D&D 5E Improvised actions in combat

[Shiroiken]

Didn't vote, but wanted to comment. As a DM, I love it when the players use improvised actions, but it's a rarity. As a Player, I usually don't think fast enough on my feet to come up with a good idea before the moment passes (I'm a planner type). In both cases, I really want the option to be available, even if it's seldom used.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I like improvised actions in combat. It keeps things fresh. As a DM I just make sure that players doing this stay within the action economy (as they often want to execute their whole idea in one turn) and that it is in the spirit of the game and rules.

 

[Mercule]

First, whatever works for you at your table is fine by me. I'm going to comment only on what happens at my table and what I enjoy.

Improvisation is the major point of RPGs. It's why I play them in addition to war games, board "adventure" games, and video games. I love all those, as well, but only RPGs have that game master roll that can ref things on the fly.

As a player, I expect my GM to be proficient enough to be able to handle "squishy" situations. That's literally why he's there. If I'm told, "I don't have rules for that, so you can't do it," I'll stick out the session and probably even the adventure. I'm probably not going to be as enthused about it, though. When there's an appropriate opportunity, I might even offer to run a game of something. You probably aren't really enjoying being the GM, anyway.

As a DM, it's true that most of the people use the menu options, most of the time. I live for the creative players that "go off script," though. I don't care whether it's story-wise or tactically. Do something to entertain me. I'll roll with it and try to keep you entertained, too. I know we're talking about combat, here, but my greatest aggravation in gaming is when the players all look at me and ask, "so what's the adventure?" Dunno. I've given you a town, a couple of mysteries, a couple other obvious conflicts into which you could insert yourself, and some organizational ties, many of which were created to play to what you told me motivates your characters; so, you tell me, what do you want to do? Combat's the same way: grab a chandelier, jump on a table, throw sand in the orc's eyes. Do something.

Sounds like you'd be happier playing 4E

This is, in a nutshell, why 4E never worked for my group.

 

[Igwilly]

Well, err…
*Fades in*
4e has page 42.
*Fades out*

…
Anyway, my honest opinion:
Improvisation in combat is, basically, a spice: something to use occasionally. It is fun to see a new trick when no one expected it, but constant improvisation ruins the game for me, as DM and player. It often feels like the player is gambling the DM instead of, you know, playing the game.
Ironically, many of the most effective improvisations can already be predicted. If there’s a big pit filled with acid in the combat scene, it’s pretty obvious about what you should do. In many cases, improvisation isn’t supposed to be more effective than direct fighting. I mean, which is the best choice for damage: to throw a chair into someone, or to use a dagger or a claymore?
I have nothing against it, but I’m perfectly okay playing by the rules 99% of the time. I use my creativity elsewhere.
However, there’s one thing I heavily dislike, and that’s why I voted “no”:
I don’t like when the game relies on complete improvisation in order to be awesome. Let me explain: when actions other than “attack” and “cast a spell” are majorly relied upon the DM, the issue kicks in. It makes the player too reliant on the DM in order to be awesome. Martials characters usually are the victims here: they now need permission to be awesome while casters can already be awesome by default. In addition, around my area, if you warrior needs the DM’s permission to be awesome, you are in a bad situation. Especially if you fail the requested check – prepare to be severely punished.
I don’t think it’s quite proper for one category of classes to rely that much on the DM, and the other has all awesomeness by the book. Now, choosing a simple “I attack” fighter is perfectly ok. In my current 3.5 game, I’m playing a “I rage and attack” kind of barbarian, and things are fine. However, if the only way to do more stuff with a martial artist type is by gaming the DM, things can get into trouble.
Honestly, I’m still experimenting games with free-form magic. In that case, with consistent guidelines about what you can and cannot do, I see some advantage. After I try, I’ll give my feedback. Making this huge difference between the two main character groups, however, is not acceptable. Your PC needs to be awesome (for you) right from the book. In play, you can come up with a good idea sometimes; and you’ll get rewarded in my game for such ideas. DMs can be very varied, and I don’t trust my own DM judgement all the time.

Or maybe not. Perhaps, when I run a free-form spellcasting system, I may change my mind. Who knows?

