D&D 5E Too Few Player Options During Combat?

[Marc_C]

The DMG has a few optional combat options PCs can use. Have you looked at them?

Otherwise creating interesting tactical environments is important. You do not have to use a grid to do that. Enemies attacking in multiple waves or from other directions like the flank or the back of the party will break the monotony.

 

[Dausuul]

For any given scenario ("I want to shoot my enemy in the leg to stop them running away"), the advantages of having a rule for that scenario are proportional to the number of times the scenario comes up. How often does an archer need to stop a fleeing foe that has legs?

The main disadvantage is the overhead of having more rules. That burden is fairly constant: The more rules there are, the more there is for players and DMs to remember, the higher the barrier to entry becomes, and the longer it takes to look anything up.

Therefore, frequently-encountered scenarios should be codified in rules, while unusual scenarios should be handled ad hoc by the DM.

 

[Stormonu]

Hmm. I’m the eternal home brewer, so I’m considering adding these options to the game. I don’t want to make existing subclasses like the battle master not worth taking, but long for something to incentivize players to get inventive in combat. These options would be available to the monsters as well. I think limiting it to bonus actions/reactions will keep things from getting too wild.

I Welcome ideas for more generic abilities like this, and in my game at least, players could invent their own impromptu options that fit a specific combat.

Spoiler

Combat Options​

During their turn, any character, with the DM's approval, can attempt any one of the following stunts as a bonus action or reaction, as indicated by the ability. To qualify for an action that activates on an attack, you must have made a melee weapon, melee spell, ranged weapon or ranged spell attack. Spells that have an effect on a failed save cannot be used with combat options that require an attack to be used.

Avoid​

You give ground to avoid an opponent's attack

As a reaction when an opponent misses you with an attack, you can disengage up to half your speed away.

Blind​

You take a moment to render your opponent unable to see

As a bonus action against an opponent you just hit, you can force them to make a Dexterity saving throw against a DC of 8 + your attack bonus. On a failure, the target is blinded until the end of its next turn.

Cower​

You make yourself look unworthy of being harmed

As a reaction, if you have not attacked an opponent who is about to attack you, you can force the opponent to make a Wisdom saving throw against a DC of 8 + your Persuasion (Cha) skill. On a failure, the opponent chooses another target in range to attack, if able.

Deafen​

You deliver a blow that leaves the enemy's ears ringing

As a bonus action against an opponent you just hit, you can force them to make a Constitution saving throw against a DC of 8 + your attack bonus. On a failure, the target is deafened until the end of its next turn.

Fluster​

You make a snide remark designed to unbalance your opponent

As a reaction you choose an opponent that can hear you within 30 feet. The opponent must make a Wisdom saving throw against a DC of 8 + your Intimidate (Cha) skill. On a failure, the target's next attack has disadvantage.

Frighten​

You strike fear into your foe, diminishing their resolve

As a reaction when you have more than half your hit points and an opponent targeting you has less than half their hit point total, you can force them to make a Wisdom saving throw with a DC of 8 + your Intimidate (Cha) skill. On a failure, the target is frightened of you until the end of its next turn.

Goad​

You bully your opponent into attacking you

As a reaction you choose an opponent that can hear you within 30 feet. The opponent must make a Wisdom saving throw against a DC of 8 + your Intimidate (Cha) skill. On a failure, the target must target you for its next attack.

Grapple​

You grab your opponent

As a bonus action against an opponent no more than one size category larger than you that you just hit, you can force the target to make a Strength saving throw against a DC of 8 + your Athletics (Str) skill. On a failure, the target is grappled.

Pin​

You nail your opponent in place, preventing them from moving

As a bonus action against an opponent you just hit, you can force the target to make a Strength saving throw against a DC of 8 + your Athletics (Str) skill. On a failure, the target is restrained until the end of its next turn.

Push​

You shove an opponent

As a bonus action against an opponent you just hit, you can force the target to make a Strength saving throw against a DC of 8 + your Athletics (Str) skill. On a failure, you can move the target up to 5 feet x your Strength modifier.

Trip​

You knock your opponent to the ground

As a bonus action against an opponent no more than one size category larger than you that you just hit, you can force the target to make a Dexterity saving throw against a DC of 8 + your Athletics (Str) skill. On a failure, the target is knocked prone.

