• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E New Action Type for more cooperative battles

Shiroiken

Legend
But the main problem is that no matter how I handle initiative, my players don't ever talk in terms of working together or strategy. They are focused on hitting the enemies, and that's it.
Found your problem. No matter what system you use, if the players just focus on what THEY want to do, the problem will remain. My group uses strategy and tactics in every combat, so I have the opposite issue. No one ever fights alone; if someone gets ganked from behind, at least one other PC will adjust to provide aid. Even when I've forcefully pulled them apart, I've seen the sorceress completely ignore her two enemies to drop flaming death down upon a group of enemies that were already hurt (focus fire is their favorite strategy). You get he idea.

I think before you begin some massive rule change, I'd talk to the players about it. It might be that they don't actually care about tactics or working together (everyone's a batman/hulk/wolverine type). It might be that they don't know how, and you could teach them. It might bet that they think they are using tactics, and you need to have the monsters show them how it's done. Another possibility is that 5E combat isn't for you, and there's nothing wrong with that (that's where either a massive house rule or changing games comes in).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer
Found your problem. No matter what system you use, if the players just focus on what THEY want to do, the problem will remain. My group uses strategy and tactics in every combat, so I have the opposite issue. No one ever fights alone; if someone gets ganked from behind, at least one other PC will adjust to provide aid. Even when I've forcefully pulled them apart, I've seen the sorceress completely ignore her two enemies to drop flaming death down upon a group of enemies that were already hurt (focus fire is their favorite strategy). You get he idea.

I think before you begin some massive rule change, I'd talk to the players about it. It might be that they don't actually care about tactics or working together (everyone's a batman/hulk/wolverine type). It might be that they don't know how, and you could teach them. It might bet that they think they are using tactics, and you need to have the monsters show them how it's done. Another possibility is that 5E combat isn't for you, and there's nothing wrong with that (that's where either a massive house rule or changing games comes in).

Ok, I think I've painted an unfair picture of my current group that I run (though it is an accurate picture of groups I've run in the past). My current gaming group does often use tactics and are not generally just hit and repeat. But there is a lull in engagement between turns, and I also feel there could be improvements to make the combats in D&D feel more dynamic. I think this is one way to do that. This is not a system for everyone or every table. But I am also the kind of DM that likes to innovate, and I like to provide my players with options. It could be that I implement this system and none of the players use it. If that's how they do, then fine. I'm not the kind of DM that will beat players over the head. But I do think this has the potential to increase the fun and engagement players at my table have, and I think it is a good enough idea to share with others who may feel the same way.
 

Satyrn

First Post
Hey [MENTION=59848]Hawk Diesel[/MENTION], I'm wondering if at this point you appreciate that I opened up my first post with an encouraging word of support for you plan before offering up an alternative.

(Though I notice I forgot to say that, because my group initiative is a single ready to use change, I was offering up my alternative as a sort of stopgap experiment to try while you polished up your rules module, )
 


ad_hoc

(they/them)
So I have a gripe about 5e. For all of the great things about it, combat is rather static. There is little ability to work cooperatively in combat or tactically.

I have a very different experience of the game than you.

I think this might be more group dependant than system.
 

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer
I have a very different experience of the game than you.

I think this might be more group dependant than system.

I would argue that 95% of all homebrew material/game changes suggested and posted on this site is more group dependent than system related because

1) Very few posters on this board are professional game designers and

2) Every table is different.

Anyways, I just read an article by the Angry GM that is poignant to me working on these changes. Anyone interested can find it here: http://theangrygm.com/why-are-you-doing-this/

Basically, it breaks down that game changes need to have clear reasons for what you are trying to accomplish, understanding that changes can have wise reaching and unexpected consequences on complexity, cognitive load, balance, and the article provides a guide of questions to reflect upon as you work on the change and determine if it's needed and if so how to successfully implement it.

So I thought I might clarify some things.

Problem As I See It:

#1: The turn based system as I experience it is too static. It offers structure to make combat clear, balanced, and ordered as opposed to the chaos of real combat. The difficulty, as I see it, is that because the structure is fairly rigid, there are very few ways to act outside of your turn. I understand this is likely by design, but the structure can feel too rigid. In my experience as a player I can become bored when not my turn or when I am not being targeted. Between turns players have the opportunity to think or plan their next move, as well as communicate with other players. But outside of reactions, which are triggered only under specific circumstances, the player character may as well be a statue when their turn is over. I envision the giant chess board in Harry Potter, where the Knight moves to the the pawn, and each piece remains still while the knight destroys the pawn, only to become a statue once another piece begins to move.

