They can certainly try. It's not obvious to me yet how well this will work, especially against the sorts of mobs of lower-level baddies that can bring the conga lines. A lot of that is probably going to depend on initial setup; they may be better off spending those initial actions on better defensive spells.
D&D 5E Opportunity attacks : low vs high level consequences
MoutonRustique
Explorer
If the "conga-line" (someone please find a better word before we're stuck with this one! Please!) is now a tactic easily available (w/o special powers/attacks/abilities), it should be used (by those creatures that are deemed fit to know, and be capable, of it.) It is awesome, effective and logical.
That it becomes better at the higher levels is intriguing - and important to know when we shall play and design encounters. That the Fighter cannot be an effective "tank" (if that is the case) is also important to know - as IMO there is nothing worse than betrayed expectations. Should a player select the Fighter class expecting to protect their allies (in a more involved way that being first in line) and finds that her capability decreases with level, that will be a problem. If she selects Fighter for other reasons, then that is not a problem.
It may also be that the idea is to have very different play experiences as the characters progress in level - it is already true that levels 1 and 2 are much different in feel from levels 4 and 5 (you don't really need to fear a round 1 drop to 0 hp at level 5 from a "casual" encounter.)
It is also possible that the control aspect of protection has been moved in the turn sequence : if the sentinel can reduce the mobility of many foes with her many attacks during her turn, then it is simply that the way to defend has been changed. The OA then becomes more along the lines of a possibility to catch one that you missed during your turn as opposed to the main method of protection.
Since there are suggestions specifically calling out the advantage of numbers on the creature's part when building encounters - it would seem that this kind of situation has been thought of. What I'm curious about is the possible decrease in the cost of mobility as levels increase.
--
The new movement rules have drastically changed many aspects of the game - high movement mounts will be of great importance in open battlefields (which is great), frequent places to hide will be of even bigger help to rogues, the "squishies" will be very frequently the target of attacks, units capable of both ranged and melee will have myriad opportunities to harvest great benefits from good tactics, melee only units could find themselves running all over the place - possibly without hope of attacking.
I'm not sure, but I'm seeing a good deal of elements that favour player competence - I'm not sure if I like that or not yet...
That it becomes better at the higher levels is intriguing - and important to know when we shall play and design encounters. That the Fighter cannot be an effective "tank" (if that is the case) is also important to know - as IMO there is nothing worse than betrayed expectations. Should a player select the Fighter class expecting to protect their allies (in a more involved way that being first in line) and finds that her capability decreases with level, that will be a problem. If she selects Fighter for other reasons, then that is not a problem.
It may also be that the idea is to have very different play experiences as the characters progress in level - it is already true that levels 1 and 2 are much different in feel from levels 4 and 5 (you don't really need to fear a round 1 drop to 0 hp at level 5 from a "casual" encounter.)
It is also possible that the control aspect of protection has been moved in the turn sequence : if the sentinel can reduce the mobility of many foes with her many attacks during her turn, then it is simply that the way to defend has been changed. The OA then becomes more along the lines of a possibility to catch one that you missed during your turn as opposed to the main method of protection.
It will most likely not be required that they move through allies' space - they simply move one after the other. Also, I'm assuming that this narrow corridor is still wide enough to allow at least 2+ wide, otherwise, the whole thing is moot (as in all editions.)
Since there are suggestions specifically calling out the advantage of numbers on the creature's part when building encounters - it would seem that this kind of situation has been thought of. What I'm curious about is the possible decrease in the cost of mobility as levels increase.
--
The new movement rules have drastically changed many aspects of the game - high movement mounts will be of great importance in open battlefields (which is great), frequent places to hide will be of even bigger help to rogues, the "squishies" will be very frequently the target of attacks, units capable of both ranged and melee will have myriad opportunities to harvest great benefits from good tactics, melee only units could find themselves running all over the place - possibly without hope of attacking.
I'm not sure, but I'm seeing a good deal of elements that favour player competence - I'm not sure if I like that or not yet...
I think that a lot of this is moot.
In scenarios where the high level wizard is mobbed, one Shield spell will give him the time he needs to counterattack.
At high levels, the fighter no longer has to be a tank. Most PCs will have a decent AC by then and good hit points. Sure, the fighter might have a bit more, but if the fighter can handle 4 foes attacking him, the bard can handle 3 and the wizard with a shield spell up can handle at least 3 and maybe more. Lower level mobs will not hit frequently (maybe 50% max) for most PCs and their damage will be weaker. In any case, unlike 4E where it took several rounds to drop a few foes, 5E will start having foes drop starting in round one due to focused fire, novas, aoes, etc. And in scenarios like these, other classes might be doing things like bards and clerics buffing (or to a lesser extent healing).
