Movement on a battle map

[Finarvyn]

I'm not sure if this is a 5E problem or a general RPG problem, but....

In 5E most of the characters can move around 6 squares per turn, and initiative order determines who goes in which order, and so one character might move quite a bit and then maybe monsters go and then other characters go. Seems like this sets up some odd situations where a group wants to stay together but the rules encourage one to separate from the group before the next gets to go.

When I did "theater of the mind" back in the day we weren't counting squares so movement together might mix with attacking at different times without really putting one character all alone and in harm's way. But with miniatures on a battle mat we're counting distance and time in an artificial way.

And it gets exaggerated in 5E by the fact that a person could move-move instead of move-action, which means they could "dash" to move 12 squares in front of the rest of the crew. That's really isolated. Even worse, a rogue in 5E can use a bonus action to get another move, so perhaps 18 squares. One could argue Darwinism because moving that far ahead of the party is kind of stupid, but one has to wonder if that if a flaw in the player or a flaw in the rules.

Games like "Star Fleet Battles" use an impulse system so that each person might act or move (1 square at a time?) but only on certain parts of a turn, but that seems pretty complex. Psionics may use a similar impulse chart in Eldritch Wizardry? Either way, seems like an impulse system would slow down the game a lot more than it is slowed already.

I've also tried having characters (and monsters) only move at half their rulebook rate (more like 3 squares per turn) in order to keep this "left alone" effect minimal, but that makes dungeon exploration more of a slog than I'd like.

So, does anyone have a simple solution to this, or am I just making a problem where none really exists?

[rhialto]

I'd just treat the individual sequential resolution of actions as a convenience to keep the game moving, which means some oddities will occur. If you already sense a detailed impulse system creates more problems than it solves I'd say the simple solution is to not worry about the occasional oddities, and chalk them up to the chaos of combat. 

[Desparil]

In 5E they kind of hamstrung your options for delaying initiative, but they did leave open the avenue of "Ready An Action," limited as it may be. That's the standard, by-the-book option for sticking together to avoid being isolated by numerical superior enemies. If you want to bring in a more robust option from 4E as a house rule, you could allow combatants to delay their turns instead, dropping to a lower initiative score for the entire duration of the battle but never needing to fool around with Readied Actions.

[hamurai]

We had a houserule for that. (past tense because we're not playing 5E atm)

Before rolling initiative, we told the DM which party members wanted to stick together, they rolled party initiative with the average(ish) DEX bonus. All the characters who wanted to go alone rolled individual initiative, for example the rogue often would use his quickness to flank the enemy while the rest of the party kinda shield-walled and moved forward, with the spell-caster behind them.

When moving, the group was allowed to move at the lowest speed rating of all the characters in that group.


This worked out well. The DM used group initiative for groups of monsters, which made ini tracking even easier.

[Finarvyn]

I'll give that a try. Sounds like a good rule.

[angantyr]

"Star Fleet Battles" is complex? Why, whatever gave you that notion...? :-)

In fairness, they did have various "quick" movement schemes that lumped together multiple impulses - but I'd not argue that it made the game "simple".

[dicebro]

Can you please rephrase the question? I’m not understanding what you are asking. Thanks

[thegreyelf]

You could also just import OD&D rules, which limit movement based on your armor and encumbrance, and allow only half move and attack (per reference to Chainmail)?

Or am I missing something? Like DiceBro, I'm not sure what the question is here. Is it related to 5e or OD&D?

[Finarvyn]

Nov 1, 2023 13:00:22 GMT -6 dicebro said:

Can you please rephrase the question? I’m not understanding what you are asking. Thanks

Basically the turn sequence seems to put characters in unlikely situations where things happen while characters are separated, but in reality they would be walking together. Is there an easy way around this?

Hamuri's suggestion of linking initiative order to characters who want to move together may be my answer.

Nov 1, 2023 14:41:36 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

I'm not sure what the question is here. Is it related to 5e or OD&D?

Sort of both, actually. I'm running my home crew through 5E but want it to feel like OD&D. They like minis on the battle mat instead of vague "you are somewhere over here" stuff.

I'm not sure if further explanation makes my "question" (frustration?) greater or less, but I will elaborate.