Stun​

You knock your opponent senseless

As a bonus action against an opponent that you score a critical hit against, you can force the target to make a Constitution saving throw against a DC of 8 + your attack bonus. On a failure, the target is incapacitated until the end of its next turn.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

What if every class that was not a full caster, artificer, or bard was given the Battle Master's maneuvers and corresponding progression? This would completely eliminate Battle Master as a subclass.

Obviously, parties on average would do more damage, but ultimately that's a "me"/DM problem. Does this seem like a fairly reasonable house rule?

 

[iserith]

What if every class that was not a full caster, artificer, or bard was given the Battle Master's maneuvers and corresponding progression? This would completely eliminate Battle Master as a subclass.

Obviously, parties on average would do more damage, but ultimately that's a "me"/DM problem. Does this seem like a fairly reasonable house rule?

It's worth trying. If it makes it so the PCs are having an easier time in combat challenges, you can just increase the difficulty on your side if you want rather than worry about tweaking anything on theirs. If it makes it such that certain characters are far more effective than others, that's a trickier problem to solve (short of just removing the house rule entirely).

 

[Umbran]

While consistency is an important thing at the table in my view (so players can make informed decisions), a ruling with unintended consequences can just be fixed later. No big deal. It's not like it must be a permanent precedent.

That would depend on your players - I think repeatedly making rulings, and then rejecting them as precedent, can be a major failure of the GM to meet player expectations.

It also turns the game into a bit "mother may I" if they have to ask for a ruling each and every time.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

That would depend on your players - I think repeatedly making rulings, and then rejecting them as precedent, can be a major failure of the GM to meet player expectations.

It also turns the game into a bit "mother may I" if they have to ask for a ruling each and every time.

Exactly - my player's cannot stand fiat rulings. It's the biggest and most dire game foul. If I am coming up with too much on my own, out of thin air on the spot, then engagement immediately dies. For better or worse, my group really does not want to just sit in the basement and play make-believe with no underlying rules structure/continuity/internal consistency.

 

[Mort]

What if every class that was not a full caster, artificer, or bard was given the Battle Master's maneuvers and corresponding progression? This would completely eliminate Battle Master as a subclass.

Obviously, parties on average would do more damage, but ultimately that's a "me"/DM problem. Does this seem like a fairly reasonable house rule?

It's an interesting thought.

Let's see:

Paladin: They really don't need it. Paladins have plenty of choices in any given combat round: straight attack, throw in some smites, cast a defensive spell, cast an offensive spell, some combination. Lot's of options. Plus you do not want to give a Paladin access to more damage dice, you really don't.

Ranger: Here it depends on subclass. Giving battle master maneuvers to a gloomstalker ranger is guilding the lily (IMO), they get access to plenty of options and plenty of damage. Some of the other subclasses may benefit, but I don't think the ranger's problem is lack of options, the ranger has plenty of choices in any combat round (you just see lots of complaints that the choices are underpowered).

Barbarian: Certainly would benefit and Barbarians typically don't have many actual options in combat other than rage and hit things - but you chose to play a character where that's the schtick. Are you complaining about raging and hitting stuff?

Rogue: Rogue's can get lots of options in any combat. Give them Battlemaster manuevers and that just expands an already decent list. Again, depends on subclass but most have plenty they can do in combat.

Fighter: Well you're left with Champion or Eldritch knight. An eldritch knight with battle master maneuvers will certainly expand his range of options. They'd probably benefit most of these classes. Champion Fighter just becomes a battle master with an increased crit range.

So to sum up you give a nice boost to the not-full casters. Is it necessary? I don't think so. I think a better option is to have more things to do during the combat (terrain, ancillary goals etc.).

Even if you introduce maneuvers, unless you change things up in combat, they'll just get samey too.

 

[jayoungr]

Exactly - my player's cannot stand fiat rulings. It's the biggest and most dire game foul. If I am coming up with too much on my own, out of thin air on the spot, then engagement immediately dies.

Then I really think you should consider Pathfinder/D&D 3.5, or D&D 4E. I don't think 5E is for your group (or it will need some extensive house rules). And that's okay.

 

[iserith]

That would depend on your players - I think repeatedly making rulings, and then rejecting them as precedent, can be a major failure of the GM to meet player expectations.

It also turns the game into a bit "mother may I" if they have to ask for a ruling each and every time.

Assuming good faith effort, who honestly imagines that a DM is making so many bad rulings that it actually becomes an ongoing problem? That doesn't seem like a realistic concern to me.