D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Clawhound]

Once you pick an approach to the rules, you get stuck with that approach.

In 3.X, NPC classes existed because the designers decided that everything should be built with HD and levels. Once you decide that, then how do you get amazingly skilled NPCs? Thus, NPC classes were born.

From the abstractionist perspective, this works quite well. From the simulationist perspective, this makes the world work weird.

NPC levels never bothered me in 3.X, mostly because I never bothered using them. They fixed a problem that I did not have.

[Kurald Galain]

NPC levels never bothered me in 3.X, mostly because I never bothered using them. They fixed a problem that I did not have.

Yep. I've never had a problem treating NPCs as first-level fighters or rogues. In the rare case that an NPC's skill checks become relevant, just assume it has a bunch of skill focus feats or something.

[Person_Man]

That's a fairly strong assertion. Care to explain why you believe this?

Movement in combat is important to the degree that that movement is limited. If your movement is limited, then how you move and where you end your turn become important tactical choices. If any creature can move to any position, and can do so both before and after their Action, then their movement choices (and whether or not combat is playing out on a grid) is mostly meaningless.


Specific issues:

Conga Line: When fighting in a narrow space, common sense would dictate that a bottleneck of some sort would occur, limiting the number of front line combatants. This allows a strong number of powerful creatures (presumably players) to more effectively fight very large numbers of weaker creatures, by limiting the number of weaker creatures they have to face each round. But D&D Next allows all creatures to move, take an Action, and then continue moving. So it's possible (and optimal) for a large number of creatures to cycle in and out of a small number of spaces. Thus even if the PC's are in a 5 ft corridor, every enemy that they're fighting (within the limits of their total movement) can just take their turn to move to the front of combat, attack, and then move away (leaving the space open for someone else to move into, attack, and then move out of).

No Blocking: Movement is not blocked by allies (and if they introduce Tumble rules, movement will not be blocked at all for a moderate investment). This makes the Conga Line easier.

What Meat Shield?: Since attacks of opportunity (or some other mechanic that would make creatures "sticky" and hard to move past) don't exist, you can easily move past a Meat Shield and attack any Glass Cannons standing behind him with little to no repercussions. Player 1 has no way of defending or protecting Player 2 via his movement or positioning in any way, unless he's in a 5 ft corridor. And even then...

Creatures = Cover: Standing in front of an ally has minimal impact on an enemy's ability to target that ally with a ranged attack. (Which was basically removed entirely with a Feat tax in 3.0/3.5).

Cowardice = Win: Again, since attacks of opportunity don't exist, a wounded creature can retreat (and presumably heal or escape) without repercussions. And it's impossible to stop an enemy who is moving away from you unless you have a special ability which renders them Prone.

Kiting: Given the above, you never have to fight an enemy on their chosen turf, terrain, lair, etc. You can move into a room, attack, and then move out of a room. Or attack with a ranged weapon and then move away. This is a particularly potent (and cheesy) tactic if your party outnumbers the opponent, and move away from the enemies in opposite directions while stringing/kiting them along.

One at a Time: Since it's so easy to move around and every creature will be able to move and use it's Action on every turn, the only way to deny a creature it's preferred action is by killing it (unless you have robust status effects, which D&D next has unfortunately distilled down into Advantage/Disadvantage). So the correct strategy (for both players and monsters) in almost every combat will be to focus all attacks on one enemy at a time until it is dead, and then focus all attacks on one other enemy until it is dead, and so on until each enemy is killed in turn.

Given all of the above, you can pretty much forget about anything related to formations, battle lines, or tactical positioning in D&D Next, which contributes to it's overall lack of strategic depth.

[Knaight]

Cowardice = Win: Again, since attacks of opportunity don't exist, a wounded creature can retreat (and presumably heal or escape) without repercussions. And it's impossible to stop an enemy who is moving away from you unless you have a special ability which renders them Prone.

That's not cowardice, that's intelligence. However, I don't think the retreat option is as good as you're making it look, largely because there's the option of pursuit, or of opening fire with ranged weapons.

Also, the Conga Line phenomenon is limited. Say, hypothetically, creatures can move 6 squares (which is fairly standard), and can't share a space (again, standard). Even with perfect movement through enemy spaces, a line of 6 PCs in a corridor perfectly blocks melee attacks to all but the very first. A line of 5 PCs involves someone who was in melee range as of last turn running all the way through to the back, and thus blocking off anybody else. A line of 4 PCs allows either 2 attacks with 1 at melee range, or 1 attack from one square away. That leaves attacks at the front. Enough range is needed to move in, attack, and move out, with the final attacker staying in melee. Effectively, this puts 1 person at 6 away. Other than that, it is more complicated - someone at 5 away needs an empty space at 1 away, but someone at 1 away needs to be able to retreat back to 5 away, or effectively blocks off 2, 3, or 4 away. Because movement can't be split between people (1 can't move back one, then have 5 move, then move again), that means all of two people can get in, attack, and get out, and one person can either get in or get out. If shared turns with movement splitting are instead used, six people can attack, one of whom will be left in range at the end of the turn. As such, corridors are effectively easy to hold, even with universal spring attack. Sure, it's not quite as easy as it probably should be, but it isn't as if there's an effective method to cycle through a full line. Gaps have to be left.

