D&D 5E Movement in combat

[AkaKageWarrior]

The problem with a grid, is the same problem as taking turns in a combat round. It is a gamist invention to keep order and run combat without confusion. People should realize these things, like Hit Points, are just abstractions not intended to "show" what combat is really like. Narration brings the "show" to combat.

100% agreed!

Taking turns is the most unrealistic thing, the missing movement is a joke compared to this "gamist invention".

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

I hear you but i at the same time i find 5th edition allows more mobility than 4E/3.X in a sense too, by not having movement provoke an opportunity attack while still within reach.

Yep, think so, too.
Those who need to get in and out (rogue, cunning action) can if they want, others can still move in combat, and get less punishment than in the previous editions.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

I'm actually missing the "5-foot step", the most common movement for melee'rs and spellcasters in older editions.
Not so unrealistic, and easily doable in a 6-second turn, even from a realistic point of view.
Let me strain again the MMA example... nobody (mostly) is "running" around the octagon, most movement is around one square, some fighters stepping back or forth a big (3 to) 5-feet. About...
But okay, it's only 1-on-1.

And let fantasy be fantasy - it's in your mind! (Raises pendulum before your eyes... It's in your mind... It's in...)

 

[Rhenny]

I'm actually missing the "5-foot step", the most common movement for melee'rs and spellcasters in older editions.
Not so unrealistic, and easily doable in a 6-second turn, even from a realistic point of view.
Let me strain again the MMA example... nobody (mostly) is "running" around the octagon, most movement is around one square, some fighters stepping back or forth a big (3 to) 5-feet. About...
But okay, it's only 1-on-1.

And let fantasy be fantasy - it's in your mind! (Raises pendulum before your eyes... It's in your mind... It's in...)

Yes. The 5' step is something that many of my players miss. On the other hand, we all love split movement. At least with split movement, PCs and foes can move, fire missile weapons or spells and then move back to cover. This is a vast improvement.

I don't mind eliminating the 5' step because now casting in melee or firing a missile weapon in melee doesn't provoke AO. For those that want more movement, add all that back in and see how it plays.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

...
On the other hand, we all love split movement. At least with split movement, PCs and foes can move, fire missile weapons or spells and then move back to cover. This is a vast improvement.

Yes, forgot about that.
And with no limit to number of attacks, which I'm used from playing 3e/3e5/PF.

 

[Blue]

Watch any small-scale melee in the movies, in modern video games, or IRL, and you'll note that people are moving all over the place. Boxers move around the ring. Even fencers go back and forth.

What you basically never see are two people standing in one spot smacking each other. Try that in a real fight and you're going to get hurt, a lot.

But very often, despite our best efforts, that's what melee combat in D&D comes to. Once the fighter and barbarian have engaged the giant, there's nothing to be gained from a lot of shifting around (and in fact, the opportunity attack rules often discourage it).

Drawing on my limited about of time as a stickjock (sword & board) in the SCA, I see a couple of things which could be modeled mechanically. Not sure if 5e is the right vehicle for it though.

In one-on-one fights, weapon length was a big deal. If you could keep your opponent at your weapon ideal length and not theirs it was a big advantage. Note that this includes being inside someone's reach. The few times I tried a two handed sword I ended up backing up (well, in a circling back) furiously as the more skilled opponent would get inside my reach where I couldn't throw a good blow but they could.

Part of that that defies D&D is the 0' / 5' with nothing between it of a grid. We'd have to add additional granularity to both weapon lengths and movement. With Theater of the Mind it might be more reasonable to have a "give ground" or "push in" that grant modifiers based on relative weapon lengths and current distance.

Or you could go the other way - make the grid larger, and play with reach so that some weapons you needed to be in the opponent's square, some you could attack there but with a penalty but were really best if adjacent, and then the few actual reach weapons like pikes which would attack adjacent or one square away, but not in your own square. And, of course, open up moving into your opponent's square.

On the other hand, line fighting with comrades in a war was a whole different thing. You're not only defending yourself, but also those on your side. Much as the famous Roman phalanxs would take advantage of a shield wall with quick, darting weapons to go between and longer polearms to reach from the back row, this was a type of combat that relied on your fellow man and gave them advantages as well.

Perhaps the difference could be summed up in stances. (I'd love to use the phrase fighting styles, but that's already a game term.) So you could assume a protective stance that would help adjacent allies if you have a shield, and hopefully they would be doing the same. A high stance that leaves you open but lets you can ignore half cover (as granted by creatures between you like your allies) with reach weapons. A few different stances for one-on-one, possibly with weapon requirements.

 

[cmad1977]

I simply assume this is happening anyways. No Ao if you circle an enemy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk