I think Combat is too sticky: solution

[TrinculoLives]

Tell me if this sounds familiar:

The DM describes a group of bugbears charging out of the trees toward the party. Initiative is rolled, a combat grid is laid out, and most of the combatants close in during the first round of combat... and then most of them don't move again until the combat is over.

It seems to me that most combat in 5e is very sticky. If I'm playing a melee class and I advance into melee with some enemies, I feel as though I'm stuck there. With how quickly combats are over, it just doesn't make sense to use the Disengage action, and nobody wants to eat Opportunity Attacks. This has bugged me for a long time, and after having the opportunity to play as a PC yesterday in a one-shot game, I came up with a possible solution:

A new combat bonus action called, let us say, "Break Away" or "Shift" or "Separate" or something that works thusly:

Separate
When you use Separate as a bonus action, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks from any creature whose reach you are currently within for the rest of the turn, unless you re-enter that creature's reach on the same turn.

So, in other words, if the Fighter starts his turn within five feet of a group of kobolds,

x x
x F
x x


but he really wants to get over to the dragon this round without taking attacks of opportunity;

___________________D
x x_______________D
x F_____________DRAGON!!!
x x_______________D
___________________D

he can Separate as a bonus action from the kobolds and move to within 5 feet of the dragon.

___________________D
x x_______________D
x ______________DRAGON!!!
x x____________F__D
___________________D

If he then attempts to move away from the dragon he will provoke an opportunity attack from the dragon, as well as if he attempts to move back into, and then out of, the kobolds' reach again.

What will this affect?

Well, it makes the Rogue's Cunning Action less special, certainly.

It may tilt combat balance over to the side of the PCs when it comes to large numbers of monsters, simply because it will be that much easier to focus-fire on the boss. Alternatively, single monsters can more easily break away from multiples PCs.

It's a boost to classes that don't have a meaningful Bonus Action every round, as well as spellcasting and ranged classes in general because this gives them an easy way to get away from encircling mobs.

What do you think?
What's your experience with combat stickiness in 5th edition?
Have you implemented something like the 4e Shift mechanic or something similar? Does it not bother you at all?

[LudicSavant]

Tell me if this sounds familiar:

The DM describes a group of bugbears charging out of the trees toward the party. Initiative is rolled, a combat grid is laid out, and most of the combatants close in during the first round of combat... and then most of them don't move again until the combat is over. It does sound familiar, but it is a behavior that I only see in certain groups.

This is generally the behavior I see from nonoptimized groups facing relatively weak enemies in near-featureless environments that do not utilize tactics (or at least do not utilize very effective tactics).

Amongst more skilled optimizers and DMs who create environments full of interesting terrain features and have stronger monsters using effective tactics, I tend to see more maneuvering.


It seems to me that most combat in 5e is very sticky. If I'm playing a melee class and I advance into melee with some enemies, I feel as though I'm stuck there. With how quickly combats are over, it just doesn't make sense to use the Disengage action, and nobody wants to eat Opportunity Attacks. This has bugged me for a long time, and after having the opportunity to play as a PC yesterday in a one-shot game, I came up with a possible solution

The Disengage action is far from the only way to disengage from melee, and also far from the best.

For a simple example, a caster can drop Stinking Cloud on themselves and then immediately run out of the area, because the save effect only takes effect on creatures in the cloud at the beginning of their turn. The heavily obscured effect, however, takes place immediately and prevents the enemy from taking opportunity attacks (you can only OA a target you can see).

Another simple example would be forced movement disengages (such as grapples from an ally, or Thunderwave, or a Shield Master shoving a target away as a bonus action).

Positioning offers numerous of opportunities to leverage an advantage in combat. The bigger issue, in my experience, is that if a DM never provides challenging or diverse tactical situations and just has weak orcs in featureless rooms charge and stand still, PCs will never have any cause to evolve their tactics.

[Rysto]

I suspect it would lead to less variety in PC types. The ability to tank is much less useful when your opponents can slip past you at-will, so there's less incentive to choose tanky classes. On the other hand, because monsters can get into the back lines much more easily, playing a really squishy class is a lot more dangerous. My feeling is that you'll see a lot more skirmisher types and heavily armoured back-line casters (either Clerics or Fighter 1/Caster X)

[Kane0]

Tell me if this sounds familiar:

The DM describes a group of bugbears charging out of the trees toward the party. Initiative is rolled, a combat grid is laid out, and most of the combatants close in during the first round of combat... and then most of them don't move again until the combat is over.


Have you tried taking away the battlemat? Theatre of the mind can provide some nice flexibility. There will always be those occasions where you are surrounded but there are also many times you can creatively use what is described in order to act in a more freeform fashion.

[EvilAnagram]

I really don't see why your combats work out that way. Plenty of classes have solid maneuverability options that will allow them to move through combat effectively, and all other options failed, you can just disengage. Beyond that, you can freely move around your enemies without drawing opportunity attacks.

[Sigreid]

There are a couple of classes and sublcasses that weaving in and out of combat is specifically their wheel house. I would not want to give their toys to everyone which is basically what you are doing.

