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

[Stalker0]

This is a good idea! Gaining advantage to Opportunity Attacks is less exploitable than gaining an Opportunity Attack when a creature engages you (and you're unengaged), and the idea is in line with the current way reach weapon works. But also, it doesn't consider the factor that, on the grid, you can melee attack with these weapons without being adjacent, so maybe only gaining this advantage to OAs is actually too little?

Let me think about that a little more!




Ah, this was considered! There are two points to this:

1. When Engage is a Bonus Action, melee classes which basically have little use for Bonus Actions could spend them round after round in order to "collect" engagements along the battlefield. Eventually, they would be Engaged with everybody, which is OP.

2. Actually, you can Engage for free as part of your movement if you're unengaged (which kind mimics the grid, where you move and become adjacent). It's only when you want to Engage an additional creature without taking OAs that you have to spend an Action. And this is usually only done when you have strong tactical reasons to do so: you trade an Action for the ability to impose disadvantage to all ranged attacks and spell of a creature, and to limit it's ability to Engage someone else freely or Dashing away. On many situations, it's very worth it!

Considering many 5e combats are 3 rounds, giving up attacks just to engage 1 guy is really really situational. Normally you would just kill them, after all...death is the ultimate condition.

Since your trying to make this system as tight as possible, it might be worth just dropping the action entirely.

 

[robus]

Also, although this PDF is meant to be distributed for free, there were 4 people that decided to pay a little for it, for a combined total of $6 ($3 after WotC's 50% cut). While this is a symbolic value, it makes me extra happy to know that they decided to show their appreciation like this! Consider yourself with Thanks Advantage!

Just wanted to note that I winced when you reminded me of the 50% cut WotC takes. Shameless! And I thought Apple's 30% was bad!

 

[Stalker0]

One optional rule you could throw in there if you want to take the complexity "up one notch", for players that want just a tiny bit more structure in their TOTM.

So one scenario you get is where enemies are divided into several areas. Example, I've got the orcs rushing into melee, the archers to the north firing, and the mages to the east a blasting.

Current TOTM just treats this as near orcs and far archers/mages. For people that wanted to model this one a bit closer to grid style...but still primarily TOTM, you could do it this way.

Zones
When you are dealing with enemies in multiple different areas, you can assign them zones (1,2,3) etc. The rules of TOTM work the same as normal, with one change:

1) All creatures in the same zone are near to each other.
2) All creatures in 1 zone are far to creatures in another zone.

 

[OB1]

One optional rule you could throw in there if you want to take the complexity "up one notch", for players that want just a tiny bit more structure in their TOTM.

So one scenario you get is where enemies are divided into several areas. Example, I've got the orcs rushing into melee, the archers to the north firing, and the mages to the east a blasting.

Current TOTM just treats this as near orcs and far archers/mages. For people that wanted to model this one a bit closer to grid style...but still primarily TOTM, you could do it this way.

Zones
When you are dealing with enemies in multiple different areas, you can assign them zones (1,2,3) etc. The rules of TOTM work the same as normal, with one change:

1) All creatures in the same zone are near to each other.
2) All creatures in 1 zone are far to creatures in another zone.

That's a great way to clarify and is still very simple. I'm voting for [MENTION=69817]volanin[/MENTION] to include this in the next revision.

 

[volanin]

Just wanted to note that I winced when you reminded me of the 50% cut WotC takes. Shameless! And I thought Apple's 30% was bad!

Don't tell me. I didn't know that until I submitted the PDF, and I was stunned.
It makes me wonder how people accept submitting their big titles under such conditions, it's insane!
(Yet it might end up cheaper than licensing WotC's IP... Apple has no IP to license)

Zones
When you are dealing with enemies in multiple different areas, you can assign them zones (1,2,3) etc. The rules of TOTM work the same as normal, with one change:

1) All creatures in the same zone are near to each other.
2) All creatures in 1 zone are far to creatures in another zone.

But... but... that EXACTLY how it works right now...
I guess I should really forget about this 2 page thing and expand this text (with many examples) asap...

That's a great way to clarify and is still very simple. I'm voting for @volanin to include this in the next revision.

ASAP!

 

[Stalker0]

But... but... that EXACTLY how it works right now...
I guess I should really forget about this 2 page thing and expand this text (with many examples) asap...

The way the current system reads is that you have exactly 2 zones....Near and Far. So the enemies are in one place or the other. I can either

1) Interact with all of the monsters near me OR
2) Do a dash and interact with every other monster in the encounter.

If it was your intention that you can have 3 or 4 "groups" of monsters separate from each other, than yes definitely need a rewrite in there!

EDIT: Rereading the document, I can see the hints of the "combat zone" in their, but it definitely needs to be more explicit.

 

[Stalker0]

Question: If a druid wildshapes into something with faster speed, does that count as a "class ability that increases your speed" or a "racial ability that does not increase your speed"?

 

[volanin]

The way the current system reads is that you have exactly 2 zones....Near and Far. So the enemies are in one place or the other.

Two ranges, not two zones!


"[...] there are only two ranges to keep track of: Near and Far.

It's better to visualize this by dividing the battlefield into combat zones. Everything in your current combat zone is Near (as in the main deck of a ship), and everything in any other combat zone is Far (as in the crow's nest or the quarterdeck), without a care about distances."


But I can't deny the fact that both you and @OB1 made it clear that this needs to be more explicit.
Hint taken!

Question: If a druid wildshapes into something with faster speed, does that count as a "class ability that increases your speed" or a "racial ability that does not increase your speed"?

Druid Wildshape is a Class Ability, not a racial trait.
I'd rule it would have the same effect as the Barbarian's Fast Movement... but in animal form instead.

 

[Yaarel]

Heh, last time I mention this.

Simplify spells too.

If a spell has a range more than 30 feet, then it is ‘far’. Otherwise, the range is ‘near’.

Same with area of effect. If the radius from its center is more than 30 feet, then it is ‘far’.

Because precise locations are difficult to establish, many spells that have unnecessarily exact area of effects are impossible to use properly for mind theater.

Engage is a good mechanic. It also makes sense for certain spells.

If the Roshambo Style avoids simplifying spells, I will probably need a different system that can accommodate spells too.

 

[volanin]

Heh, last time I mention this.

Simplify spells too.

If a spell has a range more than 30 feet, then it is ‘far’. Otherwise, the range is ‘near’.

Same with area of effect. If the radius from its center is more than 30 feet, then it is ‘far’.

Because precise locations are difficult to establish, many spells that have unnecessarily exact area of effects are impossible to use properly for mind theater.

Engage is a good mechanic. It also makes sense for certain spells.

If the Roshambo Style avoids simplifying spells, I will probably need a different system that can accommodate spells too.

Simplifying spells is in the heart of this PDF, since they are the biggest transgressors to a good TotM.
I'll be rewriting the PDF to be more clear and explicit about these things.