D&D 5E How precisely do you run combat encounters?

[R_J_K75]

... everything is fudged because it's not worth any of our time spending it counting little squares and drawing straight lines. Move where you want to go... attack who you want to attack... be sensible and don't over-indulge at the expense of your fellow players.

This is exactly my philosophy too. You just said what I was thinking. We keep things moving, keep things fair and if a player tries to do too much in their turn I will give them a second chance to reign it in, otherwise I skip them that round if they start over analyzing the situation and over thinking their actions. Weve played enough that we all have a good handle on what can logically be done in a turn.

 

[aco175]

We are good at using a grid for positions and number of squares for movement. Diagonal only counts as one square since 3e, but it has not been a problem. Sometimes some things on maps or tiles we handwave chairs or small tables that could be easily pushed out of the way if a PC wants to move next to a monster. We may make houserules for certain situations like attacking around a corner from the diagonal square where I impose disadvantage and no attack of opportunity.

Smaller things like placing the torch down before a fight never come up or swapping hands with an object. Components come up if they cost a lot or if there is a special circumstance like being in jail. We use flanking rules which I find takes away most of the hiding in combat to jump out to gain advantage or hiding and sniping. There are a few threads on that which should not be brought up here again.

 

[CleverNickName]

Pretty precise, actually...my players really hold my feet to the fire with this stuff and insist on everything being Rules As Written. They get grumpy if I try to deviate from The Most Holy Text.

 

[J-H]

1- creature positions and movement (e.g. TotM vs battlemat, step-by-step movement around obstacles, counting diagonals x1.5)
Battlemat, not counting diagonals as 1.5.
2- distances and weapon/spell ranges (e.g. measuring exact ranges vs ballparking near/far)
If it's close, I often ballpark it, but there have been times when it's been really relevant and important.
3- elevation, angles and directions (e.g. adjudicating cover carefully from different directions)
Hasn't really come up. Cover is kind of an "eyeball it".
4- terrain and obstacles (e.g. ignoring vs taking small objects on the ground into account, like a chair)
Chairs don't occupy an entire 5x5 square. I usually just mark areas as difficult terrain
5- lesser actions on someone's turn (e.g. handwaving/enforcing object interaction rules, switching an object between hands)
As long as it's not abused, I haven't been keeping hard track of drawing weapons, donning shields, etc.
6- spells somatic/material components (e.g. checking against free/occupied hands)
Nope.
7- light sources and visibility (e.g. keeping track of exact areas of bright light, dim light, darkness)
Not exact areas, no. It usually ends up being "you can see X feet"
8- any particular tactical area (e.g. hiding in combat, flanking, facing)
Hiding requires something to hide behind. We do not use flanking/facing.

 

[R_J_K75]

Pretty precise, actually...my players really hold my feet to the fire with this stuff and insist on everything being Rules As Written. They get grumpy if I try to deviate from The Most Holy Text.

So what happens if you run into a situation where you need to make up something thats there but isnt necessarily black & white in the core rules?

 

[iserith]

Do you run everything by the book, do you cut corners, or even outright ignore certain aspects? Do you otherwise add more precision with variant/house rules?

Consider the question from the separate points of view of being precise on the following:

1- creature positions and movement (e.g. TotM vs battlemat, step-by-step movement around obstacles, counting diagonals x1.5)
2- distances and weapon/spell ranges (e.g. measuring exact ranges vs ballparking near/far)
3- elevation, angles and directions (e.g. adjudicating cover carefully from different directions)
4- terrain and obstacles (e.g. ignoring vs taking small objects on the ground into account, like a chair)
5- lesser actions on someone's turn (e.g. handwaving/enforcing object interaction rules, switching an object between hands)
6- spells somatic/material components (e.g. checking against free/occupied hands)
7- light sources and visibility (e.g. keeping track of exact areas of bright light, dim light, darkness)
8- any particular tactical area (e.g. hiding in combat, flanking, facing)

1. Always battle map. No clipping hard corners. I'm pretty big on detailed maps.

2. We measure exact ranges.

3. Definitely do elevation, angles, and directions to determine cover, often made easy by dynamic lighting on Roll20.

4. The running joke in my group is how much difficult terrain there are on many battle maps. I'm also a big fan of open pits in narrow hallways with difficult terrain on the far side.

5. Actions strictly enforced, but not so much speech on or off turn.

6. The assumption is the players doing this in good faith and I haven't really had any reason to question them.

7. Yes, I play with light and dark quite a bit. I'm also apparently one of the few DMs that enforces disadvantage on Perception in dim light.

