Two of my players have expressed interest in developing a simple combo attack system, as a part of their characters' desire to partner up and aid each other in battle. I was fully onboard, until I realized there's nothing in the rules to support this playing style, beyond one character taking the help action.
So, would you allow your players to regularly use combination attacks? What are some of the ways you have enabled this, beyond flavoring the battle narration?
What do they imagine a combo attack doing? The normal way you do teamwork is by knowing what your allies can do and taking abilities that synergize well, but I assume they're after something more than that.
What do they imagine a combo attack doing? The normal way you do teamwork is by knowing what your allies can do and taking abilities that synergize well, but I assume they're after something more than that.
They discussed several methods, but ultimately agreed that a "combo attack" is a maneuver* that has multiple people attacking at the same time or in tandem. One proposition was having one hold an attack until the other gets a hit in, and getting a variable bonus due to the teamwork needed to keep the enemies in place.
*Not the Fighter ability, just a motion or series of them
I realized there's nothing in the rules to support this playing style, beyond one character taking the help action.
So, would you allow your players to regularly use combination attacks?
What are some of the ways you have enabled this, beyond flavoring the battle narration?
damn, messed that all up, lol
anyway, yeah, I have this with a couple of folks. I decided to use the regular rules for it, classifying each of them as helping the other, and then when we do turns, they take theirs together. Since I narrate details stuff, they fill in the bits and pieces.
in terms of mechanics, nothing too fancy about it unless they do wild things like climb up on a big critter (which forced me to create new space rules), but even then it really just comes down to having advantage and/or bonuses to rolls.
I don’t mind it because I usually use tougher than regular critters (tossed cr).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Maybe I’m not considering some consequences here but since players go in initiative order, could you not average out their initiative roll (so that someone with low dex isn’t straight up benefiting from someone else’s high dex) then have them take turns together and flavour attacks as combos? As far as any bonuses, I’d discuss with the table since potentially it would make these two players stronger than the rest, which could cause resentment.
They discussed several methods, but ultimately agreed that a "combo attack" is a maneuver* that has multiple people attacking at the same time or in tandem. One proposition was having one hold an attack until the other gets a hit in, and getting a variable bonus due to the teamwork needed to keep the enemies in place.
*Not the Fighter ability, just a motion or series of them
They might already have advantage on attacks, through the optional Flanking Rules. One PC might forego one of the attacks of their Extra Attack feature to perform a Shove, giving anyone within melee advantage on attacks, or Grapplethem, to keep them in place. Using one of your spell slots to buff an ally, or using Bardic Inspiration to grant them an inspiration Die. These are some examples of how to use Teamwork to gain a mechanical advantage over your opponents, without going into altering action economy or setting the initiative in a prescribed order.
If they are looking for a mechanical edge on the opponent, I might consider what would happen if the opponents would apply the same tactic to the PCs. How would the players respond to your monsters doing the exact same thing to their PCs. If it feels overpowered when it's applied from that perspective, then it's likely overpowered when the PCs do it.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Another way for two or more characters to do attack combination is to force an enemy to provoke Opportunity Attack from them, such as when using the Dissonant Whispers spell.
For my part I already don't utilise flanking rules mainly as a hangover of running theatre of the mind style games. Even with battlemaps however, flanking gets really fiddly and slows combat too much for my liking. That said, if someone wanted to run a combo attack building on their fellow player character actions I have absolutely no issues with it. The combo of Grease and Spike Growth in Oxventure for example I thought was a great idea. Likewise, I've ruled that the spell grease in my games is flammable because it allows for some fun combos.
However, my core ruling most of the time is to do with combat speed. In a typical four hour session it's not uncommon for combat to take up over an hour of time if I've laid a tactical encounter area or opportunity before the players. So my main consideration is over how much it'll slow combat and if it requires any extra dice rolling. In short if either of those things are true, I'm not going to allow it. D&D is already very dice heavy and the system does often get in the way of the collaborative process, so I rarely like to add extra dice rolling.
That's just me though, your table(s) may be very different. If you want to explore it the main challenge to working something of that sort into the system is the hit chance problem.
You essentially have to answer the question do both players have to hit an enemy to be able to pull off the combo? Do you have one player sacrifice their action in order to provide a guaranteed hit and maybe double damage? Personally, if it was me I would say that yes players could collaborate, and I'd maybe give a bonus 1d6 damage to a combo attack but ultimately it's up to you. You don't have to allow it, and if you do allow it it's your decision how the combo works.
I guess my question would be do the players expect a mechanical advantage from staging their attacks together?
If it is just a role playing artifice so that the characters can move and attack together on the same initiative then I don't really see any issue. Perhaps they could boost each other over obstacles or one could hold a hand while the other jumps.
However, if they expect to get advantage, or earn some other bonus mechanical benefit just because they resolve their turns simultaneously, I'd have to say no.
Initiative is a mechanic which allows the game to resolve 6 seconds of simultaneous action by all the creatures in the combat without having to get into a complicated system where all creatures can move and attack at the same time. Creatures do NOT actually take their actions in order. One creature does not wait for another to finish before they get to start. It is all an artificial game mechanic that allows the resolution of multiple simultaneous actions in the same period of time in a relatively simple way.
If a DM wants to homebrew "combos" that allow the characters to gain some advantage with some cost involved - perhaps they get to use a combo if they give up one attack? or one attack each? Then that is up to the DM. The game itself provides the help action for one character to assist another either in or out of combat. It gets used sometimes but not a lot because it is usually better to attack themselves rather than help someone else.
