D&D 5E Dynamic Combat Movement houserules

[AlexofBarbaria]

I saw an interesting homebrew on Reddit:

The file is a few pages of explanation/elaboration but the basic idea is simple:

Advance: On a melee hit, you can force your target one space backwards (any of the three spaces to their rear). You then have to move one space towards them, or laterally if that still keeps them in reach.

Slip: If an opponent misses you in melee, you can move one space in any direction that isn't occupied by them. Then they have to move one space towards your original position.

Any movement that occurs due to Advances or Slips is considered forced and doesn't use your movement or provoke AoOs.

Has anyone tried these rules? Do you think they would make combat more interesting?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I saw an interesting homebrew on Reddit:

The file is a few pages of explanation/elaboration but the basic idea is simple:

Advance: On a melee hit, you can force your target one space backwards (any of the three spaces to their rear). You then have to move one space towards them, or laterally if that still keeps them in reach.

Slip: If an opponent misses you in melee, you can move one space in any direction that isn't occupied by them. Then they have to move one space towards your original position.

Any movement that occurs due to Advances or Slips is considered forced and doesn't use your movement or provoke AoOs.

Has anyone tried these rules? Do you think they would make combat more interesting?

Haven't tried them but those are definitely interesting/cool. I wonder how well they work with multiple attacks and larger creatures and so on. I feel like the forced movement from Advance/Slip should be possible to protect against - perhaps some creatures (and some PCs?) have a feature like "Steadfast" where they're immune to both.

(This may all be in the rules, haven't been through them yet)

 

[aco175]

Initial thought is that anything to make the grid combat better is cool, but adding another step for the player and DM might make things slower. Maybe if the attacker chooses the movement it speeds things up over slowing them down. I.E. the PC hits and the player moves both minis so the DM does not need to stop and think, and them move the monster mini. When the DM hits, maybe have the player move their mini (so he has choice) and the DM moves the monster.

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

Haven't tried them but those are definitely interesting/cool. I wonder how well they work with multiple attacks and larger creatures and so on. I feel like the forced movement from Advance/Slip should be possible to protect against - perhaps some creatures (and some PCs?) have a feature like "Steadfast" where they're immune to both.

(This may all be in the rules, haven't been through them yet)

Looks like there is no limitation to Advancing multiple times with multiple attacks. Creatures 1 size larger, as well as characters with a shield, get a save to resist an Advance (Str vs. DC 10). Advancing doesn't work on creatures 2 or more sizes larger.

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

It seems cool for emulating Errol Flynn/Princess Bride movement during duels, but if it doesn't provoke AoOs I'm struggling to think of situations where it would be a game changer. It'd be a more dangerous to fight near ledges/lava pits of course. I could be underestimating the shenanigans players can get up to with 1 square of forced movement.

 

[ezo]

Has anyone tried these rules?

We've tried similar rules.

Do you think they would make combat more interesting?

They didn't. They slowed things down and really didn't offer any real benefit.

I understand the desire for things like this, but have yet to see rules which really make a difference or help. In extreme cases, such as when an attacker has already used all their movement, and you "slip" back out of their reach, they cannot make additional attacks against you since they cannot move back within reach, in can have an impact.

There are already rules, features, etc. which come into play to force an opponent back after a hit. Things like this often make those features less important.

 

[Laurefindel]

Has anyone tried these rules? Do you think they would make combat more interesting?

These specific rules? No. But I’ve used some similar ones, including the ones that are already in the game.

My conclusion is that while they are cool, ultimately they serve little purpose other than pushing into/getting out of casters´ AoE spells. When these rules work too well, they get rather cheesy/abusable, or they don’t serve any purpose at all because the spell’s effect is clear and not open to interpretation.

D&D (and roleplaying games in general) work poorly with random opportunities to use in combat; hitting with your primary attack or best spell is almost always better than using the environment. Monsters’ weaknesses (when they have any at all) are usually exploited via magic (weapons or spells); positioning/timing/use of environment rarely allows to bypass a creature’s strength or exploit its vulnerabilities other than pushing it in an area-of-effect, again typically created by a spell. Then it creates a counter-intuitive effect of increasing the importance of casters…

It does increase team-play however, so any rule that allows martials to play well with casters without giving out their own action is very good in my book. I’m sure some tables can make very good use of them, but ultimately I prefer TotM.