SITUATION #1 -- The group plans to move together through a hallway. One player takes his turn and moves ahead. Then because of initiative order, the monsters go and move between the character and the rest of the party. Not at all what they planned, but the dice said otherwise.

SITUATION #2 -- The group is in a line in a narrow hallway. First player to go happens to be in the back, and he moves ahead and shoots an arrow and then moves back to the end of the line. Players take turns moving up and attacking and moving back. Maybe not how the rules read, but it's how my players interpret them.

In both situations the counting of the squares seems to result in absurd play. So, I guess what I'm looking for is to see how others handle movement on a battle map. Do these situations bother you? How do you handle them? I'm getting to the point where using minis is really messing with the vibe of the adventure, but my players are so excited to paint their minis and love counting squares in an adventure. Maybe I'm the only one bothered by this.

[dicebro]

The way I play od&d is that characters who separate themselves from close-order melee have a very good chance of winning a glorious death.

Seriously…in od&d you can make a ruling: each side moves together as a group. First one side, then the other.  Or both sides engage in a simultaneous movement phase, where they coordinate and write down their moves in secret. This way players can still count squares. 

See, E.g. Chainmail rules (intended for miniature battles) uses phases 

roll for group initiative: best roll elects whether the group moves or waits until other side moves

then the players can decide how they want to proceed individually for each phase of the combat


the players coul Roll for individual initiative, or just go around the table, or use dexterity scores, whatever they desire…

example

movement phase: those with best initiatives or Dex get pick where they end up first
missile fire phase: best initiative shoots first
melee phase: best initiatve hacks first 

[rustic313]

I've really thought a lot about this and playtested a number of options.  Right now I have a mild hack of B/X that works really well.

In a nutshell:
- Individual initiative for the first round.  Players that roll 10+ go before the monsters.  Then the monsters go.  After that, all players go and alternate with all monsters going.  Thus we are basically in "I GO-U GO" alternating sides.  This makes it easy for either side to advance in formation.
- Actions usually are done in the exact sequence "ACT" then "MOVE."  This solves a huge number of problems.  As an example -- an archer cannot step around a corner and loose an arrow with impunity.... and one certainly cannot dance from the back rank to the front to fire then withdraw.  Instead, the archer steps around the corner, then the other team will get to ACT (perhaps by shooting him first!), then the archer looses his missile fire.
- Actors can opt to "CHARGE" which allows a "MOVE then MELEE ATTACK" as an exception to the general rule "ACT-->MOVE" described above.  This must be done in a relatively straight line, imposes an AC penalty, and opens them up to potential opportunity attacks, especially from foes with longer weapons, hurled missiles, or high ground/defensive positions.  So it isn't a no brainer option to use every round.  If you charge there is a good chance you will eat an attack from a hurled hand axe or a spear before you close to make your own attack.
- To manage allied NPCs such as hirelings/henchmen, I have a free action option:  "WITH ME!  When you move, your hirelings or henchmen that are adjacent to you move with you, keeping in formation, so long as their morale is good."  So your NPCs can follow the king's banner down the center, but they won't be pulling off any crazy maneuvers.  Any other order for henchmen/hirelings to move consumes your own move (or regular action).

My system solves a lot of the issues you are describing.  Because each side goes effectively at once (interrupted only by opportunity attacks), a group can advance in formation.  

[hamurai]

Nov 12, 2023 17:34:42 GMT -6 rustic313 said:

- Actions usually are done in the exact sequence "ACT" then "MOVE."  This solves a huge number of problems.  As an example -- an archer cannot step around a corner and loose an arrow with impunity.... and one certainly cannot dance from the back rank to the front to fire then withdraw.  Instead, the archer steps around the corner, then the other team will get to ACT (perhaps by shooting him first!), then the archer looses his missile fire.
- Actors can opt to "CHARGE" which allows a "MOVE then MELEE ATTACK" as an exception to the general rule "ACT-->MOVE" described above.  This must be done in a relatively straight line, imposes an AC penalty, and opens them up to potential opportunity attacks, especially from foes with longer weapons, hurled missiles, or high ground/defensive positions.  So it isn't a no brainer option to use every round.  If you charge there is a good chance you will eat an attack from a hurled hand axe or a spear before you close to make your own attack.

