D&D does not attempt to be a realistic combat simulator. Or a realistic anything simulator for that matter. It’s a game, and it tries to be a game with a set of rules that make it fun and fair. Real life has no such motivation.
Try to think of it more like a game, and less like how things might work in the real world. In this game, you can only move your pieces according to a certain set of rules.
Another example could be that if I am a range fighter and a melee combatant approaches me that I react by moving backward to prevent the gap from being closed. That action and reaction would essentially always lead to the melee combatant never being close enough to land a hit. While the ranged combatant shuffles backward while shooting arrows. Moving doesn't hinder action. the melee combatant can swing his sword all they want while walking forward. A bowman can shoot his bow while moving. Since the bowman was never in the melee combatant area of effect then the AoO never applies.
If the melee fighter does not have enough movement to get within 5 feet of the archer then, yes, the archer can move away and shoot. However, depending on range, the melee fighter can Dash into 5 feet and when the archer tries to move away, will suffer an OA.
If the melee fighter reacts to the bowman moving backwards by dashing wouldn’t that be his only time to react? Then preventing him from reacting again to make an opportunity attack as the bowman continues to move out of range.
D&D does not attempt to be a realistic combat simulator. Or a realistic anything simulator for that matter. It’s a game, and it tries to be a game with a set of rules that make it fun and fair. Real life has no such motivation.
Try to think of it more like a game, and less like how things might work in the real world. In this game, you can only move your pieces according to a certain set of rules.
I’m not looking for reality. This is absolutely not chess with a set rules for movement and engagement. D&D has always allowed for rule variations and different interpretations. In the end I’ll home brew the movement allowing for more fluid motion In combat. What I’ve seen in allowing this action of moving backwards is that the ranged player gets annoyed with moving and pulls another weapon out.
I’m not looking for reality. This is absolutely not chess with a set rules for movement and engagement. D&D has always allowed for rule variations and different interpretations. In the end I’ll home brew the movement allowing for more fluid motion In combat. What I’ve seen in allowing this action of moving backwards is that the ranged player gets annoyed with moving and pulls another weapon out.
I'm not following what your homebrew is, but it sounds like you're homebrewing for fewer OAs to happen. What that will do is sideline melee even more than it already is by the core rules, and emphasize ranged combat more.
D&D does not attempt to be a realistic combat simulator. Or a realistic anything simulator for that matter. It’s a game, and it tries to be a game with a set of rules that make it fun and fair. Real life has no such motivation.
Try to think of it more like a game, and less like how things might work in the real world. In this game, you can only move your pieces according to a certain set of rules.
I’m not looking for reality. This is absolutely not chess with a set rules for movement and engagement. D&D has always allowed for rule variations and different interpretations. In the end I’ll home brew the movement allowing for more fluid motion In combat. What I’ve seen in allowing this action of moving backwards is that the ranged player gets annoyed with moving and pulls another weapon out.
But there are rules for movement and engagement. Your whole problem seems to be with those rules. And literally every game, chess included, has rules variants, so I’m not sure what you’re saying there.
And as others have noted, 3 and 4 e had rules to allow for backing up. In general, you could spend your whole move to go only 5 feet, instead of your whole move, but not draw OAs in the process. It was clunky and didn’t make the game more fun, so they simplified it.
Another example could be that if I am a range fighter and a melee combatant approaches me that I react by moving backward to prevent the gap from being closed. That action and reaction would essentially always lead to the melee combatant never being close enough to land a hit. While the ranged combatant shuffles backward while shooting arrows. Moving doesn't hinder action. the melee combatant can swing his sword all they want while walking forward. A bowman can shoot his bow while moving. Since the bowman was never in the melee combatant area of effect then the AoO never applies.
If the melee fighter does not have enough movement to get within 5 feet of the archer then, yes, the archer can move away and shoot. However, depending on range, the melee fighter can Dash into 5 feet and when the archer tries to move away, will suffer an OA.
If the melee fighter reacts to the bowman moving backwards by dashing wouldn’t that be his only time to react? Then preventing him from reacting again to make an opportunity attack as the bowman continues to move out of range.
No, because he's moving during his turn. Under normal circumstances he can't move during the archers turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
From everything I have seen and read, it would be difficult for, say, an archer to get out of melee combat and use his bow again without killing or seriously injuring his opponent. Most of the time, the archer would have put away his bow and started using a melee weapon. Even if they backed away carefully, there would be a good chance of the enemy just following them and continuing to attack. The idea for a ranged combatant is not to be able to get out of melee, but not to get into it in the first place or be prepared to fight in the melee.
That said, I think others have pointed out the real reason for this: balance. Ranged characters, including spellcasters, have many advantages over melee characters. Allowing ranged characters to just walk away from combat easily without provoking an OA just makes martial characters even less powerful, relatively speaking.