8. Not sure what is meant by this one, but facing and flanking aren't a thing in my games.

 

[CleverNickName]

So what happens if you run into a situation where you need to make up something thats there but isnt necessarily black & white in the core rules?

Like I said, they get grumpy...lots of arguing, lots of complaining. I've learned to tune it out, but still--I'd rather they just relax and go with it, ya know? Get their minds off the battlemat and back into the story.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Playing online: the grid's already there, so why not use it? It reduces confusion. And I run as close to the book as possible, for much the same reason. By staying to the rules as published in most cases, the players already know how everything works and can therefore jump right to coming up with cool plans.

In more detail:

1- creature positions and movement - RAW. I tend to use 3e diagonals (1 diagonal = 1.5 spaces) for 5e.
2- distances and weapon/spell ranges - RAW
3- elevation, angles and directions - cover is basically RAW. Height only matters in terms of where you can walk to, although I might give advantage for a significant height on a ranged attack.
4- terrain and obstacles - difficult terrain RAW, and I try to make sure there's plenty of stuff to interact with. I hate empty rooms.
5- lesser actions on someone's turn - I'm pretty lax on this, since I don't like that particular rule in 5e. If no one's trying to stop you, you can manage your weapons/spell components.
6- spells somatic/material components - a free hand + component pouch or focus is good to go. I;m thinking about doing an overhaul if this whole system next time I run a campaign.
7- light sources and visibility - RAW, although that usually just means everyone has darkvision.
8- any particular tactical area - hiding in combat is as close to RAW as I can get (since those rules are fuzzy on purpose), no flanking or facing.

You didn't ask, but I'll add this: I build the encounter to be fair according to the books, but once I start playing, the monsters are actively trying to kill you and I'm doing my best to make that happen. Which means I need to be as fair as possible with the rules.

Playing offline around a table, though: small encounters are theater of the mind. If a player asks if something they might use is present, it is unless it's totally nonsensical for it to be there. Is there a chair you can throw? Any built space has one. I break out the map and minis and go back to RAW for some major fights, but other times I run it more cinematically (ie TotM but with rough maps.)

 

[R_J_K75]

Like I said, they get grumpy...lots of arguing, lots of complaining. I've learned to tune it out, but still--I'd rather they just relax and go with it, ya know? Get their minds off the battlemat and back into the story.

Personally as I get older I find a game that is too rigid regarding rules hinders my creativity and I spend more time worrying about them than having fun. Although Im not always consistent how I run games, Im fair, give the players the benefit of the doubt and reverse a ruling if Im wrong or a player reminds me that I did something another way previously. I tell my players this from the start and strike a balance between which rules are more important than others. I wont tolerate arguments, Ive seen quite a few players quit a gaming group from over a trivial rule. But what works for my table might work for yours, as long as everyone has fun is what counts.

 

[toucanbuzz]

1- creature positions and movement / 2- distances and weapon/spell ranges

Grid map takes care of all of this. Unless there was a tight marching order (e.g. in a tunnel), I let players arrange themselves however they want in a certain zone.

3- elevation, angles and directions / 4- terrain and obstacles

I take terrain seriously and elevation adds a nice challenge to the game. Can you get to that archer, or can they get to you? If there's an object like a table, I'll toss in something like a 2x5 dungeon tile to represent it. If I'm lucky, it'll actually be a table, but I don't want to waste time on this type of visual.

5- lesser actions on someone's turn (e.g. handwaving/enforcing object interaction rules, switching an object between hands) / 6- spells somatic/material components (e.g. checking against free/occupied hands)

I wouldn't call these lesser, but initially, I handwaved them. Then, I looked into why they exist, and feats that help bypass it like War Caster or Duel Wielder. I realized I was removing a tactical element to the game. It's not a big deal IF the DM is on the ball, but it probably needs to be enforced if you allow feats (otherwise, you denigrate them).

7- light sources and visibility (e.g. keeping track of exact areas of bright light, dim light, darkness)

I don't track exactly because that's a pain. Totally an estimation.

8- any particular tactical area (e.g. hiding in combat, flanking, facing)

Flanking/facing is optional, so I ignore (and I tried it, gives advantage too easily). So I'm not sure how to answer this. If a monster is gone from sight, I remove them from the board and track in my head where they go. If a player vanishes, I play dumb.