D&D 5E Roshambo-Style Theatre of the Mind Combat

[volanin]

I am finding this mental style especially useful for my near future setting.

I use real Google and Bing maps. The highest resolution for the buildings and so on is still about one magnitude too small to use as a grid. But to divide the areas up into zones, and then use mental style, works out awesome.

Let me know how it goes!
=)

Conceptually I really love this idea. I like TotM combat, but it often suffers for being a little too simplistic. Your core idea adds some interesting complexity and decision-making without worrying about grid placements.

A few comments/questions:
- How exactly does Engage "win" over Dash? Just that Dash provokes an AoO? It doesn't prevent Dash, though, right?

You're right, it wins because Dashing while Engaged provokes an AoO from every creature you're Engaged with.

By default, being Engaged with a creature does not prevent Dashing, because this locks down combat too much, which is the opposite dynamic that this system is trying to achieve. But you could easily add this ability to some monsters, like Giant Frogs being able to pull a Dashing creature back into Engagement with their tongues. Used sparringly, this does make combat more interesting (and ranged attackers more dangerous).

- Because the roshambo happens between multiple units, is there a danger that as A counters B, and C counters B, and D counters C, the team with the most players "wins".

The way the system is designed, the counters don't cascade like this, so this is a non-issue.
The "deepest cascading counter count" is 2:

1. Creature A Dashes into Creature B to avoid the possibility of being Intercepted (Dash counters Intercept).
2. But before that, Creature A is attacked (AoO) by Creature C because it was Engaged with it (Engaged counters Dash).

The AoO can't be Intercepted, since you only Intercept engagements and not attacks.

- It seems like the trickiest part of this is that many of the rules it dispenses with (e.g. movement rates) are integral to many spells and abilities. You've addressed some of those options, but to cover every case would start to bog down your otherwise simple and elegant rules with tons of fine print (wouldn't it?) or risk accidentally nerfing some classes. Or am I imagining problems that don't exist.

Actually, I find that converting the movements rates and the various distances of spells and other powers makes the game simpler and faster, without making it shallower.

One of the great benefits of Grid Combat is avoiding the "mother may I?" characteristic so prevalent in TotM games. You just look at the Grid, see that you're X squares away from an enemy, and you instantly know if a power reaches the enemy or not. You don't have to ask your DM; as soon as your turn comes, you just do it. And this is really impossible in TotM when one spell has 30ft. range, another has 40ft. range, yet another has 50ft. range, and the DM has to adjudicate what is able to reach the enemy and what isn't...

With the distance/movement simplification, it's extremely easy to bring this Grid Combat advantage into TotM Combat, and things just fly when players get used to it. Power is Near Range and can affect 3 targets? Just choose 3 enemies in your own combat zone and blast away!

Of course some nuances from some select powers are lost in translation. Some powers play slightly different and indeed some tactics that work in Grid Combat won't be as effective in TotM Combat. But the opposite is also true... and awesome. Expecting them to play exactly the same just shots down the strong aspects of both Combat styles!

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

After using this system for several sessions and many mock tests, I am pleased to say it works exactly as advertised for my group. Combats are faster. There's less confusion about positioning. I don't have turns slowed down as players count out their movement trying to avoid OA's. AoE spells are a lot easier to handle, faster, and more effective.

As the DM I have enjoyed the benefits immensely, and it has actually helped to mitigate some elements I always found difficult to manage without making any player feel ganged up on. With Grid play, ranged type characters (predominantly archers and mages in my games) enjoyed a hefty advantage of always been far from the fight. Even though I include enemies with ranged attacks and magic users in near every combat, it is still very easy to use a grid to effectively deny line of sight on most turns. Lost of stuff to hide behind in most battlefields. In order to present harder challenges, I would need to make almost every threat they faced be highly mobile or have powerful ranged abilities, which if you look in the monster manual many creatures just do not have.