From everything I have seen and read, it would be difficult for, say, an archer to get out of melee combat and use his bow again without killing or seriously injuring his opponent. Most of the time, the archer would have put away his bow and started using a melee weapon. Even if they backed away carefully, there would be a good chance of the enemy just following them and continuing to attack. The idea for a ranged combatant is not to be able to get out of melee, but not to get into it in the first place or be prepared to fight in the melee.
That said, I think others have pointed out the real reason for this: balance. Ranged characters, including spellcasters, have many advantages over melee characters. Allowing ranged characters to just walk away from combat easily without provoking an OA just makes martial characters even less powerful, relatively speaking.
This is my thought as well...makes the melee fighter much less of a threat to pretty much anyone.
D&D does not attempt to be a realistic combat simulator. Or a realistic anything simulator for that matter. It’s a game, and it tries to be a game with a set of rules that make it fun and fair. Real life has no such motivation.
Try to think of it more like a game, and less like how things might work in the real world. In this game, you can only move your pieces according to a certain set of rules.
I’m not looking for reality. This is absolutely not chess with a set rules for movement and engagement. D&D has always allowed for rule variations and different interpretations. In the end I’ll home brew the movement allowing for more fluid motion In combat. What I’ve seen in allowing this action of moving backwards is that the ranged player gets annoyed with moving and pulls another weapon out.
And as soon as you do this, you need to make it cost double movement to move backward away from an opponent you're engaged with, because moving backwards is not as fast as moving forwards.
And then you need to come up with a rule for which opponents my Fighter is threatening when he has an enemy in every square around himself. Surely he can't look at them all?
And what about parrying? We don't get many rules for parrying. Better make up some more rules for that.
And so on, and so on, and at the end of it you'll still have a game where you just roll dice to see if you hit, and even the weakest child hits the greatest fighter in the world one time in twenty.
It feels like what you need are a few homebrew reactions that characters in your game can take. If you do, I recommend making them limited in some sense to avoid creatures just kiting each other and making melee useless.
e.g When an enemy moves within 5 ft. You can use your reaction to immediately move back up to 10 feet. This doesn’t provide an opportunity attack from this enemy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
D&D does not attempt to be a realistic combat simulator. Or a realistic anything simulator for that matter. It’s a game, and it tries to be a game with a set of rules that make it fun and fair. Real life has no such motivation.
Try to think of it more like a game, and less like how things might work in the real world. In this game, you can only move your pieces according to a certain set of rules.
If the melee fighter reacts to the bowman moving backwards by dashing wouldn’t that be his only time to react? Then preventing him from reacting again to make an opportunity attack as the bowman continues to move out of range.
I’m not looking for reality. This is absolutely not chess with a set rules for movement and engagement. D&D has always allowed for rule variations and different interpretations. In the end I’ll home brew the movement allowing for more fluid motion In combat. What I’ve seen in allowing this action of moving backwards is that the ranged player gets annoyed with moving and pulls another weapon out.
I'm not following what your homebrew is, but it sounds like you're homebrewing for fewer OAs to happen. What that will do is sideline melee even more than it already is by the core rules, and emphasize ranged combat more.
But there are rules for movement and engagement. Your whole problem seems to be with those rules. And literally every game, chess included, has rules variants, so I’m not sure what you’re saying there.
And as others have noted, 3 and 4 e had rules to allow for backing up. In general, you could spend your whole move to go only 5 feet, instead of your whole move, but not draw OAs in the process. It was clunky and didn’t make the game more fun, so they simplified it.
No, because he's moving during his turn. Under normal circumstances he can't move during the archers turn.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
From everything I have seen and read, it would be difficult for, say, an archer to get out of melee combat and use his bow again without killing or seriously injuring his opponent. Most of the time, the archer would have put away his bow and started using a melee weapon. Even if they backed away carefully, there would be a good chance of the enemy just following them and continuing to attack. The idea for a ranged combatant is not to be able to get out of melee, but not to get into it in the first place or be prepared to fight in the melee.
That said, I think others have pointed out the real reason for this: balance. Ranged characters, including spellcasters, have many advantages over melee characters. Allowing ranged characters to just walk away from combat easily without provoking an OA just makes martial characters even less powerful, relatively speaking.
This is my thought as well...makes the melee fighter much less of a threat to pretty much anyone.
And as soon as you do this, you need to make it cost double movement to move backward away from an opponent you're engaged with, because moving backwards is not as fast as moving forwards.
And then you need to come up with a rule for which opponents my Fighter is threatening when he has an enemy in every square around himself. Surely he can't look at them all?
And what about parrying? We don't get many rules for parrying. Better make up some more rules for that.
And so on, and so on, and at the end of it you'll still have a game where you just roll dice to see if you hit, and even the weakest child hits the greatest fighter in the world one time in twenty.
It feels like what you need are a few homebrew reactions that characters in your game can take. If you do, I recommend making them limited in some sense to avoid creatures just kiting each other and making melee useless.
e.g When an enemy moves within 5 ft. You can use your reaction to immediately move back up to 10 feet. This doesn’t provide an opportunity attack from this enemy.