D&D 5E Optional Combat Rules from the DMG - yay or nay?

[77IM]

Yeah, marking needs some cost or risk to counterbalance it.

I'd give the target creature advantage on all attack rolls against you for as long as your mark lasts. This also reflects one of the effects of the 4E mark; it gives an incentive for the victim to attack their harasser. This may be imbalanced against the barbarian's Reckless Attack, though; maybe a flat bonus would be better. I am not sure.

 

[Lanliss]

Yeah, marking needs some cost or risk to counterbalance it.

I'd give the target creature advantage on all attack rolls against you for as long as your mark lasts. This also reflects one of the effects of the 4E mark; it gives an incentive for the victim to attack their harasser. This may be imbalanced against the barbarian's Reckless Attack, though; maybe a flat bonus would be better. I am not sure.

I would make it two way (or is it already?") by having it so nether of them can attack others easily.

 

[happyhermit]

I have used the Cleaving rules and they were fine.

To your question of whether or not adding all those rules in will slow down your game, maybe. It depends on you and your players, some people find making rulings up for things covered there to be a better option, others need some hard coded rules. For some people more hard coded choices can worsen analysis paralysis, and "only can do what the book/character sheet says I can do-itis".

I wouldn't be afraid to try them and find out though, they are not going to ruin your game if you are the kind of GM to actually consider whether or not to add them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Are they interesting, are they balanced, will they slow my game down?

I gave them a read but aren't using any of them.

I have changed hp recovery however, but not to any specific DMG variant. My rule is that long rests give back all your hit dice, but no actual hit points.

Most of those rules will slow you down and not add much value to the game. But don't take my word for it - you really need to experience that for yourself.

Perhaps you should hold off if you have a large group, however. Try them out in a smaller adventure with just three players.

 

[Grusom]

In my group we started playing with Flanking rules, but decided to not use them after running through one campaign with them.
First it almost always helps the players more than the DM. Since often they outnumber what they are fighting. Second it makes spells and abilities that provide advantage be less usefull.
It also makes makes feats like GreatWeaponMaster or SharpShooter stronger since you now have a much higher chance of actually hitting your target.

Other combat options the dm just normally makes the PCs do a skill check or opposed ability check.

We also use some other house rules, like not getting hp back for a long rest, just hitdice.

 

[The_Gneech]

Yeah, I wouldn't mess with flanking. Its meaningful effects are pretty well rolled into sneak attack and/or the Help action already, and for everything else it's just another modifier grinding down play speed.

-The Gneech

 

[BookBarbarian]

Most of these maneuvers are in-line with the general guidelines for balanced improvised maneuvers:

1. If you spend an action but make no check, you can get some advantage or impose some disadvantage. Examples: Help, Dodge.

2. If you spend an action AND make an opposed skill check, you can create MULTIPLE advantages/disadvantages. Examples: Grapple, Shove, Hide.
​

In general, improvised maneuvers shouldn't be any more powerful than this. Because if they were, people would do them ALL THE TIME, and they would no longer be improvised maneuvers -- they would just be, the maneuvers.

In non-general, unusual circumstances may allow more powerful maneuvers, or even just grant advantage/disadvantage straight up. This encourages people to play creatively and take advantage of the situation.

This is a great analysis and summary.

I like many others in this thread do not recommend using the flanking rules. The make the level 3 Wolf Totem Barbarian ability completely useless.

 

[Prakriti]

Facing makes combat more interesting on a grid, but it can bog things down. In AD&D, you pretty much have to re-calculate your AC for every attack, because you don't benefit from Dexterity when attacked from behind, your shield only covers your front and left flank, etc.

I thought I would miss facing and flanking when I switched to 5E, but I don't. Oddly, the fewer options there are, the funner combat seems to be. I think that's because your turn comes around a lot more frequently, because people finish their turns sooner.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Oddly, the fewer options there are, the funner combat seems to be. I think that's because your turn comes around a lot more frequently, because people finish their turns sooner.

I agree with this. It's awful watching one of my players eyes glaze over while somebody else takes a long time with their turn.

 

[Motorskills]

Thanks everyone, good food for thought!