This sounds like a quite crippling rule in 5E.

It means, you can't hide from enemy fire unless you forego your own shots as a ranged fighter. Hiding, shooting, and hiding again behind a column, for example, is quite a good and useful tactic. Also for spell-casters. If you want to hit with a spell or shot you'll always be open for counterattacks in your game.

How do you handle "special actions" then? Some classes get to move or act with their Bonus Action, sometimes as a reaction to what enemies do. Are those still valid? The Scout archetype for the Rogue class comes to mind. Rogues can Dash and Disengage with their Bonus Action, the Scout can move half their movement as a Reaction when an enemy stops next to them, and that doesn't allow Opportunity attacks.

The examples you give (step around a corner and shoot, then return to safety; and getting to the front rank to fire and then retreat to back rank) are pretty much what 5E wants to have, as it finally makes some character classes less vulnerable when cleverly played. It's a very good tactic to use at lower levels, when HP are short and one or two arrows can easily kill your character. It's also, for a lack of a better word, realistic to do that.

Edit: A classic Rogue tactic is to move to the enemy, attack with the Action, Disengage with the Bonus Action, and use the remaining movement to get behind the own Fighter. It's a lot more fun for the players to be able to play their characters like that, at least in our group.

Stupidly running into the open is still a bad idea if you end your movement there. I remember the barbarian in our campaign, running into the courtyard and yelling challenges to the enemy bandits - most of them archers on high ground. He had the highest initiative and was allowed to go first. I played a wizard and was able to at least block two archers' views on him with a spell before the rest let their arrows fly and take the idiot down within two rounds.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 2, 2023 4:32:40 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

SITUATION #1 -- The group plans to move together through a hallway. One player takes his turn and moves ahead. Then because of initiative order, the monsters go and move between the character and the rest of the party. Not at all what they planned, but the dice said otherwise.

SITUATION #2 -- The group is in a line in a narrow hallway. First player to go happens to be in the back, and he moves ahead and shoots an arrow and then moves back to the end of the line. Players take turns moving up and attacking and moving back. Maybe not how the rules read, but it's how my players interpret them.

In both situations the counting of the squares seems to result in absurd play.

Seems to me that the issues described are the product of using a move/counter-move system.

Regardless which specific move/counter-move system is used, they all share/feature that "un-natural" sequence of movements. They play more like a game of chess than a cinematic combat. OTOH, the upside of the move/counter-move systems is that it's easy to run the game when everyone takes their whole turn in full and that's it: they're done. Next person's turn...

The alternative is a simultaneous movement system. The downside of these is that players have to declare their orders first, and then wait for the ref to figure out if/when they get to resolve some/all/none of their orders second. (FWIW, issuing orders and waiting to see how the ref resolves them is what happens in most PBP games, so a simultaneous movement system is a natural fit for these). The upside is that the unnatural movement of SITUATIONs #1 and #2 above don't happen, cos everything is imagined to all be happening simultaneously, and is played out/resolved in the appropriate order by the ref.

Nov 2, 2023 4:32:40 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

So, I guess what I'm looking for is to see how others handle movement on a battle map. Do these situations bother you? How do you handle them? I'm getting to the point where using minis is really messing with the vibe of the adventure, but my players are so excited to paint their minis and love counting squares in an adventure. Maybe I'm the only one bothered by this.

I have struggled back and forth with this too. I have lots of minis and dungeon scenery stuff I would love to get more use out of with D&D, but I don't want to devolve into exact floor plans and counting squares. I've even considered photographing minis/dioramas For my PBP games, but ultimately it's too time consuming so I end up drawing/posting ASCII mud maps instead (way quicker, but less spectacle). In F2F games, I'll make rough hand-drawn maps and put a few minis on them, or else other tokens that represent figure locations. All these methods serve largely the same purpose: to illustrate roughly where things are, relative to one another.

One upside of keeping the maps crude/abstract is that "square counting" isn't practical because a) the scale is never declared, and b) the representations aren't accurate enough anyways. The even better upside is that a loose rendering of the situation requires the players to fill out the white space in their imaginations. Bing.

