Disengage

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

El_Condoro

Jul 04, 2014 6:13:34

In 4E there was Shift, in Next it was Disengage allowed a move of up to 1/2 without a OA from adjacent enemies. Now Disengage (p.72) is an action that doesn't provoke OAs for the rest of your turn. So I can say I am foregoing my attack this turn but will move 6 squares past potentially (but not likely) 12 or even more enemies and not one of them gets an OA at me? I must be missing something.

#2

iserith

Jul 04, 2014 6:15:34

Yes, you read it correctly. I think it's fine. You're giving up an attack or other action to do that.

#3

Prom

Jul 04, 2014 6:20:26

I would just try it out for a while before worrying about it's implications.

#4

rookrock

Jul 04, 2014 6:24:52

I think Disengage makes a lot of sense this way. Instead of attacking you are defencively moving in such a way that you are preventing attacks. Maybe you are waving your sword as you go to ward off the bite of enemy spears, maybe you are using the dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge technique, or maybe, like Baboo, you are doing serpantine, "Serpantine Baboo, Serpantine!"(anybody?). No matter how you RP it, it makes a boat load of sense to me.

#5

El_Condoro

Jul 04, 2014 6:30:22

iserith wrote:
#6

Psikerlord

Jul 04, 2014 6:37:08

hmm yes reading that disengage, it's too simple. I expect there will be a DMG optional rule about only avoiding the first OA. Yeah it's far too easy to just move wherever you want to.

#7

iserith

Jul 04, 2014 6:46:30

El_Condoro wrote:
#8

kev777

Jul 04, 2014 7:01:12

 You might think it makes it impossible to guard a possition, object, or person without completely blocking all access points, but don't forget that you can ready an action.   

 

From a realism perspective it really shouldn't be all that difficult to run away or run past people who are actively engaged with others.  

#9

JDizzleton

Jul 04, 2014 7:29:18

I like it. The old disengage rules seemed too limiting. In practice, the old rules for opportunity attacks put too much restriction of movement on the battlefield. My player's never took advantage of moving around, ducking behind objects, etc. because only being able to move 10 ft without provoking an OA was just too little.

#10

DemoMonkey

Jul 04, 2014 7:45:55

"You might think it makes it impossible to guard a possition, object, or person without completely blocking all access points, but don't forget that you can ready an action."

 

That's an excellent point that bears emphasizing. Being momentarily "immune" to opportunity attacks offers no protection against an enemy who has actually reserved their action and are waiting for you to move near them.

#11

edwin_su

Jul 04, 2014 7:50:31

kev777 wrote:
#12

iserith

Jul 04, 2014 7:53:29

Trip or grapple would be fun. "Gotcha!"

#13

El_Condoro

Jul 04, 2014 8:08:21

Overall, I think 5E is looking really good but this rule will be an issue IMO. p.71 states moving diagonally only costs 1 square (on a grid), so two PCs can be standing shoulder to shoulder - diagonally - and a disengage NPC can slip between them. The only way to properly protect a wizard at the back of the party is to have a dedicated protector willing to sacrifice initiative so as to ready an action just in case an enemy slips past. Meanwhile, the next monster (I'm thinking of small, numerous critters here) gets through after that action and just needs to get adjacent to the spellcaster to make his spells to be cast with disadvantage (p.81). 

 

When I started this thread I thought the rule was too generous to PCs, now I'm thinking the opposite. Like someone said above, might be best to wait and see how it plays out in practice.

(Reply to #12)

AH_schulerta

A DM could swamp a party with this ability. Readied actions or no readied actions.

#15

SwampDog

Jul 04, 2014 8:14:40

JDizzleton wrote:
#16

DemoMonkey

Jul 04, 2014 8:15:35

El Condero

 

"p.71 states moving diagonally only costs 1 square (on a grid), so two PCs can be standing shoulder to shoulder - diagonally - and a disengage NPC can slip between them"

 

First off, good catch.

 

This particular situation will only be a problem if you are using a grid, which is not the baseline assumption. Hopefully more details about using a grid - and the adjustments/accomodations that need to be made as a result - is one of the things covered in the "Tactical Module" in the DMG.

#17

kev777

Jul 04, 2014 8:23:06

edwin_su wrote:
#18

MechaPilot

Jul 04, 2014 8:27:42

DemoMonkey wrote:
#19

Paraxis

Jul 04, 2014 8:30:19

You only have one reaction for an AoO anyway so if there is a swarm of monsters trying to move through the party to get to someone in the back it is best to charge ahead only the first maybe second monster will have to worry about AoO and the rest can now move and attack.  If the goblins want to get to the wizard they can, simple as that.

#20

MechaPilot

Jul 04, 2014 8:30:47

edwin_su wrote:
#21

El_Condoro

Jul 04, 2014 9:09:11

MechaPilot wrote:
#22

Slyck314

Jul 04, 2014 9:10:37

I'm fine with this.  Given enough room and numbers, swarming a party should be a valid tactic.