In a game where the flanking optional rule is used, allowing both turns to be resolved simultaneously could mean both characters would attack with advantage against their target rather than just the second one to get there. If I ran games with flanking (I don't, I think it is not a great rule) then I might stop there since it provides a significant mechanical benefit already.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Two of my players have expressed interest in developing a simple combo attack system, as a part of their characters' desire to partner up and aid each other in battle. I was fully onboard, until I realized there's nothing in the rules to support this playing style, beyond one character taking the help action.
So, would you allow your players to regularly use combination attacks? What are some of the ways you have enabled this, beyond flavoring the battle narration?
What do they imagine a combo attack doing? The normal way you do teamwork is by knowing what your allies can do and taking abilities that synergize well, but I assume they're after something more than that.
They discussed several methods, but ultimately agreed that a "combo attack" is a maneuver* that has multiple people attacking at the same time or in tandem.
One proposition was having one hold an attack until the other gets a hit in, and getting a variable bonus due to the teamwork needed to keep the enemies in place.
*Not the Fighter ability, just a motion or series of them
damn, messed that all up, lol
anyway, yeah, I have this with a couple of folks. I decided to use the regular rules for it, classifying each of them as helping the other, and then when we do turns, they take theirs together. Since I narrate details stuff, they fill in the bits and pieces.
in terms of mechanics, nothing too fancy about it unless they do wild things like climb up on a big critter (which forced me to create new space rules), but even then it really just comes down to having advantage and/or bonuses to rolls.
I don’t mind it because I usually use tougher than regular critters (tossed cr).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Maybe I’m not considering some consequences here but since players go in initiative order, could you not average out their initiative roll (so that someone with low dex isn’t straight up benefiting from someone else’s high dex) then have them take turns together and flavour attacks as combos? As far as any bonuses, I’d discuss with the table since potentially it would make these two players stronger than the rest, which could cause resentment.
They might already have advantage on attacks, through the optional Flanking Rules. One PC might forego one of the attacks of their Extra Attack feature to perform a Shove, giving anyone within melee advantage on attacks, or Grapple them, to keep them in place. Using one of your spell slots to buff an ally, or using Bardic Inspiration to grant them an inspiration Die. These are some examples of how to use Teamwork to gain a mechanical advantage over your opponents, without going into altering action economy or setting the initiative in a prescribed order.
If they are looking for a mechanical edge on the opponent, I might consider what would happen if the opponents would apply the same tactic to the PCs. How would the players respond to your monsters doing the exact same thing to their PCs. If it feels overpowered when it's applied from that perspective, then it's likely overpowered when the PCs do it.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
An easy way for two or more characters to do attack combination is to use the Ready action to attack as a reaction to a common trigger.
Another way for two or more characters to do attack combination is to force an enemy to provoke Opportunity Attack from them, such as when using the Dissonant Whispers spell.
For my part I already don't utilise flanking rules mainly as a hangover of running theatre of the mind style games. Even with battlemaps however, flanking gets really fiddly and slows combat too much for my liking. That said, if someone wanted to run a combo attack building on their fellow player character actions I have absolutely no issues with it. The combo of Grease and Spike Growth in Oxventure for example I thought was a great idea. Likewise, I've ruled that the spell grease in my games is flammable because it allows for some fun combos.
However, my core ruling most of the time is to do with combat speed. In a typical four hour session it's not uncommon for combat to take up over an hour of time if I've laid a tactical encounter area or opportunity before the players. So my main consideration is over how much it'll slow combat and if it requires any extra dice rolling. In short if either of those things are true, I'm not going to allow it. D&D is already very dice heavy and the system does often get in the way of the collaborative process, so I rarely like to add extra dice rolling.
That's just me though, your table(s) may be very different. If you want to explore it the main challenge to working something of that sort into the system is the hit chance problem.
You essentially have to answer the question do both players have to hit an enemy to be able to pull off the combo? Do you have one player sacrifice their action in order to provide a guaranteed hit and maybe double damage? Personally, if it was me I would say that yes players could collaborate, and I'd maybe give a bonus 1d6 damage to a combo attack but ultimately it's up to you. You don't have to allow it, and if you do allow it it's your decision how the combo works.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I guess my question would be do the players expect a mechanical advantage from staging their attacks together?
If it is just a role playing artifice so that the characters can move and attack together on the same initiative then I don't really see any issue. Perhaps they could boost each other over obstacles or one could hold a hand while the other jumps.
However, if they expect to get advantage, or earn some other bonus mechanical benefit just because they resolve their turns simultaneously, I'd have to say no.
Initiative is a mechanic which allows the game to resolve 6 seconds of simultaneous action by all the creatures in the combat without having to get into a complicated system where all creatures can move and attack at the same time. Creatures do NOT actually take their actions in order. One creature does not wait for another to finish before they get to start. It is all an artificial game mechanic that allows the resolution of multiple simultaneous actions in the same period of time in a relatively simple way.
If a DM wants to homebrew "combos" that allow the characters to gain some advantage with some cost involved - perhaps they get to use a combo if they give up one attack? or one attack each? Then that is up to the DM. The game itself provides the help action for one character to assist another either in or out of combat. It gets used sometimes but not a lot because it is usually better to attack themselves rather than help someone else.
In a game where the flanking optional rule is used, allowing both turns to be resolved simultaneously could mean both characters would attack with advantage against their target rather than just the second one to get there. If I ran games with flanking (I don't, I think it is not a great rule) then I might stop there since it provides a significant mechanical benefit already.