[Lombra]

Maybe my DM is just good and we as players are just good at planning, but combat never felt boring to me , it's definately the part that I like the most of our campaign. I play a monk so I do go melee, and actions such as push, shove and grapple always add depth to the experience and most of the time contribute to the party as a whole. Our battle ground rarely is flat and there often are different ways to approach the enemies.

[TrinculoLives]

There are a couple of classes and sublcasses that weaving in and out of combat is specifically their wheel house. I would not want to give their toys to everyone which is basically what you are doing.

A modified and lesser version of the toy, but yes, this was one of my concerns.

[TrinculoLives]

I really don't see why your combats work out that way. Plenty of classes have solid maneuverability options that will allow them to move through combat effectively, and all other options failed, you can just disengage. Beyond that, you can freely move around your enemies without drawing opportunity attacks.
Alright, let's see:

Abilities that affect Reach-Opportunity Attack interactions:

Rogue's Cunning Action
Monk's Step of the Wind
Battlemaster's Maneuvering Attack (limited)
Totem Barbarian's 3rd level Eagle feature (limited)

That's all I can think of.

There are, of course, blink-type abilities:

Way of Shadow Monk's Shadow Step
Archfey Warlock's Misty Escape (limited)
Conjuration Wizard's Benign Transposition

And invisibility:

Trickery Cleric's Cloak of Shadows

So apart from spells like the 2nd level Misty Step or the 2nd level Invisibility there are not very many features, especially at low levels (where the majority of game-play occurs) that allow a character to move through combat, and for Monsters even less so.*

Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers never get the ability to maneuver through combat effectively (and for all classes but Monks and Rogues, there is a spell-slot cost or an ability that is only usable once per short/long rest.) Combat is sticky, especially at lower levels.

Edit: Oh nice, you updated your ranger guide. I remember using that quite a while back.

[SharkForce]

perhaps you could try using the abilities that are already in the game to allow greater mobility for those that choose to have it?

[TrinculoLives]

perhaps you could try using the abilities that are already in the game to allow greater mobility for those that choose to have it?

Good idea, what are you thinking of? Giving monsters and PCs the Mobile feat?

[Malifice]

Or the Fighter could just action surge, take the disengage action, move to the dragon and then attack it.

Rogues can do this every round. Monks too from memory.

There is also the Mobile feat. Or just wear the AoO.

[Angelmaker]

Combat is absolutely static in all groups i DM and it drives me crazy. When i play my barbarian, i grapple and drag enemies, jump through windows and throw around parts of the scenery just to liven up the combat, even if it is absolutely subpar compared to regular attacks.

Otherwise, casters and ranged stay in the back, melee engage and duke it out. It's boring as hell. This and the thread "d&d shouldn't be balanved around the 4-6 encounter day", has mostly driven me away from d&d and i am currently looking for alternative systems. Maybe dragon aGe, i dunno.

[Waffle_Iron]

I see this kind of combat most often when the only goal of the combat is to kill or be killed.
As a GM I try to make sure that combat happens for other reasons.
Perhaps the only goal of the PCs this time is to escape, quickly.
Perhaps these hobgoblins desperately need food and other provisions and they only want to get in and out with the loot.
Or this dragon is protecting a clutch and won't pursue the PC any farther than necessary.
Things like that add a lot of reasons for positioning.

[skaddix]

It be great if you were say a Moon Druid or a Tempest Cleric.

For most classes though that is very bad.

[mephnick]

Players are petrified of taking opportunity attacks for some stupid reason. Unless you're fighting a powerful enemy, chances are the monster won't even hit you or will do little damage. But players won't risk the hit! Even if it puts them in a way better position! Meanwhile my monsters are running right by the "tank", swarming casters and taking the odd AoO, oh no!

All you can do is run combats with dynamic enemies and hope your players learn that it's ok to trade hits sometimes.

[Specter]

The situation you described works for gamers who want to be safe. On a table where guys aren't afraid to take chances, they just move and couldn't care less about opportunity attacks. Basically, your group has a personal style, and it's fine.

[Jerrykhor]

Without Opportunity attacks, anyone can run past a row of armed men within sniffing distance. It is meant to discourage people from running past melee mobs as if they are not there.

[Slipperychicken]

The situation you described works for gamers who want to be safe. On a table where guys aren't afraid to take chances, they just move and couldn't care less about opportunity attacks. Basically, your group has a personal style, and it's fine.

That's understandable behavior from players who are expected to put significant investments of time, energy, and emotions into their characters.


If I'm just playing a statblock with a funny voice, then it's cool to do stupid things, I can just make a new one. If I'm expected to seriously pour myself into this character, taking multiple hours to build this thing (if not the better part of a week, or even multiple weeks in some cases), construct a reasonably detailed and plausible backstory, and portray a deep and compelling character, then I'm not going to throw its life away for no reason. Losing an emotional investment like that is really draining and demoralizing, so it's perfectly understandable to be risk-averse about it.

[Anderlith]

I've never had this happen as a player, & i played a tanky paladin.
I've never had this as a DM either, i draw a few terrain pieces of a gridmap, & maybe have a ranged attacker or two to mix it up. Almost all monster/beasts have a ranged option.

[bid]

Separate
When you use Separate as a bonus action, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks from any creature whose reach you are currently within for the rest of the turn, unless you re-enter that creature's reach on the same turn.
So, disengage becomes a bonus action, roughly.

