Removing the combat doughnut

[iTreeby]

I don't really like how you can walk circles around an enemy without provoking an attack. the rules for provoking make it really hard to tank and to protect casters. I'm thinking about creating a house rule for the game I run that says basically that you provoke an opportunity attack if you leave a square that is threatened without disengaging. one of my players pointed out that this can be bad for tactical movement so i'm also considering that your first five feet moving within threatened squares doesn't provoke aoos. I would like to know which version of the rule you prefer. do you think it's unnecessary? does it break something? Is there another way to approach this issue? thank you in advance for your replies.

[HidesHisEyes]

I've found no problems at all with the rules as written, as far as opportunity attacks are concerned. Remember that the game has been redesigned so tinkering with things purely because you liked something better in a previous edition might cause trouble. Try it and see, though.

[Nifft]

I like the idea of combatants circling each other, each taking a step to the side to seek advantage until they eventually trade places, and so on.

So IMHO the rules ought to allow a single step to an adjacent square before provoking.

That would still allow characters to tank by imposing a zone-of-control, but the zone is a slow-down rather than a lock-down.

[pwykersotz]

If that's your concern, you could try something like this:

Anytime a creature moves at least 10' in any direction while within reach of another creature and uses their action to do something other than to attack that creature, ready an action, or do nothing, an opportunity attack is provoked by the action.

It's just the first thing that came to mind, but it might be workable.

[ImperiousLeader]

I don't have a problem with the "combat doughnut", so to speak, except that it irks me a little that flanking provides advantage, and it seems too easy to generate advantage when using minis and the grid. This is actually a reason I use more theatre of the mind combat in 5e. So I wouldn't change the way opportunity attacks work, but I might tweak flanking with minis. Maybe just a +1 flank bonus?

[NNescio]

I don't have a problem with the "combat doughnut", so to speak, except that it irks me a little that flanking provides advantage, and it seems too easy to generate advantage when using minis and the grid. This is actually a reason I use more theatre of the mind combat in 5e. So I wouldn't change the way opportunity attacks work, but I might tweak flanking with minis. Maybe just a +1 flank bonus?

Flanking rules are optional. Like facing rules. Or honor and sanity scores, etc.

Flanking rules are a bad idea in 5e because it's too easy to generate advantage since you no longer provoke when leaving a threatened square (instead you only provoke when you move out of reach). Furthermore, it cheapens the "pack tactics" ability/trait owned by several animals (or the druid when he picks the corresponding form), which actually does grant them advantage if they have a (non-incapacitated) ally within 5 ft of the enemy (working as a pseudo-'flanking' ability).

Remember, rogues can sneak attack when they have advantage OR when they have another non-incapacitated ally within 5 ft of their target (and the rogue doesn't have advantage). Having one DOES NOT imply the other.

That said, I think a +1 (or maybe a +2) "flanking bonus" houserule is reasonable, and there is some precedent in granting static bonuses (similar to 3.5's mechanics) in the cover rules (+2 AC for half cover, and +5 AC for 3/4), instead of straight up advantage/disadvantage.

Also, IMHO, theater of the mind combat sucks ass* when you have field-effects active courtesy of battlefield control spells (mostly from the wizard or druid). Instantaneous AoE is doable, I admit.

"Am I affected by the spell? Is the enemy affected by the spell? Can I move around the spell's AoE and attack that enemy, and is that enemy within the AoE?" GAH! Slows down combat immensely, even if you only can usually have one field effect active (since most take up concentration) Sure, you can simply things, but in my experience this shafts the wizard or druid player. And heaven help you when another druid/wizard/cleric decides to throw up a summon (especially when the conjure 8 creatures) when a field active is active (cast by another PC, or an NPC/enemy).

[dropbear8mybaby]

I've always thought it was stupid that people couldn't circle their opponents in previous editions. This is a well established tactic in one-on-one combat. Circling and cutting angles is pretty much basic, 101, combat technique in most martial arts.

[PhantomRenegade]

While i have no idea how to "fix" this problem i do agree that it kind of hampers tactical movement, combat is generally a short affair and most classes sacrifice their whole turn to disengague since a lot of bonus action uses are dependant on how you use your action.

It rarely makes sense to spend a turn leaving a enemy to intercept another when the combat itself will be three or four rounds long.

At the same time AoO make sense and if the tank went first he'd probably be able to keep one or two enemies in place for the very same reason he wouldnt want to disengague, but often the tanks dont go first.

It is indeed a complex issue, sorry this doesnt really help.

[CNagy]

I've yet to see the combat donut present any real problem. The back line simply spreads out a bit more and stands a little further back. Depending on the build of the warriors, OAs are either rare or easy to come across when I run a game--rare because most intelligent creatures will not take an action that they know will give the opponent a free strike at their back, easy because certain builds (polearm master and/or sentinel feats) take the option away from them. It takes a lot of confidence to wade past the fighter looking for the squishier targets.

I guess I just don't see a fix as necessary.

[Nifft]

I've always thought it was stupid that people couldn't circle their opponents in previous editions. This is a well established tactic in one-on-one combat. Circling and cutting angles is pretty much basic, 101, combat technique in most martial arts.

In 3e, of course, they can and often do: one 5 ft. step at a time.

[Occasional Sage]

Circling and maneuvering are tactics which, when lacking, break verisimilitude for anybody who has ever fought. The fluidity of 5e combat is frankly a breath of fresh air after the mind-numbingly static 3.P combat system of boredom.

If your concern is really as simple as allowing a tank to shield the casters, try:


have the caster(s) move a few squares back from the tank; this will force circling opponants to leave threat zone and provoke OA
allow the Push attack option to be used with OA, which iirc it cannot by RAW
grant Advantage on Push attacks for proficient wielders of weapons which can catch and entangle, such as the whip and the flail



This is all off-the-cuff, I haven't considered further ramifications or rules interactions. I'd expect the first to be sufficient though, especially if you create a defense-in-depth by having, say, the Monk and Paladin engaged in the front and the polearmed Fighter in back, guaranteeing multiple OA against anybody attempting to slip to the back row.

[Daishain]

I haven't actually tried this one in play, but I've considered a houserule where someone moving around the 'combat doughnut' has a choice. They can move as normal, and provoke AOOs along the way, or they can keep their guard up while moving, effectively treating enemy reach as difficult terrain.

This makes defenders (especially those with reach) more 'sticky' without breaking verisimilitude by effectively declaring that combatants should not move. The one issue is that it partially devalues the polearm master feat. Trying to think of an exception to fix that issue, but no luck so far.

[infinitum3d]

Flanking rules are optional. Like facing rules. Or honor and sanity scores, etc.



Really, all rules are optional. I don't see any reason to -not- pick and choose what your group likes best from each ed.

That being said, I do think 5e should be played as written at least for a little while to see if maybe there's something new that you like better.

[Wrenn]

Really, all rules are optional. I don't see any reason to -not- pick and choose what your group likes best from each ed.

That being said, I do think 5e should be played as written at least for a little while to see if maybe there's something new that you like better.

The difference here is that the book specifically singles out flanking as optional.

I agree in that you should play it vanilla for a while first, adding in the optional combat rules here and there to get a feel for them later. Flanking, massive damage, injury table, initiative variants, they all give a very different feel to the encounters.