#2: Outside of spells, the help action, or class abilities like Bardic Inspiration, there are few ways that allow a player to support the action of another player while that player is acting. Most action/skill/ability types focus on what your character can do. It is difficult for players to combine attacks to achieve results that may be greater than the sum of their parts. I am reminded of the teamwork feats in later 3.5 that allowed an approach for party members to develop idiosyncratic ways for your team to work together. Examples of this are the Fastball Special from X-Men (Colossus throwing Wolverine) or the way attacks can be combined in anime (Seven Deadly Sins has examples of this).

My Goal:

#1 I would like to change the flow of combat to make it more fluid while maintaining some structure.

#2 I would like to create more support for characters to work together in combat without stealing the spotlight from the player who is acting in the turn.

Given this, I understand that the change I proposed in my original post increases complexity and cognitive load during combat. I also understand that I have not considered the farther reaching impact this change may have on the game as a whole, as well as game balance.

So my goal in posting this is to help me consider that which I have not already considered, as well as to refine the mechanics.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Supporter
There was a recent discussion here on changing how initiative is handled (can I find the thread? no... :( ).

Anyway the gist of it was that everyone declared their actions for the upcoming round (basically what they would like to do) and so some planning can occur because player B might say that when player does something they'll do this other thing. Then initiative happens (though it might have been based on intelligence... really wishing I'd saved a copy now... ) and the action is played out with people making adjustments to their actions as things happen in unexpected order. It seemed quite cool and I've really slaughtered it with my poor recollection.

Hopefully someone will remember which thread it was?

Found it finally: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...verybody-resolves-WAS-Simultaneous-Initiative
 
Last edited:

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer
So I've thought about this and I've considered a lot of the feedback I've received. I appreciate much of the feedback regarding the various initiative systems that people utilize to make their combats feel more dynamic. However, I still feel like each of those systems leaves out of the equation more concrete ways or opportunities for players to help each other out or combine their efforts in ways that create new results. I also agree with many of the critics about creating a new action type, as it can have wide ranging impacts on action economy. Suddenly there is the question if monsters and NPCs can do these actions, and how would this complicate/slow down combat.

And so I've decided to make each of these use a player's reaction. This has the benefit of increasing options for reactions (which are rather limited without feats or special abilities), while maintaining current action economy.

New Types of Reactions

Battlefield Mobility: As a reaction, at the end of an enemy's turn you can move up to your speed. If you have already gone this round and have any leftover movement from your turn, you can also use it during this reaction. This movement may draw attacks of opportunity as normal.

Save Yourselves! (Name needs work): You can position yourself to assist your ally to help them get out of combat. When an ally attempts to move out of an enemy's reach, you can use your reaction move up to your speed and make an opposed Athletics or Acrobatics check against that enemy if they are within 5' of you. The enemy gets to choose if they will use Athletics or Acrobatics. If you succeed, that enemy cannot make attacks of opportunity until the start of your next turn.

Running Interference: You can move with an ally and provide cover for them. When an ally that is within 5' begins moving, you can move with them. Moving with your ally in this way allows you to take any attacks of opportunity that would normally be directed at your ally. If you move more than your base speed during this action, you take one level of exhaustion for every multiple of your base movement speed you cover in total distance (i.e. 1 level of exhaustion if you move more than your base speed, 2 levels of exhaustion if you move more than twice your base speed, ect).

Class Specific Battlefield Actions

Barbarian

Tactical Meat Shield (Name needs work): When an ally is hit with an attack or fails a saving throw that specifically targets them, you can use your reaction to move up to your speed towards them. If you are within 5' of your ally by the end of this movement, you can force yourself in the path of the attack or effect. You become the target of the effect and automatically take any damage and are subject to any effects resulting from the attack.

Reasoning: Barbarians are usually the toughest hombres around. They can take blows that others couldn't survive. Also, until higher levels, you need to be receiving damage or making attacks to sustain your rage. This provides one more way to make sure your rage does not end prematurely, especially if you are facing foes at a range.