If moving through enemy space is prohibited, this effectively allows limited cycling of both forces. Ranged weapons, of course, interfere with this.

[obryn]

At that point, though, you're basically relying on being in a dungeon as a prerequisite to movement- and position-related tactics.

I don't think that's a good solution.

-O

[navar100]

I find it humorous interesting that when AoO's were first introduced in 3.0 I was quite apprehensive about them, mostly out of concern it would be unfair to PCs especially in the example given of Mialee suffering an extra attack from a spider on her arm for the audacity of attacking it where as if she did nothing she would have been bit once less. Today I find them a valuable rule that add fun to the game that players can take advantage of and would be annoyed if 5E got rid of them.

Though I still think it unfair Mialee got attacked once more often.

[Flickerdart]

Honestly, Mialee doesn't get attacked often enough.

[holywhippet]

I find it humorous interesting that when AoO's were first introduced in 3.0 I was quite apprehensive about them, mostly out of concern it would be unfair to PCs especially in the example given of Mialee suffering an extra attack from a spider on her arm for the audacity of attacking it where as if she did nothing she would have been bit once less.

Not sure what you mean by 3.0. AoO's have been in D&D since before that edition. I know AD&D had them.

I can understand them being removed for opponents retreating since they should be able to duck back, turn and run. For moving past you I'm not so sure about - it makes it hard to protect the less armored party members.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Not sure what you mean by 3.0. AoO's have been in D&D since before that edition. I know AD&D had them.

AD&D most certainly did not.

[holywhippet]

AD&D most certainly did not.

From the AD&D PHB:

Retreat
To get out of a combat, characters can make a careful withdrawal or they can simply flee.
Withdrawing: When making a withdrawal, a character carefully backs away from his opponent (who can choose to follow). The character moves up to 1/3 his normal movement rate.
If two characters are fighting a single opponent and one of them decides to withdraw, the remaining character can block the advance of the opponent. This is a useful method for getting a seriously injured man out of a combat.
Fleeing: To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing character drops his defenses and turns his back to his opponent.
The enemy is allowed a free attack (or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round) at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees: It doesn't count against the number of attacks that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrelevant.
The fleeing character can be pursued, unless a companion blocks the advance of the enemy.

[Craft (Cheese)]

While similar in conception, that's not quite the same thing as an AoO. AoOs also trigger at other times, like when you try to fire a bow or cast a spell while there's an enemy adjacent to you.

[holywhippet]

It's not the same as a 3rd edition AoO true. But it is still an attack that comes as a result of an opportunity thus it is an AoO.

[Fatebreaker]

It's not the same as a 3rd edition AoO true. But it is still an attack that comes as a result of an opportunity thus it is an AoO.

To be fair, an attack of opportunity and an Attack of Opportunity are two different things.

Edit: Whether editions prior to 3.x had Attacks of Opportunity or not is irrelevant to the point above. Clarity of terms is just good practice, no matter who's right or wrong.

Edit the Second:

Movement in combat is important to the degree that that movement is limited. If your movement is limited, then how you move and where you end your turn become important tactical choices. If any creature can move to any position, and can do so both before and after their Action, then their movement choices (and whether or not combat is playing out on a grid) is mostly meaningless.

This is a really clear, concise summation of the issues behind the changes to movement. There are some weird gaps in 5e's movement rules, and some of them interact oddly together (see Saph's journal for some funky fights). I'll be curious to see how they make movement more relevant in future playtests.

--

Personally, I think NPC classes should be just as useful as PC classes, just not useful in adventuring.

I'd be fine with this, because it helps create an internal sense of consistency and logic to the mechanics within the context of the game world. Joe Commoner wants to be a successful farmer, so he picks a class that helps him do just that.

My hope is that 5e takes one of the following approaches:

1) NPC classes that fit NPC roles, and do so effectively.

2) NPCs who take the 4e approach of just being built differently, but again built to fit their intended role.

What I don't want to see is NPCs with all the complexity of a player character wrapped in a terrible class which is outperformed in basic non-adventuring activities by adventuring classes, because that undermines some of the major elements which are foundations of the game.

