Thanks a lot for the feedback @
habahnow!
1). Movement disadvantage. Specifically, it states:
Even with Movement Disadvantage[caused by being knocked prone for instance], you can still move Far by spending your ENTIRE TURN moving, and you cannot become Engaged with anything as part of this movement.
When you say entire turn, are you referring to using your Movement and Action to move far?
Yes, that's exactly it.
If you have Movement Disadvantage, you must forfeit your Action and Bonus Action (or in other words, you must use all your Movement, Action and Bonus Action), in order to move Far, and you cannot become Engaged with any creature as part of this movement, as you would normally be able to.
Basically, you spend your whole turn just moving, and you will reach Far at the end of your turn as usual. Once there, you can still take Reactions during another creature's turn though.
2). What is your opinion on having stacking movement disadvantage(similar to movement advantage) such as when a person is knocked prone in difficult terrain and attempts to move far? Maybe they must use all their movement and an action of this turn and their movement from next turn?(meaning they can't engage next turn with their movement but they can with a dash action assuming no movement disadvantage). An alternative option would be making it that the Prone condition does not cause movement disadvantage but causes the player to lose their movement(by standing up) or their Interception Reaction(while staying prone).
Personally, in my opinion it should work the same way as the official Advantage and Disadvantage. It's more intuitive this way, and the system is meant to be simple and fast, without the need to track all the situations that might grant you Advantage or Disadvantage. It's less realistic yes, but works very, very well.
For example: if you were Slowed (by the spell), on Difficult Terrain and Prone, you'd need three rounds just to move Far. In my opinion, while that'd be more realistic, it would be boring to track and boring to play.
3). Another thing that is not made clear that is related to the above section is using actions to dash while you have movement disadvantage. From your document the implication is that regardless of how many actions you have, you can not dash while experiencing movement disadvantage unless you have a class feature that allows you to Dash as a Bonus Action. This means that someone with 3 actions and with movement disadvantage but no dash related class feature must spend the "entire turn moving"(which needs to be cleared up as per my first question) in order to move Far. A solution may be that you have to give up a Dash action in order to use a Dash action. So in the previous example, the character with 3 Actions and Movement Disadvantage must use 2 Actions in order to Dash and get Far.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but creatures don't have multiple Actions per turn. You have only a single Action that grants you 2 or 3 Attacks. What you might have is a Class Feature like the Fighter's Action Surge which grants you an additional Action, but you can't use it if you're spending your ENTIRE TURN moving just to get Far.
4). I like what another user had mentioned about Movement Disadvantage preventing you from intercepting. As of now, the system doesn't care about movement within the Near area even in difficult Terrain. This change would make Difficult Terrain more of a problem for people within the area.
Movement Disadvantage does not interfere with Intercept, and that's by design. Movement Disadvantage only interferes with movement... in other words, with Dashing and nothing more.
And that's the way that the system cares for
"movement within the Near area even in Difficult Terrain": you become very easy to be Intercepted by the enemy. Since precise positions and distances are deliberately disregarded, in my mind that is a good compromise.
5). When someone is engaged with an enemy, does that mean they are adjacent? From what i can understand, so long as an enemy is Near and attempting to engage an ally and you are not currently Engaged with an enemy, you can engage the enemy. So if you are behind your wizard as a fighter, and an enemy attempts to engage the wizard from the front, you can engage the enemy from the other side of your ally? or is the idea that you use your reaction to "move" and cut off the enemy? Additionally, so long as you don't Break The Engagement, you can move away from the enemy(while in the same zone) and not suffer an attack of opportunity?
That's Grid Combat way of thought. The idea here is that you should not care about exact positions at all, because these are a pain to track in Theater of the Mind.
As such, there is no mechanical concept of Adjacent, and of being Behind an Ally. Positions should only be used for description, which allows you to say things like: "The Orc is ready to crush the Wizard, but my Fighter pulls the Wizard back at the last second and takes his place, Intercepting the Orc!"...
Or you could describe it as "I move around the Wizard and hold the Orc's arm. Now it has to fight me instead!"... it doesn't matter, the end result is the same, so describe away!
Don't think about positions as you would on a grid. They are MUCH more flexible and dynamic here.
Think about position as only a description, and let this system take care of the rest!
6). There is no mention of effect that bring you movement down to 0 such as being grappled. I think while your movement is 0, you should be unable to Intercept or move.
That's indeed true. I will fix that in the next revision, thanks!