Bard

Tactical Spell Enchantment: When an ally within 60' of you casts a spell or uses an ability that targets an enemy, as a reaction you can use one of your spell slots to make your ally's spell or ability more likely to take effect. Divide the level of the spell slot you sacrificed by two (round up). You add this value to your ally’s DC or Attack Bonus.

Reasoning: Bards are all about party support anyways, and there is some question whether Bards should even be full casters. This gives Bards a new way to use their spells to support the team without having to only rely on Bardic Inspiration. Also, this mechanic seems to be inline with Bardic Inspiration, at least in spirit.

Cleric

Tactical Healer: After an ally has taken damage, been reduced to 0 hit points, or made a Death Saving Throw, as a reaction you can move up to your speed and cast a spell to heal this ally. You can only cast spells from the following list using this reaction: Spare the Dying, Cure Wounds, Sanctuary, Aid, Lesser Restoration, Revivify, Greater Restoration, Heal, Resurrection, and True Resurrection.

Reasoning: I know there are many ways to provide healing and support in 5e to the extent that people compare it to a game a whack-a-mole. But I also have a sense that when a cleric has to use their action to heal, it is not always necessarily their choice but rather an obligation or something they must do because of their role. While it does bring more power to healing potential, it also allows clerics to continue to fight on the front lines while maintaining their position as the party healer.

Druid

Tactical Protection: When an ally within 60' of you is targeted by an attack or spell effect, you can use a reaction sacrifice a spell slot in order to raise protective magic around your ally. Divide the level of the spell slot you sacrificed by two (round up). You add this value to your ally’s AC or Saving Throw Bonus. You can use spells in this way even while you are in Wildshape.

Reasoning: The way I see it, if Clerics are the party healers, Wizards are the artillery, and Sorcerers are the shapers/artists of magic, Druids are the protectors. Their very identity is to protect nature and balance.

Fighter

Tactical Assist: You can strike at enemies to draw their attention, lowering their guard and creating openings for your allies. When an ally makes an attack against an enemy, as a reaction you can move up to your speed and make an attack on that enemy. If the attack is successful, they take no damage. Instead, the next attack to strike this target is made with advantage.

Reasoning: Similar to the Rogue's tactical sneak attack. There are things that make me uncertain about this though, especially in comparison to the Rogue's Tactical Sneak Attack. The Tactical Sneak Attack provides a bonus that can increase as the rogue level's up. On the other hand, the Fighter's Tactical Assist ability can make a critical hit more likely to happen.

Rogue

Tactical Sneak Attack: You can use your sneak attack to make an enemy easier to hit for your allies. During your BFA (Battlefield Action), you can move up to you speed and make an attack on an enemy. If the attack is successful, they take no damage, but are crippled in a way that makes them easier to hit. The next attack made against the target gains a bonus equal to half your sneak attack dice (rounded up).

Reasoning: Allows sneak attack to be used in a new and unique way to assist the party. I feel like this would be the gold standard for a class specific TA that does not require a resource expenditure such as those that require the use of spell slots to use.

Sorcerer

Tactical Metamagic: When an ally casts a spell within 60' of you, you can use your sorcery points to alter your ally's spell with metamagic. As a reaction you can spend the sorcery point cost and apply a metamagic effect you know on your ally's spell.

A sorcerer may attempt to apply metamagic effects to non-spells at the DM’S discretion.

Reasoning: Provides more flexibility to sorcerers regarding how they can use their metamagic, which I think is a good thing. My main problem, though, is how it can be applied to non-spellcasters. Additionally, unlike the other abilities listed, this is not available to the sorcerer from level 1.

Wizard

Energy Conduit: When an ally who is within 60' of you makes a successful attack or spell attack, you can use your reaction to use one of your spell slots to make your ally's attack more deadly. For each level of spell slot you sacrificed, your ally can add one additional die of damage of the same damage type to the attack’s damage.

Reasoning: When I think of classic wizards, I think of fireballs and enchanting weapons to be more deadly. So this seemed fitting to me.

Additional Thoughts for other class design

Paladin: I'm thinking they could maybe put their divine smite ability over someone else's attack. Only problem with this, though, is that it is very similar to the Wizard ability.

Artificer, Monk, Mystic, Warlock, Ranger: I have no idea for any of these. Any help anyone could provide would be welcome.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top