And yeah, while worrying about how individual peasants are statted up seems silly, there's some great insight into game design and philosophies in there. A system that half-asses every non-player and non-monster in the game tells you a lot about that system!

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's not the same as a 3rd edition AoO true. But it is still an attack that comes as a result of an opportunity thus it is an AoO.

It does not serve the same tactical function as the AoO -- to restrict movement around the battlefield. While it does somewhat restrict one person from leaving combat (although 1/3 movement and the "cover your retreat" options leave it fairly weak) it does not prevent someone from simply running around a defender since the opponent would not have been "in combat" to begin with.

It was simply one more conditional rule which was to mirror what TSR thought combat would be like, rather than part of a holistic approach to making a tactical combat system.

In any case, I'm glad my memory hadn't failed me completely

[Seerow]

It does not serve the same tactical function as the AoO -- to restrict movement around the battlefield. While it does somewhat restrict one person from leaving combat (although 1/3 movement and the "cover your retreat" options leave it fairly weak) it does not prevent someone from simply running around a defender since the opponent would not have been "in combat" to begin with.

It was simply one more conditional rule which was to mirror what TSR thought combat would be like, rather than part of a holistic approach to making a tactical combat system.

In any case, I'm glad my memory hadn't failed me completely

Agreed. Though honestly, something like that might not be bad for 5e. After all, it serves at least one purpose of AoOs (giving the meleers some stickiness), without any need for the grid at all. You can even leave in the old AoO triggers, with the exception of movement through an enemies reach. Like say you only provoke if you start an action within their reach. So if you try to move from point A to point B, it doesn't matter if the Fighter is in the way, you can run past him, no AoO. But if the Fighter charges at you, you can't run away without getting hit.

Since the restriction is now based on starting your turn next to this guy, you can play out the AoOs without a grid, because there's no need for funky movements to go around the enemy's threatened area, which seems to generally be one of the biggest complaints with 3e-4e systems and the basis of them requiring a grid to use.


And if this sounds incredibly stupid I apologize, I probably shouldnt be trying to post while half asleep.

[Fatebreaker]

Like say you only provoke if you start an action within their reach. So if you try to move from point A to point B, it doesn't matter if the Fighter is in the way, you can run past him, no AoO. But if the Fighter charges at you, you can't run away without getting hit.

The interesting side effect of this (at least, as I'm envisioning what you're saying) is that it promotes "offensive stickiness" over "defensive stickiness." Your tank wants to charge in on his turn rather than wait for folks to rush past him on their turn. On the one hand, that's rather heroic behavior -- get in there and start stabbing! On the other hand, it's kinda detrimental to the indomitable wall archetype who chooses his spot and dares anyone to shift him from it.

What would you do to both encourage "defensive stickiness," if that's a thing you'd encourage at all, while still avoiding a grid system for those folks who aren't into miniatures and maps?

[Seerow]

The interesting side effect of this (at least, as I'm envisioning what you're saying) is that it promotes "offensive stickiness" over "defensive stickiness." Your tank wants to charge in on his turn rather than wait for folks to rush past him on their turn. On the one hand, that's rather heroic behavior -- get in there and start stabbing! On the other hand, it's kinda detrimental to the indomitable wall archetype who chooses his spot and dares anyone to shift him from it.

What would you do to both encourage "defensive stickiness," if that's a thing you'd encourage at all, while still avoiding a grid system for those folks who aren't into miniatures and maps?

I guess for a more abstract system you could have it be the Fighter can intercept any enemies moving adjacent to allies they are adjacent to. So if you want to protect the wizard, you stand next to the wizard, when the enemy barbarian goes to charge him, you can then step up, blocking the charge and take an attack. Something like the 3.5 Cometary Collision feat, but without the need for a readied action.

Basically the whole thing would boil down to "Who's next to who" rather than "Where are you on the map", which is much easier to handle in your head.

[Craft (Cheese)]

What would you do to both encourage "defensive stickiness," if that's a thing you'd encourage at all, while still avoiding a grid system for those folks who aren't into miniatures and maps?

Pick an ally. So long as you're reasonably close to them, any enemy who attempts to attack them at melee range with them suffers free attacks from you. Basically, what 4E Fighters get to do.

This can be made cleaner if the game uses a formalized "grouping" system to keep track of who's in melee with whom: Instead of picking an ally to protect and keeping close, you just protect everyone who's in the same melee group as you.

EDIT: Or just what Seerow said.

[jaybird]

Out of curiosity, can't you just ready an action to beat the crap out of the next enemy who comes within range of you?

[Menteith]

Out of curiosity, can't you just ready an action to beat the crap out of the next enemy who comes within range of you?