The main distances that actually matter in most of my games are "in contact" (already fighting) and "within range" (can join or be joined into the fighting). The rest is skirting around the edge of the melee. I always dice for surprise and the distance between sides at the beginning of any encounter; the latter along with movement rates determines whether there's time for spells/missile fire before the melee crunch. That and flight/pursuit aside, movement speed across larger distances typically only matter for determining the late arrival of reinforcements or flanking actions during a combat. In my experience these do happen... sometimes, but not every day of the week.

Hoping my rambling hasn't strayed too far afield...

[Finarvyn]

Nov 12, 2023 23:15:26 GMT -6 hamurai said:

The examples you give (step around a corner and shoot, then return to safety; and getting to the front rank to fire and then retreat to back rank) are pretty much what 5E wants to have, as it finally makes some character classes less vulnerable when cleverly played. It's a very good tactic to use at lower levels, when HP are short and one or two arrows can easily kill your character. It's also, for a lack of a better word, realistic to do that.

Rustic's examples were direct replies to my examples. My bigger frustration may be the fast movement across the board, but those other two were also two situations that get bothersome after a while.

[hamurai]

Oh, I see. The board brought me to that post when I clicked to see the newest...

Fast movement can be an issue for encounter design in 5E, yes. The Scout Rogue can (with Feats) have 40 ft standard movement, that's 80 ft Dash (bonus action) plus 20 ft (reaction, no opportunity attacks) when an enemy gets within 5". Combine that with a multi-classed spell-caster for some Misty-Step teleportation and it gets wild!

Small caverns can easily keep that in check and players who only rely on their mobility can get a nasty surprise (I remember these encounters well from our group). Spells can also keep characters grounded. Traps in combat areas are really nasty surprises for those who tend to "explore" every field on the battle map.

Edit: A simple house rule could be to not ignore encumbrance from armour when PCs have proficiency, so armour might slow down PCs a little.

[rustic313]

Sorry, my response was in the light of a house ruled/interpretation version of OD&D, as a way to solve many of the issues that plague initiative across editions.

I play 5E pretty close to BTB, when I play it. As you highlight there are far too many issues with bonus actions, unintended consequences, class balance, etc to really do otherwise.

My own personal baggage is that I started with 1E. And I learned and played that initiative system as close to BTB as possible, using the excellent ADDICT guide from Dragonsfoot and other resources.... And I'm kind of scarred by it.

So I have really tried to craft something that feels true to B/X, yields results you'd expect in most scenarios, and lets players roll a d20 for inactive (because let's be honest, it's awesome to say "roll for initiative" after some ominous flavor text). But it isn't plug and play with 5E.

[hamurai]

Sept 25, 2023 13:45:07 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

In 5E most of the characters can move around 6 squares per turn, and initiative order determines who goes in which order, and so one character might move quite a bit and then maybe monsters go and then other characters go. Seems like this sets up some odd situations where a group wants to stay together but the rules encourage one to separate from the group before the next gets to go.

One other house rule I remembered after talking to our DM yesterday:

Instead of using a group token, we ruled that you can delay your action (so you can effectively lower your initiative), the PCs with higher initiative could delay their turn until the one with the lowest initiative started their turn. Technically, this would "trigger" the delayed actions of the rest of the PCs. That way, all PCs will move directly after each other. The only chance for a monster to interfere (BTB) would be a Ready action, triggered by something the PCs do.

Side Note:

I'm not a huge fan of the d20 initiative, because the d20 is too swingy, even with high DEX bonuses. For average characters, the DEX bonus will hardly make a difference and the d20 roll will mostly decide the turn order. In my dungeon crawl experimental game of 5E we tried using a d12, which worked for me, as initiative order got far more predictable, as the DEX bonus would have a higher impact.

Personally, I found it quite frustrating to have a "quick" character who acted went way after the lucky DEX +0 monsters had their go because they got lucky on the d20 roll. That is especially true when you use group initiative for groups of enemies and we had several fights were groups of skeletons or zombies acted long before our supposedly quick Ranger and Thief because they just rolled average and the DEX bonus wasn't enough to get them above the enemy.