic ranged kiting tactics. Melee Warrior, I'm 30ft from the archer, I'll move and attack him. Archer I'm 30ft from the melee warrior, i'll move 30ft back and attack him. Melee Warrior really needed to dash just in case the archer moved back - costing him a turn of attacks even if he didn't move back.

I would think the DM would handle it by saying the fighter said he moves up to attack the archer and the archer moved back then attacked the fighter.

The fighter and the archer each move 30 feet then the fighter closes and the archer attacks. The fighter needs to use the dash action to double move and does not get to attack as his whole round is taken up by I'll move and attack. The archer does attack, but the DM has to make a judgment call on how simultaneous the action is and whether the archer gets his attack off before the fighter closes as that will affect disadvantage or not on the archery ranged attack.

If the fighter had said instead that he moved 30 feet to where the archer started, knowing it is simultaneous resolution, then he might have to throw his spear to attack or the DM has to make a judgment call on what happens (lost potential action) when the declared action is impossible (no enemy in melee range and no ranged attack).

 

[Garthanos]

Lost worlds was a flip book game designed to give the same sense that your choices drove combat it was inspired by D&D had like 32 maneuvers. And included descriptions of limits of the maneuvers based on what you just performed ie it had a running state that could be used to hint at choices the adversary might make.

 

[Charlaquin]

You seem to be really pushing the idea that we can take combat and imagine some fiction that corresponds or coorelates to what happened during the 6 second combat rounds. I've no doubt we can. But that's really not what I mean when I say combat is fictionless.

(ಠ_ಠ)

 

[Voadam]

In such a system you don't say "I move 30 feet and attack the archer". You say "I'm going to attack the archer" and the DM describes you chasing that archer down and whether or not you get close enough to succeed.

The whole "Everyone goes at once" style essentially gets rid of gridded maps and movement rates except as a rough approximation or framework for the DM to base the description on.

You can completely do everyone goes at once on a grid with movement rates with the full tactical gridded aspects of 5e, you just have to make some decisions about how declarations and actions are resolved when they are interacting with each other.

B/X and AD&D use declarations and side initiative each round with a long tradition of miniature use and defined movement.

 

[Garthanos]

You can completely do everyone goes at once on a grid with movement rates with the full tactical gridded aspects of 5e, you just have to make some decisions about how declarations and actions are resolved when they are interacting with each other.

B/X and AD&D use declarations and side initiative each round with a long tradition of miniature use and defined movement.

AD&D always felt to me like so much was on the DMs head that tactics meant whatever he thought sounded good.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would think the DM would handle it by saying the fighter said he moves up to attack the archer and the archer moved back then attacked the fighter.

Which normally would Trigger an OA, so the Fighter gets a reaction attack against the archer as well?

The fighter and the archer each move 30 feet then the fighter closes and the archer attacks. The fighter needs to use the dash action to double move and does not get to attack as his whole round is taken up by I'll move and attack. The archer does attack, but the DM has to make a judgment call on how simultaneous the action is and whether the archer gets his attack off before the fighter closes as that will affect disadvantage or not on the archery ranged attack.

The fighter didn't declare any kind of dash action. Which is fine, but if that's part of this system that he can dash when not taking the dash then it needs stated somewhere. It's not implied.

If the fighter had said instead that he moved 30 feet to where the archer started, knowing it is simultaneous resolution, then he might have to throw his spear to attack or the DM has to make a judgment call on what happens (lost potential action) when the declared action is impossible (no enemy in melee range and no ranged attack).

Which is why I accuse such a system of having it's own kind of system not corresponding to desired fiction issues as traditional initiative.

 

[Voadam]

Which normally would Trigger an OA, so the Fighter gets a reaction attack against the archer as well?

Only if the archer leaves the fighter's reach does he provoke., If they are moving simultaneously they remain 30 feet apart and the archer is not within the fighter's reach until the archer stops moving and the fighter gets adjacent to him.

 

[FrogReaver]

Only if the archer leaves the fighter's reach does he provoke., If they are moving simultaneously they remain 30 feet apart and the archer is not within the fighter's reach until the archer stops moving and the fighter gets adjacent to him.

Then the archer attacks at disadvantage?

 

[Voadam]

The fighter didn't declare any kind of dash action. Which is fine, but if that's part of this system that he can dash when not taking the dash then it needs stated somewhere. It's not implied.

That would depend on how defined the declaration of action would have to be. I move and attack him is more narrative than I move 30 feet then use the attack action with my axe.

You could completely require full specifics but then movement can wreck a lot of creature and monster actions as a consequence. In such situations in past editions targeting ranged attacks is usually at a target, not a target in a specific square and this would probably favor ranged attacks and magic.

Being more narrative on declarations requires knowledge of the rules options to apply the narrative description into the grid space by the rules as the multifactored simultaneous action happens. DMs often do this now when a PC says I run up and attack him but the enemy turns out to be out of reach of a single move. DMs often respond by either having the character dash to get up to threaten, move 30' and lose the rest of their action, or stop and ask the Player what he wants to do instead because he can't move and attack.

In B/X and AD&D when declarative intiative was used there were also different balance points and consequences for being next to someone in melee when trying to cast spells or use ranged weapons.