How is that any better than using your action to just attack them? At best, you break even on the action economy, but now you also give the enemies a way to negate your action completely (just don't walk into range).

[king.com]

How is that any better than using your action to just attack them? At best, you break even on the action economy, but now you also give the enemies a way to negate your action completely (just don't walk into range).

Why cant you use the reaction as a "stop right there" ability. Anyone moving into adjacent space allows you to end their movement for that turn. Once a round. It hopefully is a simple enough kind of yes/no decision that wont slow t he game down too much.

[Seerow]

How is that any better than using your action to just attack them? At best, you break even on the action economy, but now you also give the enemies a way to negate your action completely (just don't walk into range).

This is the reason why readying actions is almost always a bad idea. You spend a full round readying a single action that may or may not come up. It's okay to do if you have nothing else at all you can be doing, but as a general rule of thumb, if there is something you can contribute without readying an action, you should do that instead.


Personally, I think that with the introduction of Swift/Immediate actions, readying an action should have become a swift action that used up your immediate action if it got used (Basically taking up your swift action for two rounds). Trading two swifts for a Standard is a pretty good trade off and can be worth it, but it comes at the cost that what you are readying the action for may never come to pass in which case you just wasted a single swift action.

[Draz74]

Out of curiosity, can't you just ready an action to beat the crap out of the next enemy who comes within range of you?

Sure, but you won't beat any more crap out of them than you would have by just attacking normally. And you run the risk that they will use a ranged attack or something instead of walking near you, which would waste your action.

[Menteith]

Why cant you use the reaction as a "stop right there" ability. Anyone moving into adjacent space allows you to end their movement for that turn. Once a round. It hopefully is a simple enough kind of yes/no decision that wont slow t he game down too much.

So you're spending your entire turn to negate the move action of a single enemy who may or may not even trigger the readied action?

[Fatebreaker]

Out of curiosity, can't you just ready an action to beat the crap out of the next enemy who comes within range of you?

Others have addressed the readied-action bit, but the problem here lies in that last bit:

"...who comes within range of you."

It's not an insurmountable problem, but here it is: You (the player) might have a very different idea of where you are in relation to your allies, the terrain, your enemies, and how your enemies can reach your allies through the terrain compared to what the DM thinks about all of that.

It's the kind of thing that's going to happen, and that kind of confusion can really derail a game. Even a quick burst of confusion at the wrong time can disrupt the excitement of a good fight. So if there's an elegant mechanic which avoids this without causing other issues, it's a problem worth solving.

I like Seerow/Craft's suggestions, because they clearly place you relative to the character you're defending, which is the really relevant location anyhow. Allowing the fighter (or melee dude) to defend one or two other characters (or more and more characters as they increase in level) from one or two enemies (and again, more and more enemies as they increase in level) might even be a cool theme or feat or ability or whatever for melee characters to take. Give some mechanical oomph and potential growth to it.

That said, I don't imagine it's the only valid suggestion. So what other ways can we keep the game on the lighter side of miniatures and maps while still allowing melee to hold aggro?

Disclaimer: I play Warhammer & 4e. I like miniatures and maps. But I get that other people don't, and I get that there are games where even I don't want to use them. So I'm all in favor of them, but I'm also in favor of finding alternatives for those times when they just aren't the tool for the job.

[king.com]

So you're spending your entire turn to negate the move action of a single enemy who may or may not even trigger the readied action?

No run things where reactions are seperate to actions.

[Zombimode]

In any case, I'm glad my memory hadn't failed me completely

I'm pretty sure that Players Options: Combat and Tactics did in fact introduce AoOs to AD&D.

[jaybird]

Others have addressed the readied-action bit, but the problem here lies in that last bit:

"...who comes within range of you."

That's fair enough. Hopefully there will be options for fighting characters to pick up the ability to make AoOs.

[Menteith]

No run things where reactions are seperate to actions.

Then, logically, isn't every creature going to ready an action to attack anyone who comes within range? Because you're describing AoO at that point. Which they specifically removed from 5E.

[Stubbazubba]

To lessen the dependency on grids, I second Craft's idea of a formalized grouping abstraction, though I'm at a bit of a loss for just what it should feature. Should there be both benefits and drawbacks to grouping, or just benefits? I think taking the Withdrawal attack rule from AD&D is another good idea, including allowing another character to occupy the opponent and let you leave unscathed. Make a Theme which gives you X Control Reactions per round, which can be used to take OAs on enemies which attack someone in your melee, stop an enemy who is entering the melee, or cover an ally who needs to withdraw from said melee as described above. Say that everyone gets 1 Control Reaction normally, but taking the theme gives you more, making you more of a front-line wall.