D&D 5E (2024) Unfreezing the Narrative

[NotAYakk]

I think that if your narrative is freezing then you are doing it wrong

Even if PCs miss a strike, there ought to be enough happening that the battlefield is dynamic, creatures flinch or duck, objectives get closer or further away, people stumble, clocks tick and characters have time to move or use a reaction or set up for the next turn

5e doesn't reward moving all that much, unless you build for mobility. If you are engaged, mostly a melee character's turn is to roll to hit that target. If those rolls miss, the melee character's turn may as well have been skipped.

And position in 5e mostly matters in that it determines who you can hit.

For spells, I've found that spells that are save-or-nothing on a single target are often avoided precisely because of this problem. We can fix this with spells by adding a lesser effect on a miss (most have half damage, for example), and often multiple targets (which reduce the chance of a full-wiff to near zero).

Hence an attempt to add something to the game that gives melee PCs a similar "I changed the narrative, at least somewhat" when they take their action. While you can optimize around accuracy to avoid "your turn might have well have been skipped", but accuracy is already over-rewarded in 5e (which is why everyone quickly maxes their attack attribute, and why boring/vanilla +X weapons are massively strong).

I don't mind misses being possible, but if you have 2 attacks and 60% accuracy that means 1 in 6 turns you get to skip your turn, more often if you have a bit of bad luck.

Note I'm not proposing damage on a miss. I'm proposing stuff like "there are consequences to having someone with a sharp sword swinging it at you even if they don't connect", and that consequence is different than "someone with a sharp sword within 5 feet of you". D&D makes melee combat utterly boring - there is not even "giving ground defensively", which is pretty constantly true in every kind of melee combat in fiction and simulated melee combat and in non-lethal melee combat you can watch.

 

[Weiley31]

If it's such a frozen narrative, them ya might as well not roll dice for monsters or change it that a single round of combat isn't just "six seconds" of real time.

Ultimately in the end, everything is at the mercy of the Dice. Plus, legendary actions are pretty much this if Narrative freezing is a thing.

 

[Lanefan]

5e doesn't reward moving all that much, unless you build for mobility. If you are engaged, mostly a melee character's turn is to roll to hit that target. If those rolls miss, the melee character's turn may as well have been skipped.

"Nothing happens" is always an acceptable (if maybe unwanted) outcome of any attempted action IMO.

I don't mind misses being possible, but if you have 2 attacks and 60% accuracy that means 1 in 6 turns you get to skip your turn, more often if you have a bit of bad luck.

Skipping your turn means you don't even get to roll to hit - you're paralyzed, or frozen in ice, or dead. Rolling to hit, plus whatever else you might be doing (reaction, bonus action, etc.) is your turn, even if you're unsuccessful in accomplishing anything.

Note I'm not proposing damage on a miss. I'm proposing stuff like "there are consequences to having someone with a sharp sword swinging it at you even if they don't connect", and that consequence is different than "someone with a sharp sword within 5 feet of you". D&D makes melee combat utterly boring - there is not even "giving ground defensively", which is pretty constantly true in every kind of melee combat in fiction and simulated melee combat and in non-lethal melee combat you can watch.

Taking a 5-foot step backward each round while continuing to fight and defend would seem to cover the "giving ground defensively" or "fighting retreat" piece, I'd think.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Draw Steel! does this - you have 3 possible results, I don't remember the exact terminology, but you can get either a weak, average, or good result. Even a poor result deals some "damage", because someone coming at you with a weapon might miss, but you needed to expend some effort to deflect, dodge, parry or block, at the minimum keeping everything ready to make a counter-move.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

Once again, I introduce to the world THE CUP OF DOOM.

Have a cup at the table. Preferably one that is also a skull. Fill it with 2D6 per player.

The players can add any amount of these D6’s to ANY rolls. They have to take at least two dice from the CoD and a result of 1 does not count.

The catch is that when the dice from the CoD is emptied something bad happens. How bad is up to the DM, but I’ve generally tied the bad thing into the reason the dice were used when the CoD was emptied.

I like this because it turns a miss into a hit, a failed skill check into a success, or a weak damage roll into the killing blow. But I don’t give it for free.

As a DM I’ve also started using my own CoD, but when my cup is drained, something beneficial for the players happens.

 

[NotAYakk]

"Nothing happens" is always an acceptable (if maybe unwanted) outcome of any attempted action IMO.

Seems like a fun game to play.

That is sarcasm.

Skipping your turn means you don't even get to roll to hit - you're paralyzed, or frozen in ice, or dead. Rolling to hit, plus whatever else you might be doing (reaction, bonus action, etc.) is your turn, even if you're unsuccessful in accomplishing anything.

