Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rhenny" data-source="post: 5947100" data-attributes="member: 18333">The idea to use contests or checks to &quot;disengage&quot; or &quot;move past/through threatened spaces&quot; at this point is the only option that is consistent with the core rules.&nbsp; I like it.&nbsp; I've been using it in my playtests, and it adds an extra thrill to combat, while limiting erratic movement.&nbsp; If creature A wins the contest, he or she can disengage or move past or through treatened spaces.&nbsp; If creature A fails, he must stop movement...end.&nbsp;&nbsp; Perhaps the DM can assign &quot;disadvantage&quot; if creature A has to move through more than one threatened space.This is logical, and consistent with the core rules.&nbsp; There doesn't have to be an attack...basically this allows us to mechanically simulate the following:Creature A wants to do something that Creature B wants to prevent (opposes).&nbsp; It is clear and consistent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rhenny, post: 5947100, member: 18333"] The idea to use contests or checks to "disengage" or "move past/through threatened spaces" at this point is the only option that is consistent with the core rules. I like it. I've been using it in my playtests, and it adds an extra thrill to combat, while limiting erratic movement. If creature A wins the contest, he or she can disengage or move past or through treatened spaces. If creature A fails, he must stop movement...end. Perhaps the DM can assign "disadvantage" if creature A has to move through more than one threatened space. This is logical, and consistent with the core rules. There doesn't have to be an attack...basically this allows us to mechanically simulate the following: Creature A wants to do something that Creature B wants to prevent (opposes). It is clear and consistent. [/QUOTE]

Verification