By using this TotM system, I can have enemies break off and rush any character in the heat of battle. There's defender types who Intercept to protect their archer allies, but there's only so many they can bog down. It has helped to make even swarms of weaker enemies feel more threatening. A mob of goblins ordered by a hobgoblin leader to take out the "finger wiggler" all rush around the front line, and a few still get through to harass the wizard.

I admit some of my players didn't like the extra attention at first, but they quickly got used to it, and even started looking at their abilities and spells to plan out defensive strategies.

I'm sure a better DM may have been able to make things challenging even using Grid, but at least for myself, the Roshambo-Style TotM is now my go to.

(Plus, I suck at drawing maps anyway, and there's less need using TotM, so it's a win/win!)

 

[volanin]

After using this system for several sessions and many mock tests, I am pleased to say it works exactly as advertised for my group. Combats are faster. There's less confusion about positioning. I don't have turns slowed down as players count out their movement trying to avoid OA's. AoE spells are a lot easier to handle, faster, and more effective.

As the DM I have enjoyed the benefits immensely, and it has actually helped to mitigate some elements I always found difficult to manage without making any player feel ganged up on. With Grid play, ranged type characters (predominantly archers and mages in my games) enjoyed a hefty advantage of always been far from the fight. Even though I include enemies with ranged attacks and magic users in near every combat, it is still very easy to use a grid to effectively deny line of sight on most turns. Lost of stuff to hide behind in most battlefields. In order to present harder challenges, I would need to make almost every threat they faced be highly mobile or have powerful ranged abilities, which if you look in the monster manual many creatures just do not have.

By using this TotM system, I can have enemies break off and rush any character in the heat of battle. There's defender types who Intercept to protect their archer allies, but there's only so many they can bog down. It has helped to make even swarms of weaker enemies feel more threatening. A mob of goblins ordered by a hobgoblin leader to take out the "finger wiggler" all rush around the front line, and a few still get through to harass the wizard.

I admit some of my players didn't like the extra attention at first, but they quickly got used to it, and even started looking at their abilities and spells to plan out defensive strategies.

I'm sure a better DM may have been able to make things challenging even using Grid, but at least for myself, the Roshambo-Style TotM is now my go to.

(Plus, I suck at drawing maps anyway, and there's less need using TotM, so it's a win/win!)

Thanks a lot for the great feedback! I really appreciate it.
By the way, it's was so nice, that could I bother you to post this very text as a DM's Guild review?

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Thanks a lot for the great feedback! I really appreciate it.
By the way, it's was so nice, that could I bother you to post this very text as a DM's Guild review?

Done

 

[Guest 6801328]

A couple clarifications, please:

1) So normally in order to Intercept you have to be unengaged. Does this mean you cannot Intercept if engaged, or that you will provoke an Attack of Opportunity if you do? (If the latter, seems like a great opportunity to tweak a class ability or Feat.)

2) "You can still make Opportunity Attacks against a creature that you Intercepted, if it breaks the engagement with you on the same turn." How would it break the engagement on the same turn? Hasn't it already used its Action to engage (or try to engage) somebody, which is what you used your reaction on? Or is this to cover edge cases, such as if the creature has Action Surge or something like it?

3) How does this change, if at all, the (controversial) ranged Rogue strategy of using bonus action to Hide after every shot? Once the rogue is Engaged with whatever he's hiding behind, does he simply keep the engagement, so nothing changes?

Also, one suggestion: "But if you have a Class Feature that allows you to Dash as a Bonus Action, you're still able to Dash normally by using an Action instead." Doesn't this just mean that Movement Advantage/Disadvantage works like regular Advantage/Disadvantage? That is, the same kind don't stack, and if you have one of each they cancel? I guess you don't technically call class abilities "Movement Advantage" but couldn't you? In other words:
- Call class abilities "Movement Advantage"
- Add language "Like normal Advantage, Movement Advantage does not stack. However, if you have it once from a class or racial ability, and once from a magical effect, then..."
- Add language to the Disadvantage section: "As with normal Advantage, if you have Movement Advantage from any source it cancels Movement Disadvantage."

