Rules vs Realism

D&D does a pretty good job of applying a rule set to a fabricated reality. Although the current system ignores much of the nitty gritty of previous versions, it envelops most basic issues likely to arise. Now before I delve any further, I would like to address the fact that I realise that 4e 3.5e and pathfinder do cover a few of the topics I’m about to cover. The reason for this post however isn’t about making new rules or showing where 5e is lacking. Its more about incorporating a level of realism and logic that is missing in some things.

Combat Clumsiness

Your paladin fighting with all his pack, bedroll, barrel, 4 warhammers, 3 chain mails and a dog still attached? He must be having a hard time keeping balance! 

Characters that don’t clearly state that they have, to the best of their ability, prepared for combat should be at some sort of disadvantage. This could be in the form of maybe a -2 to AC or at the least a hampered movement of some variety. This could be seen as nit picking but sometimes micro managing some aspects of the game creates a deeper involvement from players.

Flanking

Flanking makes sense, in most situations. The idea of someone being surrounded by 3 or 4 enemies and is able to defend from all of them simultaneously is ridiculous. It makes perfect and logical sense to give melee characters advantage when attacking from an enemy that is already engaged. However, ranged units are still technically trying to hit a moving target and therefore I believe shouldn’t receive the same bonus. But….

Still Targets (controversial I know)

I know that there is a rule for surprise attacks but, I think at any point if anyone aims at a person who is not mobile or engaged in melee combat, they could be given advantage. For example, a confident goblin sorcerer stands arms behind his back on an outcrop 60ft away surveying his clan battle a party of weary adventurers, should a ranged character quickly aim up and shoot at him, why wouldn’t they deserve advantage. Technically it’s not a surprise round but, the fact that it’s a stationary target would be much easier to hit a moving one. This should be taken as a case by case basis, but I believe in the right situation it encourages your ranged characters to make more strategic decisions and look further than the front row of fighting.

Pre-combat Preparation

You see a group of orcs running toward the party, who are simply travelling between towns. The orcs are 120ft away (40yds or 36m… that’s such a small distance to cover), should the party have 3 rounds of combat to start retaliating? Or should they have 5 to 6 seconds to withdraw a weapon from a scabbard, withdraw a bow, notch an arrow and raise it, drop the reins of the cart, don their shield, form up or throw down their packs? The idea of feet as a measurement and combat rounds of 6 seconds, can make starting these kinds of initiation sequences clunky or unrealistic. I think providing each character like a 1-line statement about their first action for this pre-combat preparation is a great way to provide some flexibility and not dive straight into the rounds system of combat.

For example, using the above situation: “I drop the reins to the mule and leap from the cart, as I land I draw my mace and move to Rollo’s side.” Or “I drop my pack from my pack, drawing back my cloak to withdraw my sword. I step 10 feet forward, away from the horse and sink to a fighting stance.” Finally, “I unsling my bow from my shoulders and drop my pack, I reach down and grab an arrow from the quiver and notch it”.

I believe this speeds up encounters, as it potentially removes 3 extra rounds of combat with multiple rolls and all that usually goes with it.