Do you really need to attack the dragon on the same turn you disengage?
How would you like if every enemy would waltz right into your casters all the time?

[pwykersotz]

Huh...I thought you were going somewhere else with this.

I thought you were going to propose a combat action where you give up something (an attack, movement, an action of some sort) and separate a foe from his allies or your allies. Jumping inbetween the bugbear and the Wizard, or cutting off one of the goblins.

I think your method is a bit too heavy on technicalities and grid combat for my tables. You could instead have the fighter shove away the foes he is engaging as attack actions, pushing them all back, and then charging straight for the dragon (obviously dependent on how many attacks he can make. Or maybe you could make a "Force Disengage" action where you swing a weapon in an arc, and the opponents can either voluntarily step back five feet or be automatically subject to your weapon die damage.

I am interested in your premise though, I'm curious to see where this thread goes.

[Kane0]

If you must have a bonus action version of disengage, have it work against one creature, not everyone threatening you at that time. That way you preserve the usefulness of Cunning action, the mobile feat, etc.

[TrinculoLives]

Combat is absolutely static in all groups i DM and it drives me crazy. When i play my barbarian, i grapple and drag enemies, jump through windows and throw around parts of the scenery just to liven up the combat, even if it is absolutely subpar compared to regular attacks.

Otherwise, casters and ranged stay in the back, melee engage and duke it out. It's boring as hell. This and the thread "d&d shouldn't be balanved around the 4-6 encounter day", has mostly driven me away from d&d and i am currently looking for alternative systems. Maybe dragon aGe, i dunno.

There have been some good suggestions here and the other site I posted about placing dynamic terrain like a rushing stream on the map, or ensuring that the Monsters have some spellcasters with spells like Hunger of Hadar, spells that require PCs move on their turn or suffer for it.

I've been working towards enlivening my combats up lately (the reason for my posting). I have a feeling that other RPGs will have similar problems in combat. What do you think about creating "dynamic" battlefields from the DM side of the screen?

[Saeviomage]

Combats are static if there is no good reason to move. If a fight is is just a fight, with no dynamic terrain, no high value targets and blockers, no reason to fight beyond "grind the other guys hitpoints down" and no intelligent action by the enemy (like running away before they all die), then your fights will be static and boring.

In your example, how did the combat end up with the situation where the fighter is surrounded by kobolds, but doesn't want to be? And how is the game enhanced by trivializing massive tactical errors like that?

If the fighter wants to get out of that situation, he has plenty of options:
1. Take the hits.
2. Get a party member (like a monk) to run past the kobolds while defending.
3. Kill some kobolds, then move and take less hits
4. Push some kobolds away, then move and take less hits
5. Disengage and don't get attacks on the dragon
6. Get a party member to chuck down something that makes him unseen or gives the kobolds disadvantage
7. Give the kobolds a reason to move (intimidate!)
8. Taunt the dragon

Whereas under your system he just says "bonus action!" and runs to the dragon, completely ignoring the 5 kobolds that he allowed to surround him.

[TrinculoLives]

Players are petrified of taking opportunity attacks for some stupid reason. Unless you're fighting a powerful enemy, chances are the monster won't even hit you or will do little damage. But players won't risk the hit! Even if it puts them in a way better position! Meanwhile my monsters are running right by the "tank", swarming casters and taking the odd AoO, oh no!

All you can do is run combats with dynamic enemies and hope your players learn that it's ok to trade hits sometimes.

Hey thanks for the advice! I'll try out some more reckless behaviour. Maybe some gnolls...


Without Opportunity attacks, anyone can run past a row of armed men within sniffing distance. It is meant to discourage people from running past melee mobs as if they are not there.

That I understand, for sure. I'm just trying to institute a way that a creature can leave the reach of an opponent harm-free without spending their entire action on it. This may be something inherent to the game's balance, but I never really liked how once you were within 5 feet of an enemy you were kind of stuck there next to them.


If you must have a bonus action version of disengage, have it work against one creature, not everyone threatening you at that time. That way you preserve the usefulness of Cunning action, the mobile feat, etc.

Cunning Action is still better than this ability, but only slightly. Perhaps this would be a good middle-ground.

[Kane0]

Maybe this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-apfeHz-qjE) can help you? Or this guy (http://theangrygm.com/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/)?

[TrinculoLives]

Maybe this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-apfeHz-qjE) can help you? Or this guy (http://theangrygm.com/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/)?

Thanks for the links. I've read that article of the Angry DM's, but it's been a while.

He also has a good article about interesting battlefield terrain design: http://angrydm.com/2014/09/the-angry-guide-to-kicka-combats-part-2-battlefields-and-battlefeels/


I mean this is all great stuff, but I still think the game might benefit from a less constricted rule-set for movement in combat. Thanks for the contribution anyway, it's got me thinking.

[Mellack]

Alright, let's see:

Abilities that affect Reach-Opportunity Attack interactions:

Rogue's Cunning Action
Monk's Step of the Wind
Battlemaster's Maneuvering Attack (limited)
Totem Barbarian's 3rd level Eagle feature (limited)

That's all I can think of.

