D&D 5E Improvised actions in combat

[uzirath]

However, I’m often scared about how much people talk about how “improvising” (in the broader sense) is so crucial to the game. It’s fun doing that, but you don’t actually need to do crazy stuff all the time; often the simple choice is best. When the simple choice really is the best, going into risky overcomplicated feats, involving several checks seems like being a show-off here. However, if you do get advantage, or even save the day with that, you’re a hero. I properly reward players when they have a good idea, but not every idea is a good one.

I agree that too much "crazy stuff" is not good (with the definition of crazy being unique to each group), especially when it takes up a lot of time to resolve. But, when a great tactical plan comes together, with mostly standard rules leavened with some unusual ingredients, it creates a memorable session.

In my games, combat "improv" usually comes down to using existing abilities in unexpected ways, making use of the environment, or role-playing to gain advantage or distract a foe. (Often this doesn't amount to anything more than some good verbal repartee during battle.)

I like things to keep moving and stay "realistic" within our genre expectations, but I definitely want enough creativity for battles to feel more interesting than a long string of rolls to hit.



Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Saeviomagy]

Nor do I. But I keep resources on hand to illuminate the issue for them.

So if someone says "Wouldn't my character remember that?" you say "sorry, remembering things accurately is part of the keen mind feat, so you can't do it without the feat?"

I mean the one that always gets me is the actor feat making it impossible for anyone without it to imitate someone's voice...

Or are you limiting such a thing to doing more damage?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So if someone says "Wouldn't my character remember that?" you say "sorry, remembering things accurately is part of the keen mind feat, so you can't do it without the feat?"

I mean the one that always gets me is the actor feat making it impossible for anyone without it to imitate someone's voice...

Or are you limiting such a thing to doing more damage?

If feat (or racial ability) X says "you can now do Y," and the DM would otherwise be inclined to let anyone do Y, there are two ways you can go:

(1) Rule that no one can do Y after all unless they have feat X, OR

(2) Rule that X has a different benefit Z to compensate for the fact that Y is already available to anyone.

In my opinion, option #2 is less of a headache for DMs and players both. "But *anyone* can imitate a voice, can't they?"/"Okay, but if you pass your Actor check you have it down pat--you never have to make a check for that voice again."/"Okay, that sounds cool."

 

[Sunseeker]

So if someone says "Wouldn't my character remember that?" you say "sorry, remembering things accurately is part of the keen mind feat, so you can't do it without the feat?"

I mean the one that always gets me is the actor feat making it impossible for anyone without it to imitate someone's voice...

Or are you limiting such a thing to doing more damage?

As other people have said, if there is doubt that the person would remember, it calls for a dice roll. They may not remember "that" accurately.

Having the feat means they get to bypass the possibility of a check. Same applies to the Actor feat.

 

[Rocksome]

Personally, I love non-standard actions in combat. This is where the narrative is and what sets role-playing games apart from nearly any other form of gaming. Every movie you've ever seen where someone outwits a more powerful opponent is due to non-standard actions. It's how the T-100 defeated the T-1000, it's how Luke Skywalker beat the Emperor (convincing Darth Vader to help).

That being said, I can also understand your concern. Non-standard actions require a strong social contract. They need a good DM who you trust to be fair (because both underpowered and overpowered non-standard actions are a drain) and they require an understanding of the way the game works and how the rules fit together. So, non-standard actions are a challenge, but they get better with experience.

Creativity should be rewarded and I often let non-standard actions do more damage than a typical attack (if warranted), as I think clever solutions to tough enemies is a great way to increase the cinematic nature of the game. However, some players feel like they are owed an automatic kill or are entitled to perform amazing feats without any kind of check within the rules to determine their success simply for thinking of a clever idea. Again, this comes back to trusting your DM to be fair and knowing your DM has the skills to accurately model the situation and it's difficulty.

I think if you ever reach this point where your DM and your players have this strong social contract, you'll find that non-standard actions are the best thing about this game.

 

[Saeviomagy]

As other people have said, if there is doubt that the person would remember, it calls for a dice roll. They may not remember "that" accurately.

Having the feat means they get to bypass the possibility of a check. Same applies to the Actor feat.

Right... so if I want to cleave, I can make a check to do it?

 

[Sunseeker]

Right... so if I want to cleave, I can make a check to do it?

While attempting to paint me into an impossible corner is always a fun sort of discussion to have, I have a headache and am really not in the mood.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sounds like you'd be happier playing 4E


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My 4e games are pretty heavily improvised. I also see 5e games that are very, very, by the book.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

On topic, I like improvisation, but I don't push for it. Some nights it's all improv, some nights it's very RAW.

 

[Saeviomagy]

While attempting to paint me into an impossible corner is always a fun sort of discussion to have, I have a headache and am really not in the mood.

I'm just trying to work out what you actually meant when you said that "if something exists as a feat, you can't do it without one". If what you actually mean is "cool combat stuff is reserved for feats" or "if you could get a numerical bonus with a feat, you can't have it without one", or even "I just eyeball things and make a decision", that's fine, but it's not what you said.

My own personal approach is that any cool, repeatable tactic should be balanced against "what you can do without strict numerical bonuses from feats". Cool non-repeatable tactics (ie - ones that consume expendable resources, ones that destroy the environment, ones that rely on an unusual confluence of events) can be much more powerful and completely unbalanced, since those exact same conditions may never come up again.

In short: if you want to spend one round climbing a statue so that next round you can drop on your opponent with weapons drawn, then your drop will do roughly the same damage that you could have done with your first round of attacks, and probably require some roll to be successful. If a monster picks you up and flings you, then it will basically be the same as some combination of grappling, pushing, movement and regular attacks, just described differently.