P.S. I have not yet actually tried this, but the more I read it and think about it, the more impressed I am. I would love to see this get adopted/treated in a UA, and eventually become official. As I alluded to above, it would be interesting/fun to go through abilities and feats and tweak them to accommodate these rules, in the sense of giving extra goodies instead of just being redundant. For example, "Mobile" gives extra movement, but that suddenly becomes less useful for anybody who already has a movement boost. Could "Sentinel" also use a tweak?

 

[volanin]

A couple clarifications, please:

1) So normally in order to Intercept you have to be unengaged. Does this mean you cannot Intercept if engaged, or that you will provoke an Attack of Opportunity if you do? (If the latter, seems like a great opportunity to tweak a class ability or Feat.)

As written, if you're Engaged, you cannot Intercept at all; you're too busy fighting another creature. But the real reason for this is purely mechanical, in order to avoid cascading effects. Imagine a creature trying to Intercept a player (using a Reaction out of turn), and to do that it breaks engagement, triggering Opportunity Attacks from many other players (even more Reactions out of turn)... with enough combatants, it cascades into insanity!

D&D already has a messy situation like this, when many combatants try to cast Counterspell at a Counterspell at a Counterspell! It might be fun when it happens, but that's because it almost never happens. With Interception, this cascading effect could happen every round, and this would slow down the game to a craw...

2) "You can still make Opportunity Attacks against a creature that you Intercepted, if it breaks the engagement with you on the same turn." How would it break the engagement on the same turn? Hasn't it already used its Action to engage (or try to engage) somebody, which is what you used your reaction on? Or is this to cover edge cases, such as if the creature has Action Surge or something like it?

A creature only has to spend an Action to Engage with an additional player. If it's currently unengaged, it can Engage with you as part of its movement. On the same vein, it can break the engagement with you just by stating that it's moving away (retreating).

In play: "You're protecting the princess, when suddenly the Dark Elf rushes toward your direction with the intention of Engaging with the princess as part of his movement. You Interrupt the Dark Elf (by spending your Reaction) and force him to become Engaged with you instead. But the Dark Elf is determined to risk his life, so he dances around you to reach the princess, breaking the engagement (you already spent your Reaction, but since he broke the engagement in the same turn you Intercepted, you can make an Opportunity Attack). Your attack almost kills the Dark Elf, but it was not enough... he is near the princess and finally Engages her (you're out of Reactions so you can't Intercept again). Using his Action, he attacks with a poisoned dagger..."

3) How does this change, if at all, the (controversial) ranged Rogue strategy of using bonus action to Hide after every shot? Once the rogue is Engaged with whatever he's hiding behind, does he simply keep the engagement, so nothing changes?

It doesn't change this strategy at all. But whatever Combat style you're using, I believe this conundrum has already been tackled by Mike Mearls: once the Rogue shots, he reveals its position to the target, and Hiding again in the same spot has no effect. The rogue only gets the benefit of Hiding again if the situation changes (he Hides somewhere else, the lights go out, the creature gets distracted somehow, etc...)

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In my personal opition, Hide and Search should never have been part of Actions In Combat in the first place. They should have been classified as Unusual Actions instead, like dropping a pillar on the enemy's head, or lassoing its legs... things that are more dependent on DM's adjudication than on exact rules. It's just an opinion though, let me not digress any further!

Also, one suggestion: "But if you have a Class Feature that allows you to Dash as a Bonus Action, you're still able to Dash normally by using an Action instead." Doesn't this just mean that Movement Advantage/Disadvantage works like regular Advantage/Disadvantage? That is, the same kind don't stack, and if you have one of each they cancel? I guess you don't technically call class abilities "Movement Advantage" but couldn't you? In other words:
- Call class abilities "Movement Advantage"
- Add language "Like normal Advantage, Movement Advantage does not stack. However, if you have it once from a class or racial ability, and once from a magical effect, then..."
- Add language to the Disadvantage section: "As with normal Advantage, if you have Movement Advantage from any source it cancels Movement Disadvantage."

