D&D 5E Improvised actions in combat

[Prakriti]

What's the general consensus on improvised actions in combat?

I'll admit, I don't like them. I grew up playing tactical strategy games -- Shining Force, Fire Emblem, Risk, Final Fantasy Tactics, and SSI gold-box games, like Gateway to the Savage Frontier. When combat starts, I always feel a rush. I love the way the mechanics fit together to create a little war game, decided by dice and tactics. There's just something visceral about it.

Then, every now and then, you get a player who says, "Attack, Dodge, Ready, or Search? No thanks. I do something completely different." And just like that, all the air is sucked out of the room, and creativity pushes gaming out of the driver's seat yet again. It's a big let-down to me as a DM.

That's me, though. What about you? I especially want to hear from the people who like improvised actions. What's an example of a GOOD one, and how did it affect your game?

 

[Lanliss]

I have one Player who has an Acrobat Kobold Assassin. He starts almost every turn by climbing up something, and then tends to use the environment as a weapon more often than his daggers. This is in stark contrast to the player who was playing a Wizard, and started most turns by casting Ray of Frost. Improvised is way better than the rule book, IMO. I personally am all for mechanics and all taht, but I want my players to be creative, and leave that stuff to me.

 

[iserith]

I don't really think about it to any great degree. The combat rules make for easy rulings in my view since we have a decent framework to judge what can be accomplished in a turn. Then we have ability checks to resolve the uncertainty of actions that aren't attacks. So, improvised actions in combat are just fine for me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What's the general consensus on improvised actions in combat?

I'll admit, I don't like them. I grew up playing tactical strategy games -- Shining Force, Fire Emblem, Risk, Final Fantasy Tactics, and SSI gold-box games, like Gateway to the Savage Frontier. When combat starts, I always feel a rush. I love the way the mechanics fit together to create a little war game, decided by dice and tactics. There's just something visceral about it.

Then, every now and then, you get a player who says, "Attack, Dodge, Ready, or Search? No thanks. I do something completely different." And just like that, all the air is sucked out of the room, and creativity pushes gaming out of the driver's seat yet again. It's a big let-down to me as a DM.

That's me, though. What about you? I especially want to hear from the people who like improvised actions. What's an example of a GOOD one, and how did it affect your game?

One time, when the party was split and the 8th level shadow monk was off on his own and ran into a CR 12 Chain Worm which I thought was going to kill him, he came up with a brilliant improvised action.

Round 1: Flurry of blows + stunning strike, luckily managed to hit and stun it
Round 2: Improvised action, "I grab one of the creature's appendages and thrust it within my Bag of Devouring." [50% chance to be devoured does not trigger.] Also, more flurry of blows + stun succeeded.
Round 3: Improvised action, "I keep holding it in the Bag of Devouring." [50% chance to be devoured does not trigger.] Also, more flurry of blows + stun fails.
Round 4: Improvised action, "I keep holding it in the Bag of Devouring." Chain Worm loses initiative and before it can take its appendage out of the bag and rip him to shreds, [50% chance to be devoured triggers] and the Chain Worm gets sucked into the Bag of Devouring. Shadow monk lives to fight another day, everyone cheers!

The Chain Worm was still at almost-full HP and if not for this clever improvised action (and winning initiative on rounds 1 and 4) I'm pretty sure he was going to die, especially because the Chain Worm was about 75% likely to stun him with its buzz every round.

Other improvised actions that I like and which can be tactically-significant often tend to involve movement (rappelling down lines, closing doors), communication (calling for reinforcements), or deception ("I feint like I'm going to attack githyanki leader, but I'm really going to tackle his bodyguard to the ground and pin him there", which can leave the githyanki leader doing the wrong thing like dodging instead of attacking if he falls for it).

 

[robus]

Isn't improvisation where the fun and creativity lie in this game? If you don't want improvisation then computer RPG provide a nicely predefined set of possible actions...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

P.S. The one thing I don't like, as a DM, is improvised attacks. It would be a rare day when I rule that an improvised action does more damage than a standard attack. I'm not going to let you drop a chandelier on the Fire Giant's head for 10d6 damage, for example. I'll totally let you spend thirty minutes beforehand digging a 10' deep pit with Mold Earth, then camouflage two guys near the pit while a third guy baits the Fire Giant into chasing him to where the pit is, and then you push him in for 10d6 falling damage (actually I'd make it 40d6 because the Fire Giant is Huge, and I double falling damage per size category over Medium). But I won't generally make it easy to exceed the damage of standard attacks with spur-of-the-moment improvisations, because if it was that easy, standard attacks wouldn't be standard. (In other words, d8+Str is already a lot of damage, and I'd keep a falling chandelier somewhat close to that range instead of doing damage inflation. Perhaps 3d8 if it was a high ceiling.)

Likewise, I won't let you just "I throw sand in his eyes" to auto-blind someone. I won't make an improvised action better than a spell. However, I would let you rub sand directly onto your enemy's eyeballs to blind him for a round, in a contest between your (improvised weapon: sand) attack roll and his Con save. (Note: this implies that Tavern Brawlers are better at this trick than most people, because they get to add their proficiency bonus. Seems fitting.) Improvised actions should be of similar utility to standard actions because you never know when a PC is going to want to adopt one of his improvised actions as a signature move.

But! I also have a Rule of Yes, which states that "the first someone tries something, it 'just works' pretty much the way you intend it. Only on the second and subsequent attempts will the DM stop to create actual rules for it." So the first time anyone ever tries to use their action throw sand in someone's eyes, they'll be blinded for a round, no saving throw. The above ruling on blinding took me a few minutes of thinking and typing to create and I wouldn't create them during the game. The Rule of Yes keep the game flowing and rewards player creativity. (And it's pretty easy to retcon a single event and just say that the first time it was tried, the PC got lucky and the enemy failed his Con saving throw.)

 

[Xeviat]

I'm working on a product for this very thing now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lumenbeing]

Sounds like you'd be happier playing 4E


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Satyrn]

What's the general consensus on improvised actions in combat?

I'll admit, I don't like them. . .

The poll's at 16 to 1 right now.

You might be the only one.

 

[Prakriti]

The poll's at 16 to 1 right now.

You might be the only one.