There are, of course, blink-type abilities:

Way of Shadow Monk's Shadow Step
Archfey Warlock's Misty Escape (limited)
Conjuration Wizard's Benign Transposition

And invisibility:

Trickery Cleric's Cloak of Shadows

So apart from spells like the 2nd level Misty Step or the 2nd level Invisibility there are not very many features, especially at low levels (where the majority of game-play occurs) that allow a character to move through combat, and for Monsters even less so.*

Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers never get the ability to maneuver through combat effectively (and for all classes but Monks and Rogues, there is a spell-slot cost or an ability that is only usable once per short/long rest.) Combat is sticky, especially at lower levels.

Edit: Oh nice, you updated your ranger guide. I remember using that quite a while back.

I think you are missing some of the options that can get someone free to move. In addition to those you listed, darkness, fog cloud, smoke, etc things that make you unable to be seen.
Shove, available to all characters and monsters.
Shocking grasp, no reaction means no AoO.
Mobile Feat
Swashbucklers
Killing the guy on you.

Really, if you get surrounded, that should be a problem. That is a major error and the creature should have to pay for it. Letting everyone just decide to get out for a bonus action seems like it would lessen tactics.

[Jerrykhor]

That I understand, for sure. I'm just trying to institute a way that a creature can leave the reach of an opponent harm-free without spending their entire action on it. This may be something inherent to the game's balance, but I never really liked how once you were within 5 feet of an enemy you were kind of stuck there next to them.


That's very true, but its more of a problem with the way D&D expects their battles to be mostly small-medium skirmishes. It's not good at doing dueling or large scale warfare. IMO, melee dueling should have a different system altogether, to simulate the constant movement, gap management and weapon reach/type/special properties that goes into it.

I too have a hard time believing that my enemy can have a free hit at me if i try to move out of his weapon reach. That's what people in melee do all the time, and they do it to avoid getting hit, not the other way round.

But opportunity attacks is mostly there for game balance, otherwise melees with huge movement can keep playing hit-and-run with his enemies.

[SharkForce]

Good idea, what are you thinking of? Giving monsters and PCs the Mobile feat?

nobody should be *given* anything. they have options. they don't use them, it's their problem.

they should use the options available to them, however. PCs certainly can take the mobile feat if they want. or they can splash 2 rogue or monk levels. or play one of the more mobile classes in the first place. or get access to misty step. or shove things out of the way. or grapple them and drag them along. or they could take some of the abilities that help protect you from opportunity attacks. or someone else can use an ability or spell to free that person up.

there are plenty of ways to increase mobility already, and it all costs something, and there is a reason for that. if you don't want to pay for mobility, you can pay for lack of mobility instead.

[coredump]

I think more to the point..... OA are not that much of a penalty. If you really want to get to that dragon, a couple of extra Kobold attacks just isn't a big deal.

IOW, I don't think this change will make combat less sticky. It may lead to more cheesy mechanics, but thats about it.

The reason combat is sticky, is because it is abstracted. Real combat has movement because there is advantage to movement... Backing up to create space, reversing direction for surprise, circling to create different attack lines, avoiding multiple attackers, getting rear attacks, using a small tree for added protection, getting to slightly higher ground, etc etc etc

Almost all of these only give a small advantage....but worthwhile in a life or death combat. Not worthwhile when trying to create a game that you don't want bogged down in dozens of dice rolls for every round Thus, combatants just stand there and hit each other.


Another issue is our use of Turn Taking. Trying to allow for certain tactics becomes silly when the target can't react until his turn. Allow Flanking, and two attackes just move left and right....in reality, the target would back up, or go to the side,etc.

Here is a suggestion for mitigating that.... download the free HackMaster rules, and check out their initiative section. My description will sound cumbersome, but its not. HM uses 1-second ticks for initiative. So, for example, (I don't remember if these are accurate) a dagger attack is 3 seconds, a greatsword is 10 seconds, moving 3 feet is a second, a spell depends on level, etc etc. Again, it works pretty well in practice. Surprisingly so actually.
But it also breaks up the 'turn taking' a bit. You move 3', I can move 3'. So now you can institute things like Flanking without it becoming silly. Those two guys try and separate, now the target can move back, or to the side....can react.

Anyway, thats my best suggestion.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

In my experience, combat is in fact far too slippery, barring something like Tunnel Fighter. For position to mean much, there must be some differences in costs and benefits between one position and another. The benefits of changing position are clear: You want to engage a particular target an an effective range, or you want fewer enemies to be able to engage you. The costs should also be quite clear: The enemy can punish some forms of movement. There already isn't that much punishment available (1 OA per round at most), and plenty of ways to avoid said punishment. It's not the system's fault if people are unwilling to avoid even the slightest of punishments to give themselves an edge.

[Rusvul]

I would agree to some extent - combat can be, but isn't always, too sticky. I don't think reducing the power of AoOs is the answer here, though. I think you'd do better to add an incentive to move - as other people have mentioned, the best way to do that is for the DM to plan interesting fights, but implementing a flanking bonus or something similar could layer with that nicely. Now, this would naturally kind of screw with 5e's balance a little, but I think it's workable (as long as you don't hand out advantage for flanking). Perhaps a +2 bonus on attack rolls for flanking a foe? It doesn't have that 5e elegance, and it would make melee combat more lethal since more attacks would hit, but I think it would solve the problem.