The fighter is not as sticky, but other PCs can take care of themselves a lot more than they could at lower levels.
Problems might creep in with mixed high and low level parties of NPCs (few of the former, many of the latter), but even there, the advantage of PCs at high levels is that they have a LOT of options. NPCs tend to have few options. Just when the DM thought the PCs were in serious trouble, a PC casts a wall spell and half of the NPCs are out of the combat for a few rounds, just long enough for the PCs to mop up the other half and readjust their positions.
I don't buy that tanking less means more death for the squishier PCs at higher levels, it just means that all players have to gradually learn better tactics while they are gaining levels. Obvious things that worked pretty well at lot level might not work as well later on. Like tanking.
In scenarios where the high level wizard is mobbed, one Shield spell will give him the time he needs to counterattack.
At high levels, the fighter no longer has to be a tank. Most PCs will have a decent AC by then and good hit points. Sure, the fighter might have a bit more, but if the fighter can handle 4 foes attacking him, the bard can handle 3 and the wizard with a shield spell up can handle at least 3 and maybe more. Lower level mobs will not hit frequently (maybe 50% max) for most PCs and their damage will be weaker. In any case, unlike 4E where it took several rounds to drop a few foes, 5E will start having foes drop starting in round one due to focused fire, novas, aoes, etc. And in scenarios like these, other classes might be doing things like bards and clerics buffing (or to a lesser extent healing).
The fighter is not as sticky, but other PCs can take care of themselves a lot more than they could at lower levels.
Problems might creep in with mixed high and low level parties of NPCs (few of the former, many of the latter), but even there, the advantage of PCs at high levels is that they have a LOT of options. NPCs tend to have few options. Just when the DM thought the PCs were in serious trouble, a PC casts a wall spell and half of the NPCs are out of the combat for a few rounds, just long enough for the PCs to mop up the other half and readjust their positions.
I don't buy that tanking less means more death for the squishier PCs at higher levels, it just means that all players have to gradually learn better tactics while they are gaining levels. Obvious things that worked pretty well at lot level might not work as well later on. Like tanking.
Jynx_lucky_j
First Post
This sort of thing is exactly why I like to play without miniatures. I can keep things like movement more freeform. The fighter says he wants to keep the bad guy from getting to his squishy friends? He doesn’t need to have a special ability to do so. When someone tries to pass by him he interposes himself whether it his turn or not. A particularly nimble enemy might be able to juke him, a particularly strong one might be able to bowl through him (with appropriate checks being made), but generally speaking he can interpose himself against an enemy. Now if a dozen guys are trying to charge past him at once, obviously he can’t stop everyone, I might say something like he can interpose himself between a numbers of creature equal to his proficiency bonus assuming they are all coming from the same direction. Then of course an wide open area wear enemies can run wide around the fighter he might only be able to block one or two.
The Battle map makes everything so static. Is the fighter really going to stand there while a line of enemies conga line past him 10 feet away? Honestly the very idea of a conga line is ridiculous. And I would call bullsh*t on any DM using it. Is it the most efficient action the enemies could take? Maybe. But it is totally unrealistic. The DM is just gaming the system, rather than roleplaying the NPCs.
The Battle map makes everything so static. Is the fighter really going to stand there while a line of enemies conga line past him 10 feet away? Honestly the very idea of a conga line is ridiculous. And I would call bullsh*t on any DM using it. Is it the most efficient action the enemies could take? Maybe. But it is totally unrealistic. The DM is just gaming the system, rather than roleplaying the NPCs.
Do you do the same thing for the monsters? None of the PCs can get past a few Orcs in the front so that the witchdoctor is safe from melee attacks until late in the encounter?
What is just as unrealistic is the scenario that you described where the fighter can interpose between multiple NPCs and the rest of the PCs. From a "realistic" POV, he should be able to interpose in front of one NPC, just like the OA rules allow.
I have never seen a conga line in any version of D&D. I doubt 5E will be any different.
Who cares if some NPCs get past the fighter? There are bards or rangers or rogues or clerics or whomever who should get a chance to shine by protecting PCs behind them.
I am contemplating playing an AC 16 cleric 1 / wizard x in scale mail (and eventually a breastplate) who would often jump in the way of NPCs heading for his friends. It would never occur to me to worry that NPCs got past the fighter. That just gives my PC more opportunities to be the hero and save the day.
