D&D 5E The Greatest Thing about 5e

[tetrasodium]

I've taken the approach that characters only fall over on their turn. You can't tell whether they're about to fall.

I think that's a solution I'll be borrowing to solve a few problems in one go

 

[Stalker0]

My players get the following info in my games: A creature is

1) Fresh: 100% hp
2) Wounded: Taking some damage, no idea how much.
3) Bloodied: 1/2 hp or less.
4) At 0: Out for the count.

I don't reveal actual HP, and I do find it keeps things moving much quicker.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

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.

 

[RangerWickett]

I assume player characters can still easily see when the fatiguing opponent is dropping ones guard enough to get bloodied.

Such information is perceptible on that opponent's turn.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

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.

If anything 5e actually takes steps to minimize movement in combat over past editions

Spoiler: example

I threw together that simple fight with 3 basic skeletons (1/2/3), a minotaur skeleton/ogre zombie (4/5) & a necromancer (top) against two PCs already in the room(bottom)

• With move based AoOs of old the PCs would be encouraged to thread the gap wayyy over to the right of #5 or at least one if not both PCs stop to stomp one of the 3 basic skeletons so the other(s) could move on the caster.
  • Not doing that could suck up a lot of AoOs from each 5 foot square of movement starting as soon as they are in reach of the opponent they will now fight while moving 1 5foot square/round to avoid AoOs as monsters close. Skeletons are a bad monster due to being so weak, but that could potentially result in the bad guys being rushed getting off more attacks in one round than the combat might otherwise last
• Whatever the PCs do the PCs would want to consider things like one of the PCs holding back to serve as a speedbump in some fashion that keeps the unengaged monsters from charging the squishies about to come through the door or at least ensure that they suffer some AoOs for doing so

• In 5e.. whatever charge the necromancer & maybe one player will suffer one AoO if it hits. That hit is a lot less concerning than any one attack or AoO before though simply because recovery is now trivial & the risk of death in combat is almost nonexistent vrs before when you went to negative hp & had to heal each point of damage.

So now you wind up with six ogre zombies making a mildly less porous wall or a giant moshpit of a combat that explodes in an AoE it set itself up for in an effort to make the necromancer last more than a round & the necromancer needs a much better statblock too since it's going to be the easiest & most obvious target. Alternately you just give up & send a lamb to an instagib slaughter like the recent vecna room is set to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

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.

 

[dave2008]

Imho there is a lack of them in the WotC material, even if you imply that I don't know where to look.

OK, you didn't qualify that before.

However, I would say there is a lack in the MM. The monsters after that have been more interesting. I would also say out of the gate Legendary Monsters (w/ LA) are better than anything 4e ever had. The big difference is the lack of push, pull, prone, etc. There lots of monsters from WotC with interesting abilities.

It's not a problem for me personally, since I homebrew my monster/opponent abilities with inspiration from other editions and game systems.

Nor me, or really anyone who has access to the internet.

But for newer DMs and players this might be a thing that over time lessens the fun factor, and is detrimental to the g

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!

 

[dave2008]

they are a discouragement which was my point. they can also get fairly nasty depending on the enemy.

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.

I will say, I like the PF2 idea of it as a fighter only option and may incorporate that in my next 5e campaign. Free movement and no OA, crazy times! Though actually I like it as niche protection for the fighter, because they supposed to be good at fighting and this helps make them stand out a bit.

 

[Retreater]

Of course, you can move/attack/move in PF2, at the cost of all three of your actions.
I'd say that 5e has less of an importance in movement because it costs nothing to move. Everyone gets the action to move. You can move into any position you want and out of the position at no cost to you (barring Opportunity Attacks). So in a standard fight in a contained room, positioning doesn't really matter.
I did run a 5e game last weekend for my wife and some of her friends. I spiced it up by having battles on multiple fronts, timers, traps going on, and the need for actions to activate levers/open portcullises/etc.
I feel that without stuff like that going on - 5e can devolve into slogs with bags of HP. Unfortunately, this is also the sort of play that isn't discussed in the DMG or in the official published adventures.