[TrinculoLives]

Here is a suggestion for mitigating that.... download the free HackMaster rules, and check out their initiative section. My description will sound cumbersome, but its not. HM uses 1-second ticks for initiative. So, for example, (I don't remember if these are accurate) a dagger attack is 3 seconds, a greatsword is 10 seconds, moving 3 feet is a second, a spell depends on level, etc etc. Again, it works pretty well in practice. Surprisingly so actually.
But it also breaks up the 'turn taking' a bit. You move 3', I can move 3'. So now you can institute things like Flanking without it becoming silly. Those two guys try and separate, now the target can move back, or to the side....can react.

Anyway, thats my best suggestion.

Thanks for the suggestion, I hadn't heard of that ruleset before.


I would agree to some extent - combat can be, but isn't always, too sticky. I don't think reducing the power of AoOs is the answer here, though. I think you'd do better to add an incentive to move - as other people have mentioned, the best way to do that is for the DM to plan interesting fights, but implementing a flanking bonus or something similar could layer with that nicely. Now, this would naturally kind of screw with 5e's balance a little, but I think it's workable (as long as you don't hand out advantage for flanking). Perhaps a +2 bonus on attack rolls for flanking a foe? It doesn't have that 5e elegance, and it would make melee combat more lethal since more attacks would hit, but I think it would solve the problem.

I'm leaning towards implementing some of the terrain variety and various encounter goals that have been suggested in the thread so far, to see if that gets the party to move around the field more. After that I might try Flanking, to see how that feels. The first 5e group I played in used it, but I don't remember that making the fights more interesting: it just made it really, really easy to gain advantage.

[Coidzor]

I would argue that combat is very, very not sticky compared to the two editions of D&D that came before it.

In 3.5, the default for attacks of opportunity was moving out of a square within a creature's reach. In 5e, you can dance all around a creature as long as you don't leave its reach, and a character has to take a feat in order to be able to attack someone for entering their reach instead of leaving it. 3.5's equivalent feat was Combat Reflexes, which gave many more attacks of opportunity per round of combat than are within conception in 5e.

In 4e, there was an entire party role and set of character classes that were dedicated to being sticky as hell. They were called Defenders.

[Knaight]

That's very true, but its more of a problem with the way D&D expects their battles to be mostly small-medium skirmishes. It's not good at doing dueling or large scale warfare. IMO, melee dueling should have a different system altogether, to simulate the constant movement, gap management and weapon reach/type/special properties that goes into it.

I too have a hard time believing that my enemy can have a free hit at me if i try to move out of his weapon reach. That's what people in melee do all the time, and they do it to avoid getting hit, not the other way round.

The big thing it that there's no distinction made between getting out of an enemy's controlled space and moving through an enemies controlled space. An OA makes a lot of sense in the moving through situation (I've rushed enough archers in skirmish fighting to confirm this), it makes a lot less sense in a retreat. There's also how easy it is to circle someone within the reach, which is also a situation that more warrants an OA (or some sort of counter-movement option).

[Malifice]

Give everyone the second dot point of the Mobile feat.

Done.

[AttilatheYeon]

Well, i'd say a soap and water solution should make it less sticky. If that doesn't work some rubbing alcohol almost def will work. 😉

By the way, what are u doing to get ur combat sticky? 😉

[EvilAnagram]

Alright, let's see:

Abilities that affect Reach-Opportunity Attack interactions:

Rogue's Cunning Action
Monk's Step of the Wind
Battlemaster's Maneuvering Attack (limited)
Totem Barbarian's 3rd level Eagle feature (limited)

That's all I can think of.

There are, of course, blink-type abilities:

Way of Shadow Monk's Shadow Step
Archfey Warlock's Misty Escape (limited)
Conjuration Wizard's Benign Transposition

And invisibility:

Trickery Cleric's Cloak of Shadows

So apart from spells like the 2nd level Misty Step or the 2nd level Invisibility there are not very many features, especially at low levels (where the majority of game-play occurs) that allow a character to move through combat, and for Monsters even less so.*

Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers never get the ability to maneuver through combat effectively (and for all classes but Monks and Rogues, there is a spell-slot cost or an ability that is only usable once per short/long rest.) Combat is sticky, especially at lower levels.

Edit: Oh nice, you updated your ranger guide. I remember using that quite a while back.

Fighters get action surge if moving out of combat is important enough, and Rangers can get boosted AC against op attacks.

More importantly, there are spells that inhibit reactions, everyone gets to disengage as an action, and opportunity attacks are much more limited than in past editions. If one character triggers an op attack, anyone else engaged in combat is free to move as they wish. Certainly, HP are more precious in early levels, but those levels are designed to pass by quickly.

[SharkForce]

The big thing it that there's no distinction made between getting out of an enemy's controlled space and moving through an enemies controlled space. An OA makes a lot of sense in the moving through situation (I've rushed enough archers in skirmish fighting to confirm this), it makes a lot less sense in a retreat. There's also how easy it is to circle someone within the reach, which is also a situation that more warrants an OA (or some sort of counter-movement option).

retreat: what, you mean, like a disengage? like the one that is already in the game that lets you back away without eating an opportunity attack, but generally comes at the expense of trying to kill the person you're disengaging from?

sounds like a non-problem to me. if you want to retreat, don't be greedy about also trying to advance and kill the other person at the same time.

