D&D 5E Disengage Action

[PnPgamer]

And let's not forget the bad guys can use disengage too

Especially those frigging goblins aaaaaarggggggghhhh!!!!!!

 

[Psikerlord#]

It's easy to think this.

However, I feel the advantages outweigh the cracks in verisimilitude: high mobility makes for a fun, exciting fluid game; while static combat tends to be dull.

Anything that encourages characters to move about is good, in the end analysis.

I prefer a realistic approach, and meaningful decisions - the randomness that comes with the risk of taking an OA. Just wandering about the battlefield free from risk is what I find too easy/boring. It takes the tactics of positioning out of the game when anyone can reposition anywhere at anytime. Too much easy mode for new players imo.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, you do pay perhaps the highest cost of all: your action.

So I don't know about that...

 

[Uller]

Tactically speaking dodge is often a better choice. If you can provoke a few OAs this limits the reactions of your enemies for your allies AND dodge continues to be useful until your next turn.

Let's say you have two enemies, each with three attacks. I'd rather give them each 4 attacks at disadvantage than 3 normal. Plus if you have an ally that might want to act and move it is better for him.

 

[Uller]

Thinking about this a little more, dodge also has the benefit of practically negating the chance of a crit being scored against you (although our group has had two crits scored with disadvantage so it does happen).

To me, disengage is the better choice if you are attempting to actually disengage...you want to break away from the fight and position yourself where you are unlikely to be attacked. In the scenario where you are trying to reposition in a melee and expect to take more attacks dodge is a better choice.

 

[Agamon]

I prefer a realistic approach, and meaningful decisions - the randomness that comes with the risk of taking an OA. Just wandering about the battlefield free from risk is what I find too easy/boring. It takes the tactics of positioning out of the game when anyone can reposition anywhere at anytime. Too much easy mode for new players imo.

Realistic? Moving about while fighting is more akin to real battle than standing next to one foe, and he to you, for the entire fight.

And like CapnZapp said, it costs you and action to just move and ignore OA. Rogues and fighters might still be able to attack after using Disengage, but that's rogues and fighters doing what they do.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

By the book? Yes. By any reasonable stretch of the DM's imagination? No. I'm all for using Disengage to, well, actually try and disengage from danger. Running headlong into danger because the player is using meta-game knowledge? Not in my game.

Then again, in my game, I make players give me their intended action before we roll initiative (based on order of the characters Int - low Int characters have to give me their intention first, then next, all the way up to the highest Int character who goes last (Wis breaks ties)). This way, a player doesn't know how "on the ball" their opponents are (or how crafty they are). It allows me, the DM, to make more intelligent choices for more intelligent creatures. I mean, I'm not a dumb guy, but no way in biscuit land do I have a 15+ Int... by knowing what the PC's are planning, it allows me to adjust the tactics of the enemy based on that enemy's experience and brain power. A trio of mid-experienced drow warriors with average Int and Wis scores of 14 to 16 would just have amazing tactical prowess. On the flip side, I do take into account the PC's actual class, race, mental capabilities, etc as well. So, all things being equal, most combats are not lopsided in the least.

So... if a player wants to say "I'm going to run past the orc guarding the door, and out into freedom! I'll use the Disengage rules I guess?"...then we roll initiative. If the orc wins, he can attack the fleeing PC before said PC gets to the door; if the PC is hit, he is stopped and is now in melee combat with the orc...if the orc misses, the PC is out the door.

But just blurting out "Disengage!" because you know you won initiative? Not gonna happen.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Using Disengage does not allow you to move through an enemy's space, however. So if they are blocking a door, you wouldn't be able to exit through it just by using Disengage.

There are some combat options to pass through a foe's space as difficult terrain by spending a bonus action and winning an opposed roll.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Tactically speaking dodge is often a better choice. If you can provoke a few OAs this limits the reactions of your enemies for your allies AND dodge continues to be useful until your next turn.

Let's say you have two enemies, each with three attacks. I'd rather give them each 4 attacks at disadvantage than 3 normal. Plus if you have an ally that might want to act and move it is better for him.

Dodge ends if the dodger gets grappled. If someone is trying to get foes to expend their reactions, dodging can be helpful, but relying on it ain't so hot.

 

[Uller]

Dodge ends if the dodger gets grappled. If someone is trying to get foes to expend their reactions, dodging can be helpful, but relying on it ain't so hot.

Sure? But how often does this happen? Can you use a grapple for an OA? RAW seems to indicate no...(I'd allow it if a PC tried it).

I've been known to have a large strong monster use a grapple on occasion, particularly to counter a very mobile PC (in 3e a character managed to get its AC so high a cloud giant needed a 19 to hit her...so it grabbed her and sat on her...in another game the only PC that could harm an ancient green dragon was the thief with a wand of lightning bolts and the wild mage...so the dragon landed on him and squished him and stood on the wand. Then the wild mage cast magic missile, got a wild surge and accidentally turned the dragon ethereal...). But that's not the norm in most combats in my games, YMMV.