Alice rolled to hit and missed. Bob skipped their turn. Same game state change.

Taking a 5-foot step backward each round while continuing to fight and defend would seem to cover the "giving ground defensively" or "fighting retreat" piece, I'd think.

In 5e D&D, taking a 5 foot step backwards doesn't give you any defensive boosts. It means your foes get extra OAs.

Giving ground makes you worse defensively.

In 4e D&D, taking a 5 foot step doesn't give your enemy an OA usually, but it does reduce your ability to control what they do. They are no longer threatened by you, so can reposition freely, usually.

There are abilities that do simulate the "push a foe back" in 4e D&D, where you force a foe to move then are allowed to follow.

In 1-3e, there isn't really a default "falling back when pressed is a thing". At best some special moves or DM narration. OD&D at least had combat be sufficiently abstract that it could fit in the game.

---

In any case, that is just an example of why melee combat isn't all that great in D&D. So adding some pizzaz, even if as simple as "when you attack a foe, they either fall back or grant you advantage" seems like a good idea.

So a really really simple version could be this:

"When you make a melee weapon attack as part of the attack action on a target who has a non-zero movement speed, they can take a 5' step away from you. This 5' step does not provoke opportunity attacks. Your attack and its results are evaluated before they take that 5' step, so if your attack reduces their speed to 0, their 5' step never happens. Targets who do not or cannot take that 5' step back, your attack gains advantage."

Now melee combat becomes more dynamic. A lot of giving ground etc. Foes can choose to stand their ground at the cost of granting advantage to attackers.

 

[Lanefan]

Seems like a fun game to play.

That is sarcasm.


Alice rolled to hit and missed. Bob skipped their turn. Same game state change.

So? Not every move changes the game state. Never mind there's many a situation when a character finds itself with nothing useful it can do on a turn (e.g. an archer with no viable targets, or a second-liner in a tight passage who can't reach the battle ahead) and either chooses or is forced to hold

In 5e D&D, taking a 5 foot step backwards doesn't give you any defensive boosts. It means your foes get extra OAs.

Well, that's a crap rule then. I thought it was the same as 3e, where taking a 5-foot step had no consequence.

Giving ground makes you worse defensively.

In 4e D&D, taking a 5 foot step doesn't give your enemy an OA usually, but it does reduce your ability to control what they do. They are no longer threatened by you, so can reposition freely, usually.

Well, sure, if you actively step away. However you can, in character, always just let your foes push you back; and if the foes choose to hold their ground and not push forward it becomes they who are disengaging (and yes, this probably leads to a table argument).

There are abilities that do simulate the "push a foe back" in 4e D&D, where you force a foe to move then are allowed to follow.

In 1-3e, there isn't really a default "falling back when pressed is a thing". At best some special moves or DM narration. OD&D at least had combat be sufficiently abstract that it could fit in the game.

It's as simple as asking the PCs and determining for your NPCs whether they are trying to push forward, draw back, or are merely holding their ground as a part of the ongoing melee. This comes up every time a fight is near hazardous terrain (are you pushing forward and trying to drive them into the mud?), or when someone is trying to hold a pinch point - say, a door - in order to reduce the number of attackers and-or protect those behind.

On a broader note, not everything has to be represented in game mechanics. I mean, two swordfighters can cover all kinds of ground during their battle but neither is ever truly disengaging (see Dread Pirate Roberts vs Inigo Montoya) and so there's no need to invoke those mechanics. Even a full-on line battle isn't stationary; one side or the other pushes forward or gives a bit of ground in order to - they hope - better their position, which doesn't need to be reflected mechanically.

In any case, that is just an example of why melee combat isn't all that great in D&D. So adding some pizzaz, even if as siple as "when you attack a foe, they either fall back or grant you advantage" seems like a good idea.

So a really really simple version could be this:

"When you make a melee weapon attack as part of the attack action on a target who has a non-zero movement speed, they can take a 5' step away from you. This 5' step does not provoke opportunity attacks. Your attack and its results are evaluated before they take that 5' step, so if your attack reduces their speed to 0, their 5' step never happens. Targets who do not or cannot take that 5' step back, your attack gains advantage."

Now melee combat becomes more dynamic. A lot of giving ground etc. Foes can choose to stand their ground at the cost of granting advantage to attackers.

I'd have it that if the target takes that 5-foot step the attacker must also take a 5-foot step in order to keep up*, otherwise the battle is disengaged to no penalty or bonus on either side.

I wouldn't give advantage against a target who can't or won't or chooses not to move, though. Hitting is already easy enough in 5.xe, and as most attacks will be against a foe who is probably trying to move toward you if anything, the majority of attack rolls would now be with advantage. Way too generous.

* - let's for these purposes assume neither combatant has reach, shall we?