[Sir cryosin]

Alright, let's see:

Abilities that affect Reach-Opportunity Attack interactions:

Rogue's Cunning Action
Monk's Step of the Wind
Battlemaster's Maneuvering Attack (limited)
Totem Barbarian's 3rd level Eagle feature (limited)

That's all I can think of.

There are, of course, blink-type abilities:

Way of Shadow Monk's Shadow Step
Archfey Warlock's Misty Escape (limited)
Conjuration Wizard's Benign Transposition

And invisibility:

Trickery Cleric's Cloak of Shadows

So apart from spells like the 2nd level Misty Step or the 2nd level Invisibility there are not very many features, especially at low levels (where the majority of game-play occurs) that allow a character to move through combat, and for Monsters even less so.*

Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers never get the ability to maneuver through combat effectively (and for all classes but Monks and Rogues, there is a spell-slot cost or an ability that is only usable once per short/long rest.) Combat is sticky, especially at lower levels.

Edit: Oh nice, you updated your ranger guide. I remember using that quite a while back.

You for got hunter ranger Escape The Horde. Any body can pick up the fear mobile.

I don't see were a fighter, paladin or a barbarian. Wants to run around. Firstly most creatures in the monster manual have more movement than a PC. Also as someone else pointed out if your Frontliner ran away from the monster and if the monster is some what intelligent it'll go for the squishy people the heavy armored guy just left them wide open to the monster. Now the Frontliner have to spend his turn taking the dashed action to get back in melee by then the monster might of had a round or two to whale on your caster.

[hymer]

Well, i'd say a soap and water solution should make it less sticky. If that doesn't work some rubbing alcohol almost def will work. 😉

By the way, what are u doing to get ur combat sticky? 😉

Blood is hell to shift, you want to get it in soak as soon as possible.

[Snails]

I would argue that combat is very, very not sticky compared to the two editions of D&D that came before it.

In 3.5, the default for attacks of opportunity was moving out of a square within a creature's reach. In 5e, you can dance all around a creature as long as you don't leave its reach, and a character has to take a feat in order to be able to attack someone for entering their reach instead of leaving it. 3.5's equivalent feat was Combat Reflexes, which gave many more attacks of opportunity per round of combat than are within conception in 5e.

In 4e, there was an entire party role and set of character classes that were dedicated to being sticky as hell. They were called Defenders.

Exactly. 5e is much less sticky than 3e or 4e. And back when I played 1e/2e, the houserules gave all the downsides we are seeing with 5e (and not so many upsides).

The fact is that eating an AoO is no big deal. If you can position yourself to gain Advantage, then that is probably a small win immediately, and a big win over the longer haul.

I can understand not wanting to eat 3 or 4 AoOs from a cluster of enemies, but that is what Withdrawal is for.

BTW, players can choose to own these bunching up tactics by clustering 2-3 PCs on the battle line with Protection fighting style.

[Knaight]

Exactly. 5e is much less sticky than 3e or 4e. And back when I played 1e/2e, the houserules gave all the downsides we are seeing with 5e (and not so many upsides).

If only there were more points of comparison than other D&D games, but alas, that's the entirety of the industry, and there's certainly no comparison to things that aren't RPGs.

[Orion3T]

Disengage feels expensive for certain classes and especially at lower levels. Once you have reactions and bonus actions at your disposal (whether those allow disengage or something else) using your action for disengage is less of a problem.

For example, at level 1 a fighter might have to give up their only attack to disengage, assuming they didn't unlock any special abilities using bonus or reactions yet. At level 5 they might have Shield Mastery or something else which lets them an attack on their bonus action or reaction, plus Action Surge. A Sorc might take Quicken spell, then they can use their action to disengage and reaction to cast a spell.

Then there are abilities like Shocking Grasp.

If the fighter let himself get surrounded like in your original example, then the price of a whole action is reasonable to avoid 5 AoO (and if facing a dragon, presumably they are high enough level to still use a bonus action and/or reaction to hurt the dragon) and as already mentioned there's Action Surge. Better to avoid this situation in the first place (perhaps they should have eaten 1 AoO when only 1 kobold had engaged them?).

Finally, retreating is not the same as attacking then moving away. Someone retreating from a fight doesn't just turn and run, they carefully retreat while looking to parry their opponents' attempts to press their attack.

[lucidvizion]

Funny to see this thread today, I had this exact thought when I was running my session last night.

When I run combats with a lot of enemies I feel like the game starts to drag, so I've leaned towards stronger, fewer enemies. Which of course leads me to this combat stickiness problem.

I think I might try combining Disengage, Dodge and Dash into a single action that can be used by monsters and PC's alike. Actions are supposed to be powerful, and I think this may be a nice way to add variety to combat without cheapening the Rogue's cunning action ability.

[Lord Ruby34]

At my table I have the disengage action provide 1/2 movement rounded down. Seems to work well for us.

[NNescio]

Funny to see this thread today, I had this exact thought when I was running my session last night.

When I run combats with a lot of enemies I feel like the game starts to drag, so I've leaned towards stronger, fewer enemies. Which of course leads me to this combat stickiness problem.