There are three kinds of movement modifications in play:

- Permament Movement Increases (from Class Features and Feats).
- Temporary Movement Increases
- Temporary Movement Reductions

The temporary ones were called Movement Advantage/Disadvantage, and they cancel each other. They represent the same kind of temporary situational Advantages/Disadvantages that are already well known in play. Naming something that is permanent to your character as Movement Advantage didn't sit well with me... but I might indeed review this terminology in the future.

P.S. I have not yet actually tried this, but the more I read it and think about it, the more impressed I am. I would love to see this get adopted/treated in a UA, and eventually become official. As I alluded to above, it would be interesting/fun to go through abilities and feats and tweak them to accommodate these rules, in the sense of giving extra goodies instead of just being redundant. For example, "Mobile" gives extra movement, but that suddenly becomes less useful for anybody who already has a movement boost. Could "Sentinel" also use a tweak?

Thanks a lot!
About the Feats, it's easy to adapt them, keeping them relevant:


Mobile
1. Your speed increases by 10 feet.
2. When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn’t cost you extra movement on that turn.
3. When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.

I'd rule that:

1. You can now Dash as a Bonus Action (after all, it's a Class Feature or Feat that permanently increses your speed)
2. Difficult Terrain no longer gives you Movement Disadvantage.
3. No change.


Sentinel
1. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
2. Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
3. When a creature within melee range of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn’t have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

Becomes:

1. No change (with speed 0, the creature cannot Engage, nor Dash, nor Intercept... I still have to make this clearer on the PDF).
2. No change.
3. No change.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As written, if you're Engaged, you cannot Intercept at all; you're too busy fighting another creature. But the real reason for this is purely mechanical, in order to avoid cascading effects. Imagine a creature trying to Intercept a player (using a Reaction out of turn), and to do that it breaks engagement, triggering Opportunity Attacks from many other players (even more Reactions out of turn)... with enough combatants, it cascades into insanity!

D&D already has a messy situation like this, when many combatants try to cast Counterspell at a Counterspell at a Counterspell! It might be fun when it happens, but that's because it almost never happens. With Interception, this cascading effect could happen every round, and this would slow down the game to a craw...

Hmmm. I don't think I like this. If the only rationale for a rule is that its absence would sometimes lead to complexity, I don't think that's a good reason. The worst case is that one reaction (Intercept) triggers a whole bunch of AoO's, and that's where the "chain reaction" stops. It's not like Counterspell in that it ping-pongs around. Also, somebody engaged with a lot of enemies would most likely not make that trade-off. So it's an edge case.

Now, if you wanted to argue that it's too powerful to Intercept while engaged, or that it's not realistic to Intercept while engaged, that would be more persuasive.

Conclusion: I'd probably leave it as "If you Intercept you break current Engagements" and let the player decide if he/she wants to trigger AoOs.

Mobile
1. Your speed increases by 10 feet.
2. When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn’t cost you extra movement on that turn.
3. When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.

I'd rule that:

1. You can now Dash as a Bonus Action (after all, it's a Class Feature or Feat that permanently increses your speed)
2. Difficult Terrain no longer gives you Movement Disadvantage.
3. No change.


Sentinel
1. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
2. Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
3. When a creature within melee range of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn’t have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

Becomes:

1. No change (with speed 0, the creature cannot Engage, nor Dash, nor Intercept... I still have to make this clearer on the PDF).
2. No change.
3. No change.

On the Feats I wasn't so much asking how they can be made work in the simplest way possible, but rather how they could be an opportunity to do something fun.

For example, the 10' bonus to Mobility is a lot less attractive if you already have a movement bonus from another source. So maybe ditch that feature and swap in something specific to your rules.

