I think that's a solution I'll be borrowing to solve a few problems in one goI've taken the approach that characters only fall over on their turn. You can't tell whether they're about to fall.
Last edited:
I think that's a solution I'll be borrowing to solve a few problems in one goI've taken the approach that characters only fall over on their turn. You can't tell whether they're about to fall.
Such information is perceptible on that opponent's turn.I assume player characters can still easily see when the fatiguing opponent is dropping ones guard enough to get bloodied.
I found the team play to be stronger in 4e, at least in combat - the combat roles were designed specifically to support each other. But 5e is still miles ahead of 3e in that department. AD&D and BD&D are different beasts than WotC D&D, and it’s kind of apples to oranges in my opinion.I don't find in all the 5e I played that OAs slow up things. Often tactical to provoke one so a fellow team member won't do so.
Which makes me think of a third great point. It is much more of a team game then ever before, IME. Player A setting up for player B and player C.
If anything 5e actually takes steps to minimize movement in combat over past editionsWhile in theory movement no longer requiring an action is a good thing, in practice I haven't seen it matter very much. Monsters and players base each other and swing away until one or the other falls down. While it's cool that you can break up your movement, there has to be a reason to do that, and most of the time, it's just not there.
I suppose the DM could add in some kind of trap or trick that forces people to keep moving every turn, like magic runes on the ground that go off after a few seconds, or floors that move like a conveyor belt that turn combat into a confusing game of Robo Rally, but outside of that, the reason to move is generally something like a control spell that burns you for staying in a particular spot.
In combat, melee wants to move to attack and stays there until they need a new victim. Clerics want to get the most amount of bad guys in their point defense laser field...I mean spirit guardians. And just about everyone else is ranged and only moves if a melee enemy bases them and they're not Warlocks or don't have Crossbow Expert.
But that's just my experience.
My group at the time and I utilized the heck out of the ability to break up our movement during the D&D Next open playtest, but I’ve found my current players do it a lot less in 5e. I’m not sure if that’s just because it was so novel at the time, or if something changed mechanically that made it less useful… I do remember there used to be a rogue ability or feat or something that let you remain hidden after leaving cover until you took an action, which made it very appealing to attack-move-hide on one turn and move-attack-disengage-move on the next. But I seem to recall everyone doing move-attack-move maneuvers pretty regularly, not just rogues.While in theory movement no longer requiring an action is a good thing, in practice I haven't seen it matter very much. Monsters and players base each other and swing away until one or the other falls down. While it's cool that you can break up your movement, there has to be a reason to do that, and most of the time, it's just not there.
OK, you didn't qualify that before.Imho there is a lack of them in the WotC material, even if you imply that I don't know where to look.
Nor me, or really anyone who has access to the internet.It's not a problem for me personally, since I homebrew my monster/opponent abilities with inspiration from other editions and game systems.
Possibly, it has been so long since I was a new DM it is hard to remember. However, I started with 1e and those monsters had next to nothing and we still made them interesting!But for newer DMs and players this might be a thing that over time lessens the fun factor, and is detrimental to the g
My point was they are not a discouragement most of the time for the groups I have played 5e with. They are situationally a discouragement, but not typically.they are a discouragement which was my point. they can also get fairly nasty depending on the enemy.