I think I might try combining Disengage, Dodge and Dash into a single action that can be used by monsters and PC's alike. Actions are supposed to be powerful, and I think this may be a nice way to add variety to combat without cheapening the Rogue's cunning action ability.

Say hello to Clerics with Spiritual Weapon + Spirit Guardians. Also Sorlocks.

Anyone with a strong non-action (casters with spells with repeatable bonus actions, creatures with Aura effects, some monsters especially those with Legendary actions, and maybe a disarming/pickpocketing/item-using Thief) that isn't contingent on taking an attack action will benefit too much.

Also Rogues can ninja away with impunity if there's a corner anywhere nearby.

Everyone will be moving around the battlefield too much, making a total mess out of both ToM and battlemaps (unless you have huge maps).

Just plop down interesting terrain that can be interacted with (cover and LoS blocking against ranged enemies, difficult terrain, interactable objects like chandeliers and rope bridges, and even chokepoints, ironically [because creatures scramble to capitalize or slip through them]) and combat will naturally become more dynamic.

[Samayu]

Tell me if this sounds familiar:

The DM describes a group of bugbears charging out of the trees toward the party. Initiative is rolled, a combat grid is laid out, and most of the combatants close in during the first round of combat... and then most of them don't move again until the combat is over.

I'm not sure I understand the problem. You're complaining that bugbears go down too quickly? Or that your friends kill the dragons before you can kill the kobolds? That your teamates get to kill all the cool stuff? That your paladin, rather than thanking the rest of the team for a job well done, complains that they're too efficient? That the enemies are easy enough foes that each one can be killed by less than the entire party? Your DM is not being fun because he includes enemies that nobody wants to take the time to kill?

We've all been in positions that we didn't want to be in. Where we couldn't use our talents to their best advantage. It's not the most fun place to be, but things come around. When a plan comes together, they won't have a prayer. But until then - you have to finish your kobolds before you can go out and play.

[Coidzor]

At my table I have the disengage action provide 1/2 movement rounded down. Seems to work well for us.

As in they could only move half their movement if they took it, or that it added half their movement to their regular movement so they had 1.5 times the movement they'd otherwise have?

[MeeposFire]

Honestly from what I have read you are making the wrong complaint. If I am a melee person and I am currently in melee combat why would I move? Unless you give me a reason to move why would I do it? I recall back in playing other games that lacked any penalty what so ever from moving away from enemies that we still did not generally do it since what would be the point?

The problem really is that you have not given the people in the party an incentive to move. If moving gave them a benefit in the combat that they could see then they probably would even with things like opportunity attacks. Think of it since you are the DM when do you feel like making your enemies move despite the penalties? Probably when the party has somebody that will wreck the encounter and you want to stop them so your forces rush the wizard regardless of how many fighters and what not are in your way. That is an incentive for you and it could be for them as well.

For the most part movement for melee person is to get themselves into position to fight in melee and unless you give them a reason to want to move once they are in position they really have no reason to leave. If you want them to move give them a reason to they do not need new actions they need reasons to move.

[TrinculoLives]

Honestly from what I have read you are making the wrong complaint. If I am a melee person and I am currently in melee combat why would I move? Unless you give me a reason to move why would I do it? I recall back in playing other games that lacked any penalty what so ever from moving away from enemies that we still did not generally do it since what would be the point?

The problem really is that you have not given the people in the party an incentive to move. If moving gave them a benefit in the combat that they could see then they probably would even with things like opportunity attacks. Think of it since you are the DM when do you feel like making your enemies move despite the penalties? Probably when the party has somebody that will wreck the encounter and you want to stop them so your forces rush the wizard regardless of how many fighters and what not are in your way. That is an incentive for you and it could be for them as well.

For the most part movement for melee person is to get themselves into position to fight in melee and unless you give them a reason to want to move once they are in position they really have no reason to leave. If you want them to move give them a reason to they do not need new actions they need reasons to move.
This thread was started because I played in someone else's game, and came across this annoying lack of movement in most of the combats.

[djreynolds]

The mobile feat works vs the person you just attacked, so if there is a group of monsters there is danger.

The key element... danger

You must guard yourself from AoO, so disengage is powerful and it costs an action for most classes

[LeonBH]

A more narrative, less mechanical solution to sticky combat is this:


Don't tell the players the initiative order
Don't mention the word "turn", ever. When it's someone's turn, tell them what they saw and ask them how they react
On your monsters' turns, have them react to what the players just did. But never say it's their turn.
Do not mention initiative at all. Not even "top of the initiative order"


I personally find it makes combat feel less like moving pieces on the board. Theater of the mind also helps. Don't use a grid if you can help it.

[ClearlyTough69]

I agree that combat can get sticky, but I think your proposed solution is too strong. You could try some of these:

A. Opportunity attacks are always made with disadvantage.

B. The benefit of the Disengage action lasts until the end of your next turn, not the current one (I hardly ever see Disengage used, so this might make it a bit more appealing).

C. Opportunity attacks can only be made on a creature that both enters and leaves your reach in the same turn.

D. To make an opportunity attack you must follow the creature you are attacking for five feet, and you may draw opportunity attacks from other creatures (which will themselves have to move five feet too).