I think all PCs should be attacked on a fairly frequent basis. The concept of the DM creating encounters where it is easy to protect the squishier PCs just seems lame. Sure, a narrow corridor might sometimes allow for a chokepoint, but NPCs should often have multiple avenues of attack.
No. The rule that each character only gets one reaction appears to be ones the designers are holding to pretty slavishly.
Jynx_lucky_j
First Post
Oh absolutely whats good for the goose is good for the gander. However as I said there are ways around this, for example the rouge might use his acrobatics to nimbly doge past the orcs. Or the burly barbarian might try to bowl through them. Or they could, you know, pull out their bows and shoot the bastard.
What is just as unrealistic is the scenario that you described where the fighter can interpose between multiple NPCs and the rest of the PCs. From a "realistic" POV, he should be able to interpose in front of one NPC, just like the OA rules allow.
I have never seen a conga line in any version of D&D. I doubt 5E will be any different.
Who cares if some NPCs get past the fighter? There are bards or rangers or rogues or clerics or whomever who should get a chance to shine by protecting PCs behind them.
I am contemplating playing an AC 16 cleric 1 / wizard x in scale mail (and eventually a breastplate) who would often jump in the way of NPCs heading for his friends. It would never occur to me to worry that NPCs got past the fighter. That just gives my PC more opportunities to be the hero and save the day.
I think all PCs should be attacked on a fairly frequent basis. The concept of the DM creating encounters where it is easy to protect the squishier PCs just seems lame. Sure, a narrow corridor might sometimes allow for a chokepoint, but NPCs should often have multiple avenues of attack.
I should have specified I was talking speaking of tight quarters, like in a dungeon environment. That was my fault for not being clear. Though I did contrast it to wider space later on. Anyways, I'm no Warrior but I think if I was in a 10 wide hall and a dozen guys tried to run past me I could stop more than just 1 guy. Although I'm probably being unrealistically generous with the number of enemies a person could stop. Though for my games I'm not trying to emulate realism. I'm trying to emulate heroic fiction of the type that inspired D&D, which is full of examples of heroes single handedly holding off hordes of enemies at choke points wider than 5 feet. But of course what is good for my group isn't necessarily good for every group. I'm just putting my method out there for other who might think it is a good match for their games as well.
I just find that (for my group) adjusting movement and position dynamically turn by turn in response to each persons actions makes for a better narrative. For example, If I'm trying to engage and enemy so I move towards him on my turn, oh I'm 5 feet short. Then on his turn he just steps a couples squares to the right and walks around me to engage my friend. Considering that in "reality" we aren't taking turns in combat and this is all pretty much happening at the same time I can see the trajectory he is moving in and adjust my own trajectory to meet in the middle. This is why I like gridless combat, so I can adjuticate based on descriptions and intentions, rather that placement on a grid. My personal preference.
Tony Vargas
Legend
How, exactly does that work any better with gridless - but still turn-based - combat? You move towards him, you can't quite reach him, he goes around you. 5e, for instance, still gives you movement and distances in feet - you can't reach someone because you don't have enough movement, he's not in your reach, he won't provoke as he edges around you.
What you'd really want to do is realize you can't get close enough, and ready to charge when he starts forward. You're doing exactly what you describe (adjusting 'trajectory') within the granularity of the system. You could do that in 4e or even 3e (assuming conveniently unobstructed straight-line charge path). You couldn't do it in most of the 5e playtests, for want of a charge option...
Jynx_lucky_j
First Post
Since everything is happening at (generally) the same time, When the player moves I would describe him as falling short on the move. I would simply say that the player moves towards the enemy. Then on the enemies torn I would describe him as running towards the wizard however the fighter turns and intercepts him forcing him to face the fighter instead. The fighter still doesn't get to attack (he used both his actions getting over there) but neither did he stand there while the enemy ran past him.
I should expand, in my games no ones turn is really over until the round is over. You turn represent the proactive actions you take in the round, but you can still react to the occurrences on anothers turn in a limited fashion. Heres and example from a couple sessions ago in the Starter Set. The rouge was hit by a wolf and tripped. Then a second wolf came in to attack him while he was down. While it was still the second wolf's turn he described himself as scurrying backwards and kicking at the wolves to keep them at bay. I rolled the attack, the second wolf missed. So I describe both wolves chasing after the rouge nipping at his heels as scurried back. This changed the positions of both the wolves and the rogue.
Similar Threads
