D&D 5E Opportunity attacks : low vs high level consequences

[MoutonRustique]

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.

I would argue that this is not a feature of gridless combat - this is a feature of breaking the written rules to fit narrative. Something that can be awesome! And quite possible with a grid. For yourself, I believe, you find the grid to be /too much reality/ to allow yourself the narrative you want.

Saying that is a feature of gridless combat is akin to saying that /having/ to roll random treasure (as opposed to choosing it) is a feature of having random loot tables - it's simply the guidelines feeling, to yourself (again, IMO), to /strong/ to not use.

It is the ~unclear~ that you want. However, not all gridless combat is so. Should you happen to play with people with excellent and practiced spatial skills, gridless can be as precise as with grid - in a similar manner in which chess masters can play multiple games w/o even looking at the board (which I always find amazing!)

I don't know why I'm being so pendantic about this... I guess the level of word misuse on the boards lately has chipped away at my calm... So much princess bride going around...

 

[Jynx_lucky_j]

I would argue that this is not a feature of gridless combat - this is a feature of breaking the written rules to fit narrative. Something that can be awesome! And quite possible with a grid. For yourself, I believe, you find the grid to be /too much reality/ to allow yourself the narrative you want.

Saying that is a feature of gridless combat is akin to saying that /having/ to roll random treasure (as opposed to choosing it) is a feature of having random loot tables - it's simply the guidelines feeling, to yourself (again, IMO), to /strong/ to not use.

It is the ~unclear~ that you want. However, not all gridless combat is so. Should you happen to play with people with excellent and practiced spatial skills, gridless can be as precise as with grid - in a similar manner in which chess masters can play multiple games w/o even looking at the board (which I always find amazing!)

I don't know why I'm being so pendantic about this... I guess the level of word misuse on the boards lately has chipped away at my calm... So much princess bride going around...

You are absolutely right, you don't have to go gridless to do this. However I found that (for my groups) the players were more resistant to to being moved around the grid "arbitrarily." I think there is something about seeing exactly where you are on the map that makes it more difficult for people to abstract their positions. I think it is similar to how some people report their groups having difficulty RPing and improvising it 4th Ed. There wasn't really anything preventing you from finding new and unique uses for you powers, but having them so...defined seemed to block some people's creativity. It seems the more defined somethign is the less people wan't to see it messed with. So by keeping positions nebulous (my) players don't mind when I fiddle with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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. .

Fair enough, but completely ignoring initiative, turn, and action rules is a lot more than just 'not using da grid.' In fact, you could do all that while using a play surface, grid, hex or otherwise.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Im glad theres no lockfown 10' radius vs endless enemies anymore. A party has to use terrain and tactics to keep their line, not just plonk the supersticky defender at the front. I also prefer no grid.

 

[MoutonRustique]

You are absolutely right, you don't have to go gridless to do this. However I found that (for my groups) the players were more resistant to to being moved around the grid "arbitrarily." I think there is something about seeing exactly where you are on the map that makes it more difficult for people to abstract their positions. I think it is similar to how some people report their groups having difficulty RPing and improvising it 4th Ed. There wasn't really anything preventing you from finding new and unique uses for you powers, but having them so...defined seemed to block some people's creativity. It seems the more defined somethign is the less people wan't to see it messed with. So by keeping positions nebulous (my) players don't mind when I fiddle with it.

Well said.

I'd like to add that saying that people's trouble with a system isn't a fault of the system is, IMO, faulty. Since the audience are the people using it - if they are having trouble with it, then there is fault with the system (as a whole). It could be the presentation (I've yet to met someone who thought 4e was well marketed and managed) or some other aspect - but these are all part of the game as a whole. The exactness of 4e was a hindrance to many, and as such, it is a fault of the system. Had there been rules for TotM analogue to those of 13thAge presented in the core, it might have fared better... who knows.

Personally, there are many things I find deplorable about 5e (and also quite a few awesome things) - but I will say that it is very well presented. So well, that I, who's still on the fence about using it, is tempted to buy the PHB just for the reading experience - something too few 4e books did... Let's hope it is also well managed so that the hobby can thrive.