 

[volanin]

Hmmm. I don't think I like this. If the only rationale for a rule is that its absence would sometimes lead to complexity, I don't think that's a good reason. The worst case is that one reaction (Intercept) triggers a whole bunch of AoO's, and that's where the "chain reaction" stops. It's not like Counterspell in that it ping-pongs around. Also, somebody engaged with a lot of enemies would most likely not make that trade-off. So it's an edge case.

Now, if you wanted to argue that it's too powerful to Intercept while engaged, or that it's not realistic to Intercept while engaged, that would be more persuasive.
Conclusion: I'd probably leave it as "If you Intercept you break current Engagements" and let the player decide if he/she wants to trigger AoOs.

Well, it's only my opinion, of course:

1. I really don't agree that it sometimes lead to complexity.
Personally, I think it would lead to a slow down way too often for my comfort.

2. Breaking engagement to Intercept in exchange for an OA feels the same as breaking engagement to Dash in exchange for an OA.
This really annoys me, because the Engage wins over Dash proposition would lose its meaning.

3. It diminishes the tactical choices available.
Intercept is a strong move, and it demands you to choose between being ready to Intercept or being Engaged. If you can break engagement to Intercept at any moment, this decision becomes void, as it's much more advantageous to be Engaged all the time.

Default cop-out answer: In the end, you can always choose what you want to fit your game better. These rules are not authoritative.
Maybe there is indeed a better solution to this, but personally, I don't quite like breaking engagement to Intercept very much.

 

[pehaimi]

Thanks, very interesting rules. How about this optional rule:

Flanking: If two or more allies are engaged with a single opponent
and they do not have other engagements, they are considered flanking and gain
advantage to their attacks.

One can avoid being flanked by engaging with terrain features, such as walls or
pillars or, if your allies engage the attackers.

What do you think?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, it's only my opinion, of course:

1. I really don't agree that it sometimes lead to complexity.
Personally, I think it would lead to a slow down way too often for my comfort.

2. Breaking engagement to Intercept in exchange for an OA feels the same as breaking engagement to Dash in exchange for an OA.
This really annoys me, because the Engage wins over Dash proposition would lose its meaning.

3. It diminishes the tactical choices available.
Intercept is a strong move, and it demands you to choose between being ready to Intercept or being Engaged. If you can break engagement to Intercept at any moment, this decision becomes void, as it's much more advantageous to be Engaged all the time.

How do you choose being ready to Intercept? Doesn't that require you to Disengage (giving up your turn just in case there's a chance to Intercept), and then hope no enemies engage with you before there's a chance to Intercept? Does anybody ever actually do this?

Maybe I'm not understanding something in these rules correctly, but as written it seems like melee characters will only have a chance to use Intercept in the first round, before they've had a chance to engage. Ranged characters, including casters, may have additional opportunities, but they won't want to Intercept and get into melee.

Or am I missing something important?

Default cop-out answer: In the end, you can always choose what you want to fit your game better. These rules are not authoritative.
Maybe there is indeed a better solution to this, but personally, I don't quite like breaking engagement to Intercept very much.

Yes, yes, of course. I just find it interesting to tinker with and discuss interesting new mechanics.

Thanks, very interesting rules. How about this optional rule:

Flanking: If two or more allies are engaged with a single opponent
and they do not have other engagements, they are considered flanking and gain
advantage to their attacks.

One can avoid being flanked by engaging with terrain features, such as walls or
pillars or, if your allies engage the attackers.

What do you think?

I also thought about something along these lines. It makes a certain amount of sense, and adds tactical..."richness"...but maybe at the cost of re-introducing some of the complexity/bookkeeping that the rules get rid of in the first place. Also, such a rule wouldn't be replacing a rule that's lost when you get rid of the grid, it would be introducing an entirely new (and frequent) source of Advantage, which would have a pretty dramatic effect on combats.

On the other hand, these rules clearly suggest new language for Sneak Attack: "If you have Advantage, or if an ally is engaged with your target..."