[hymer]

I agree that combat can get sticky, but I think your proposed solution is too strong. You could try some of these:

A. Opportunity attacks are always made with disadvantage.

B. The benefit of the Disengage action lasts until the end of your next turn, not the current one (I hardly ever see Disengage used, so this might make it a bit more appealing).

C. Opportunity attacks can only be made on a creature that both enters and leaves your reach in the same turn.

D. To make an opportunity attack you must follow the creature you are attacking for five feet, and you may draw opportunity attacks from other creatures (which will themselves have to move five feet too).

Or combine Dodge and Disengage into an action that does both. Though if someone can do that as a bonus action, they can still only do the one the rule allows.

[EvilAnagram]

I just have trouble seeing combat as sticky when a melee character can't even hold a choke point against more than one enemyunless they intentionally allow him. You get one opportunity attack, which usually has no riders, after which you're unable to stop anyone from moving past you. Horatius could do better, and he was just a guy with a shield and some cojones.

[Lord Ruby34]

As in they could only move half their movement if they took it, or that it added half their movement to their regular movement so they had 1.5 times the movement they'd otherwise have?

1.5 times the normal movement, for example a character with 30 foot move speed would take the disengage action and immediately move 15 feet, and could then move as normal. I also made it so that only that movement does not provoke opportunity attacks, their normal move still does so. It makes my players feel like running away isn't entirely futile if they aren't faster than the monster is.

[CaptainSarathai]

Rather than consider how to fix this, why not consider why it happens?



The DM describes a group of bugbears charging out of the trees toward the party. Initiative is rolled, a combat grid is laid out, and most of the combatants close in during the first round of combat... and then most of them don't move again until the combat is over.

1. A group of Bugbears
So, what is the advantage in targeting Bugbear A, over Bugbear C? Either way, the party has to cut through a number of identical foes, so unless something bad happens (a party member goes down, or the Wizard finds himself in melee) then there's no need to do anything but keep hauling on the Bugbear you're fighting.
Much better would be,
"Some Hobgoblins, and a Hobgoblin Captain doling out orders and buffs"
Now the party has a choice - they can either slog against a bunch of hopped-up Hobgoblins, or someone can try to break through and target that Captain, to deal with his buffs. What's doubly good about the Captain is that his abilities are not spells, so a Wizard cannot stand back and just Counter Spell them. It would also help to "outnumber the tanks" on occasion, so that if the 3 PCs who make up the party front-line could deal with 6 Hobgoblins, you throw 6 at them. Now, if one of those melee guys wants to break off and fight the Captain, he's leaving 2 Hobs unaccounted - now a "squishy" has to deal with them, or the other two melee fighters have to pull extra weight.

2. Most combatants close in during the first round of combat
So, this is obviously a rather open field of engagement. If you want drama, then you need choke-points, asymmetrical conditions, and maybe even an element of surprise.
A good example of this would be that instead of just 6 Hobgoblins and a Captain, you send in 3 Hobgoblins and the Captain, and then two Hobgoblins on Worgs suddenly flank from the east
Now what had been a straight, linear fight, turns into a swirling melee. Characters in the back who don't want to fight up close, are forced to disengage and reposition as the Worgs enter the fray. The melee guys who got sucked into the "easy kill" of a couple HobGobs and their leader, now have to double back and deal with the Worgs before they massacre the squishies.

3. Most of them don't move again until the combat is over
Them? How about the enemies move? If the DM just throws #CR enemies into the party and says, "here, slug it out" then yeah - there's no need to move. But what if the enemies are moving and repositioning, just like the PCs?
What if the HobGoblins are double-teaming the PCs, so that it's 2v1. Whenever a Hobgoblin gets wounded, his ally retreats in an attempt to draw out the Reaction from the PC, and then the wounded Hobgoblin retreats unharried. The first Hobgoblin uses his bow to attack from range, while the other Dashes further out of reach and starts shooting on subsequent turns. Now if the PCs give chase, they have to choose between the two goblins, and maybe there is another wave of enemies looking to join the force and repeat the tactic.

4. It's not worth Disengaging, or eating an OA
Umm... how much are your OAs dealing? Most monsters have MultiAttack, rather than a single huge attack - or else their big attack is some kind of ability and can't be used for Opportunities. From the PC side - if you stand toe-to-toe with my character at Lvl6, you are eating 6d6+12 damage per turn, but my OA is only 2d6+4. That's if I haven't used my Reaction to do something else already. And that's also assuming I even hit.
Tactically, my parties rarely worry about OAs unless they're low on health, or there are a lot of them. Breaking from 1 Hobgoblin for d6+3 damage is safe. Breaking from 2-3 of them can be dangerous.
Conversely, it's totally worth Disengaging if you can't do any good at Range0, but don't have the health to swallow an OA. For instance, if you're the party Wizard. This is why sending in surprises from odd angles is important; most parties don't move as a phalanx, they move as a line. They expect the tanks to hold threats up front, while the artillery pounds from the back. Hit them from the back, and suddenly the artillery us useless (and in serious danger) and the tanks are out of position. There are plenty of ways to accomplish this - from "flanking parties" on open ground, to crossroads in dungeon halls, secret doorways and entrances, creatures that can climb walls or move through spaces/terrain, or creatures who hide and wait for the party to pass by.
--

Change up your encounters. It will work far better than trying to encourage people to move around "just because."