 

[Kalshane]

I personally enjoy it when my players get creative. While it would get dull really quick if a player used the same "trick" over and over (like the sand in the eyes bit above) when someone is in the moment and decides to take advantage of the environment, I applaud it as DM. Especially since 5E makes it pretty easy to pick an appropriate roll/DC for whatever the PC tries to accomplish.

I've had the party swashbuckler run and jump up onto a buffet table and slide to the end on a platter to skewer a goblin and the raging barbarian hurl their paladin into the back of the enemy ranks when the latter became possessed by a cursed weapon, plus a bunch of other things occur at my "table" that make for great memories. I'd certainly never tell people they're limited to whatever's in the PHB.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, err…
*Fades in*
4e has page 42.
*Fades out*
…

Page 42 doesn't do much for actual improvisational action. All it has are damage expressions categorized by some arbitrary level appropriate claptrap. The only difference between what page 42 calls improvised action is saying " I use (limited damage expression improv move)" instead of " I use (insert name of encounter power)".
Characters have weapons and spells specifically designed to inflict damage. Improvisation is for off the wall stuff that is just fun.

Anyway, my honest opinion:
Improvisation in combat is, basically, a spice: something to use occasionally. It is fun to see a new trick when no one expected it, but constant improvisation ruins the game for me, as DM and player. It often feels like the player is gambling the DM instead of, you know, playing the game.
Ironically, many of the most effective improvisations can already be predicted. If there’s a big pit filled with acid in the combat scene, it’s pretty obvious about what you should do. In many cases, improvisation isn’t supposed to be more effective than direct fighting.

I agree with this which is why reducing adjudicating improvised actions to mere damage expressions is kind of lame.

I mean, which is the best choice for damage: to throw a chair into someone, or to use a dagger or a claymore?

For damage, grab that claymore but for cool factor I'm throwing that chair. Re-watch The Mummy.

 

[Sunseeker]

My biggest problem is that "improvised" seems to be code for "doing things I would normally require feats or specific classes or magical assistance" without having to pay that investment cost that say, Bob over there did, while reaping all the benefits.

I like games where, much like the old iPhone "there's an app for that", I like games where "there's a rule for that".

Climbing a wall? Climb check. Swinging from a chandelier? Acrobatics. Cleaving into the next foe? Cleave Feat.

I dislike it when people want the benefits of doing these things, without actually paying the costs for them. I generally discourage improvised actions unless I know the person is willing to pay the cost, or its from someone who doesn't use these things to "get an extra +2" on their attack. There are plenty of ways to be creative with your actions, within the rules.

 

[MechaPilot]

Sounds like you'd be happier playing 4E


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Forgive me, but I fail to understand the meaning of this comment. 4e had a table that existed specifically to help the DM adjudicate improvised actions, which is a lot more effective and efficient support for improvised actions than I've seen in other editions of D&D.

 

[MechaPilot]

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?

Bolded for emphasis.

The bolded part just doesn't make sense to me. At least as I see it, imagination and creativity are inherent necessities when playing a game where you have to create your own characters from scratch (as if writing a character for a short story or novel), and have to imagine the action that takes place, the setting in which it occurs, and the appearance of the other characters involved.

Or, to put it more simply and bluntly, the notion that creativity can ever "push gaming out of the driver's seat" when your game is little more than an organized session of make-believe with some agreed-upon rules strikes me as absurd on its face. But, maybe that's just me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My biggest problem is that "improvised" seems to be code for "doing things I would normally require feats or specific classes or magical assistance" without having to pay that investment cost that say, Bob over there did, while reaping all the benefits.

Fair enough, but how are you supposed to know whether something would normally require a feat or a specific class feature, unless you read everything everywhere to learn what is already codified? Every edition from 2E through 4E was loaded down with dozens upon dozens of supplements.

There was at least one 3E game, using the OGL, which had a class with the explicit power to ask questions while sounding like you already knew the answer; which was great for RP purposes, except it meant that nobody outside of that class could even attempt such a thing, and there's no way for a player to know that they couldn't attempt it unless they were somehow familiar with the powers of other classes.