Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9868588" data-attributes="member: 29398">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 holdWell, that's a crap rule then.  I thought it was the same as 3e, where taking a 5-foot step had no consequence.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).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.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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />* - let's for these purposes assume neither combatant has reach, shall we? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification