D&D 5E How Do You View the Combat Round in 5E?

[Charlaquin]

@6ENow! you know you're starting to convince me that maybe I should be on the 6E Now train too lmao

I’d love a 6e. I’ve been kinda over 5e for a good few years now - even though I would still call it my favorite edition overall, I’ve taken to hacking the Dickens out of it to make it more interesting. It’s solidly designed, but very safe, and I want to see them try something a bit bolder. Hopefully the explosion of new players 5e brought in has given the confidence to do that with 6e. 5e had to be safe because it needed to win back the old school fan base. Since it incedentally brought in a brand new fanbase that dwarfs the old one, I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to grill up some sacred burgers soon. But I’m also doubtful that Hazbro is keen on changing the base ruleset while 5e is still selling like hot cakes.

After the recent comments by Crawford about a several year plan to update the way race is handled in D&D, first of all I don’t expect a 6e before this plan is carried through to fruition, unless something goes horribly wrong in the meantime. But, at this point I think the idea of some kind of updated or special edition re-release of the core books with some of these changes that have been presented as optional rules incorporated into the base rules is looking more likely than ever. And if that does well, I think it will be a strong indication of what direction an eventual 6e might move in.

 

[Laurefindel]

Voted that other stuff is happening.

It tends toward a blow-by-blow type of action if you try to narrate or imagine what’s going on as the round goes, but if you take a step back and look at the action after the fact, a more fluid, more theatrical interpretation is easier to make.

I like to see attack rolls as opportunities to strike a blow. During a combat round where two combattants missed all their attacks, you can narrate a furious storm of blow, dodge, and parry. Or perhaps the two combattants simply turned in circles, gauging their enemy, looking for an opportunity to strike. Cue in tumbleweed flying in between. Different characters and enemies can change this narrative.

similarly, abstract hp suggests that successful « hits » may have been parried, dodged in extremis, absorbed by armour, or avoided by luck. Character lost some of its edge (hp) but could be left narratively unscathed. This is easier to see with a distance from the blow-by-blow approach.

« Other stuff is happening » is also easier to reconcile with action-movie combat. A single successful attack may involve kicking a can at the enemy, distracting it enough to destabilize it with a shield blow, creating an opening for the sword cut. Minimum damage was rolled? Maybe it was just the can that « hit ».

i like cinematic action, and it is much easier to achieve with the assumption that a lot happens in a 6-second round beyond that single attack roll, and that these action-surged 8 attacks where not necessarily all individual sword blows. You don’t have to go back far. Let the player roll its turn, then narrate (or let the player narrate). Like everything else, balance is the key: not everything needs to be narrated, or else it becomes unnecessarily heavy.

 

[DND_Reborn]

All doable by a 5th level fighter.

The issue isn't that he couldn't do it as far as action economy goes, it is that ALL of his attacks would come first, but in the clip the "narrative" has those attacks spread out during the entire combat round:

• Nathan wins initiative.
• He grapples enemy #1 using an attack.
• (Passive: he dodges two sword blows as part of his AC when enemies #3, then #2, both attack).
• [OOPS! He only got one attack in when two enemies got their attacks in!]
• He kicks out at enemy #3, hitting him in the face.
• (Passive: enemy #2 misses with another swipe.)
• He flips (falls prone? or knocks prone?) enemy #2, throwing him into enemy #3.
• He finally disarms the sword from enemy #1.
• (Passive: he blocks enemy #4 who attacks him when he is prone.)

Nathan's actions (attacks) are disrupted and interspersed by all the other actions going on. The point remains if you played this out as 5E:

• Nathan wins initiative.
• He grapples #1.
• Now what? He is still next to #1 and has him grappled, and he doesn't move towards #2 or #3 (they move towards him).
• In 5E, he could move towards #2 or #3 and take #1 with him. Or he could just finish off #1. He has 1-3 attacks left (assuming the action surge or flurry of blows or something), if he finished #1 he would have his sword and could attack the others.

Scenes like these which should be possible really aren't in 5E. Can Nathan still easily handle the 4 opponents? Of course, but by 5E rules it would play out differently.

We all agree (I hope) that many of the actions creatures take are simultaneous, but when multiple actions are granted on a single turn it messes things up IMO. Sure, as @Oofta states and others have as well, we accept the limitations in favor of the simplicity.

I am toying with a couple ideas to change all this when creatures get extra or multiple attacks.

 

[Oofta]

...
I am toying with a couple ideas to change all this when creatures get extra or multiple attacks.

I'm always curious what other options might work - I just wouldn't like the "everybody declares at the top of the round" method for the reasons I explained above. Personally about the only thing I've done is how many legendary actions a monster gets. It's one per PC - 1 instead of the standard 3. In addition, I will sometimes give special reactions that work similar to legendary actions, but can only happen once per round.

It's difficult to find a balance though, part of the contract between players and DMs is an agreed upon structure to the rules and if you deviate too far it can feel like "cheating". On the other hand, I don't want to start an arms race where for every special tweak I make for monsters I have a corresponding tweak for the PCs. Along with keeping track of too many things leading to combat being a slogfest of course.

 

[NotAYakk]

Naw, just have him lose initiative. Sure, the grapple doesn't go off until after 2/3 attack, but the grapple basically a "miss" by #1, with maybe a rippote attack grapple.

The biggest problem is that 5e highly rewards focus fire, while cinematic combat presumes threatening someone or hitting them makes them less dangerous to you.

I have toyed with a "engage" mechanic, where melee attack + adjacent engage. Enemies who don't attack you while you have them engaged, or move out of engage range, you get advantage on on your next turn.

Then Nathan's actions (spreading blows) make lots of mechanical sense.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm always curious what other options might work

The problem has always been, as you said earlier, balancing simplicity with a more "robust" system. I could add all sorts of simulation-like factors, but with each addition I would add another level of simplicity.

I mean, heck, just look at what 5E already offers:

• Base: Individual Roll (and Repeat)
• Simpler: Group Roll (and Repeat)
• In-between: Group Roll (and Reroll)
• Harder: Individual Roll (and Reroll)
• Even Harder: Individual Roll (and Reroll) with variant options such as speed factors, etc.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Naw, just have him lose initiative. Sure, the grapple doesn't go off until after 2/3 attack, but the grapple basically a "miss" by #1, with maybe a rippote attack grapple.

Then all the enemies would get to act before him... unless your DM rolls separate initiative for each foe? (IME this is extremely rare but possible... shrug

The biggest provblem is that 5e highly rewards focus fire

I agree in a sense, but not precisely as you seem to be implying it (correct me if I am wrong).

The biggest problem (IMO) is that 5E rewards multiple actions on a single turn.

 

[Flamestrike]

They're an abstraction. Nothing more or less.

 

[DND_Reborn]

They're an abstraction. Nothing more or less.

Really... of what? That will be your answer the poll.

 

[robus]

For me AC is how hard you are to hit, HP models your capacity to keep the hits that land from taking you out and that includes parrying blows. But in my mind every attack that hits actually does make physical contact so that things like poison make narrative sense. You use your HP to reduce the damage to something manageable until you run out of luck, strength etc and a potentially lethal blow is landed that brings you down to 0 HP.