D&D 5E What if everyone moved, and then every acted?

[JValeur]

I've also liked the idea of 'Engaging' enemies, and have been toying with figuring out how it would work. I think I would allow characters to engage one enemy for each attack they can make during a normal attack action (so martial characters would be able to engage two at level 5, and fighters would eventually be able to engage four creatures at a time at level 20). I wouldn't require any check or penalty to engaging with a creature, but simply have the rule be:

Engaged. Once on your turn, you can choose to Engage in melee combat with a creature within your reach. While you are Engaged with a creature, you keep track of that creature's movements. If it tries to leave your reach, you can use your reaction to make one opportunity attack against it, unless it takes the Disengage action. Even if it uses the Disengage action, you can always try to follow it, although you can move no more than your move speed minus any distance you moved on your previous turn. If the creature ends its turn adjacent to you, you are still Engaged with it.
You can only Engage with one creature at a time. If you have the Extra Attack feature, you can Engage with as many creatures as you can make attacks during a normal attack action. You choose all of them once on your turn.

Normal opportunity attacks wouldn't trigger simply when a creatures leaves your reach, but instead when a creature enters AND leaves your reach on the same turn (such as when a creature is running past you). So in order to keep your foe pinned down, you would have to Engage with it specifically. Additionally, such things as the rogue's sneak attack, flanking bonuses etc. etc. only work while Engaged.

I'm sure there's some holes in this rule, but I think something like it could work.

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, I'd eliminate opportunity attacks. If they move past you, you can move along with them, but the only way to keep them from moving is to get to a bottleneck, or grab them. It's pretty easy in real life to run past someone if he's trying to block a 10-ft. wide path.

The other use of OAs is to 'protect the squishies.' The fighter stands in front, and if you run past he punishes you. Well here, if you run to the mage, the mage (depending on initiative) can run away, or can take an action to protect himself because he knows you're about to attack him. And if you want to protect the squishy, you can move so you're all adjacent, though I'm not sure what you'd do at that point.

How do melee characters with lower speed ever manage to keep in melee with ranged characters who have higher speed? How do ranged characters with lower speed ever manage to maintain distance from melee characters with higher speed?

It feels like you need at least some movement-limitation options, otherwise the whole thing will swing too far in the opposite direction. Instead of a Princess Bride duel, you'll end up with a Benny Hill chase scene.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yeah, I'd eliminate opportunity attacks. If they move past you, you can move along with them, but the only way to keep them from moving is to get to a bottleneck, or grab them. It's pretty easy in real life to run past someone if he's trying to block a 10-ft. wide path.

The other use of OAs is to 'protect the squishies.' The fighter stands in front, and if you run past he punishes you. Well here, if you run to the mage, the mage (depending on initiative) can run away, or can take an action to protect himself because he knows you're about to attack him. And if you want to protect the squishy, you can move so you're all adjacent, though I'm not sure what you'd do at that point.

Admittedly, I don't have real world experience to back this up, but I suspect that running past someone holding a weapon would not be so easy unless they were already otherwise engaged. Running past someone by necessity implies that you are showing them your back at some point, and hitting someone in the back is not difficult for obvious reasons.

I think eliminating OAs introduces a lot of potential problems. For starters, you have to modify any abilities that reference OAs (like the Sentinel feat). Furthermore, if I can move with you once engaged, it becomes difficult to defend squishies. This is problematic for ranged characters because everything will move adjacent to give them disadvantage (ranged characters will be unplayable without the crossbow feat). If I can't move with you once engaged, it becomes effortless for squishies to maintain distance because every time I move closer they move farther before I can attack (and there is no OA to punish them for doing so).

At a minimum, if going down this route, I would add in the optional Marking rules from the DMG, in order to help tanks protect the squishies. You also might need to remove disadvantage for attacking with a ranged attack in melee.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've used a house rule very similar to that since AD&D and it's worked well: If you're in melee and want to move, you either take a regular move or a fighting withdrawal. If you take a regular move the other guy gets an extra attack with rear attack / whatever bonuses. If you do a fighting withdrawal you move half speed and the other guy can either move with you to stay engaged or let you go. This works for simulating all kinds of cinema/genre situations.

In AD&D (2nd edition) it wasn't even a house rule, it was the actual PHB rule. Well, almost--in 2nd edition, fighting withdrawal was 1/3 speed instead of half speed, so if you did make it half speed you were just house ruling a slightly faster speed.

 

[BoldItalic]

Suggestion: extend OA so that as an alternative to making a single attack you can opt to Follow instead. As the opponent moves away (which is what provoked the OA) you can use your Reaction to move up to your speed to try to remain in contact. If the opponent moves again for any reason before the start of your next turn, you can continue to Follow until you have used up your speed. You don't get another OA if the opponent continues to move after you run out of speed.

Haven't tried it though, it's just an idea.

 

[Not a Hobbit]

What would be the incentive for you to use your reaction to follow instead of getting an opportunity attack and letting him go? You can always just move up to him again on your turn and attack again, so in a sense all you've done is traded a chance to attack as a reaction for your movement on your turn?

I like the idea of half movement w/o OA. I may see how my players like it.

--Scott

 

[Morrus]

I was considering the Chatty Duelists scene in The Princess Bride, and realized that level of movement seldom actually happens in D&D due to several reasons, like opportunity attacks, and how location often doesn't matter. If someone did attack, then back up, and the other person followed them, then attacked, it would kind of work, but there's this odd moment in the initiative when the two foes are separated by 30 feet.

It made me wonder, what would be a mechanic to let two characters traverse the battlefield while remaining engaged?

I'm curious about trying out a few fights where each round, every creature moves, and then every creature takes its actions (and bonus actions). I'm wondering how that might play out. Any thoughts before I inflict this on my players?

Very common wargaming mechanic. Ideally you have them move in reverse initiative order than act in forward initiative order. Makes for much more tactical battles, but with a maintenance overhead. Especially appropriate to games with vehicles etc. where continuous motion is assumed.