D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Based on reading this article about a round of combat against a dragon (which is under discussion in this thread), it looks like movement is going to be much more of a factor in 4E combat than it is in 3E. In the article, the dragon only uses a standard action to make two claw attacks (plus a tail slap as an immediate action), and then moves. No standing still and unloading six attacks at a time.
Currently, in 3E, there's a strong disincentive to move around in most combats. Not only are you giving up half or more of your attacks, but you also open yourself up to AoOs. This tends to result in fights where the PCs and the monsters move up next to each other, or into flanking position, then stand still and slug it out until one of them falls, maybe taking the occasional 5' step while this goes on.
But, if iterative attacks are out in 4E (rumored), and AoOs are out as well (also rumored, though immediate actions might replace them to some degree?), this disincentive is gone. I can see this making combats a lot more mobile, where one combatant will attack and then move, trying to take a better tactical position.
I really really hope this is the case. In most fantasy battles, the hero doesn't simply stand in one place and trade blows with four orcs while 5' stepping to get out from being flanked. The hero moves around the battlefield, dodging and striking, using the terrain for cover, trying to take the high ground, etc. When the hero comes face-to-face with his arch-enemy, they don't stand stock-still in the middle of a room swinging at each other over and over again. They move up and down staircases, around obstacles, out along the top of the castle wall. It's cinematic. It's exciting.
And, I think more mobile combats would also work well with the "dynamic terrain" they've said they have planned.
"per encounter" abilities will reset after a short withdrawal, if they're anything like Star Wars Saga. So a combat could actually be made up of several skirmishes.
This might make flying enemies a billion times more annoying. Ha ha, now I just fly away with no AoO or feat investment. That and monsters who can turn invisible at will, or have DR and fast healing (or worse, rengeneration). Mostly just annoying rather than scary or fun.
This is intriguing. I would say that allowing multiple attacks + move is not, in itself, enough to encourage more movement. That's because if you are under attack, you have no reason to move if your attacker can just follow you and still get all their attacks in. Similarly, just because you _can_ move and get multiple attacks is not, in itself, a reason to move. There has to be a relative benefit in doing so, or you might as well not bother.
IMO there should be both types of characters available: those who get lots of attacks even when moving (or, more generally, whose combat power is unaffected by movement -- this might include spellcasters, for example, if spells in combat still works like in 3E), and those who are best when standing still. This is what leads to a dynamic combat: the fast guys want to make the slow guy chase them around, while the slow guy wants to knock down the fast guys to stop them running away.
That's a good point. Just because you can move and attack, doesn't mean you will. In 3e, at low levels you are usually only getting one attack anyway. So unless you have Rapid Shot or something, you don't lose out on extra attacks by doing a move/attack. But there are plenty of times with my low-level guys that once I'm in range, I don't move unless I have to for some reason. If the ranger is more like the scout now, they would have good reason to move though. And flying creatures always have, or anyone who generally out-moves the enemy (like maybe a mounted archer, pretty easy to stay out of melee and still deliver full attacks).
This might make flying enemies a billion times more annoying. Ha ha, now I just fly away with no AoO or feat investment. That and monsters who can turn invisible at will, or have DR and fast healing (or worse, rengeneration). Mostly just annoying rather than scary or fun.
But that's only if you think of those things in terms of 3.5 - this is 4e. If AoO are different (or out), then I'm sure those other things will be changing, as well.
What I've realized recently (based on some playtests) is that, counterintuitively, the more mobile the characters are in-game, the more it slows down the play of the game. That's because if there are more options of possible move/action combinations to a player each turn, then there are more possible moves to consider, and it takes more time to do so. All it took in my games was one "problem" player who had to analyze every possible move to bring the game to a halt.
In my game I just recently prohibited 5' steps, and any action that could provoke AOOs, in order to speed up the actual play. But I guess I'm swimming in a different direction with this one.
__________________ ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. (1E DMG p. 9)
What I've realized recently (based on some playtests) is that, counterintuitively, the more mobile the characters are in-game, the more it slows down the play of the game. That's because if there are more options of possible move/action combinations to a player each turn, then there are more possible moves to consider, and it takes more time to do so. All it took in my games was one "problem" player who had to analyze every possible move to bring the game to a halt.
In my game I just recently prohibited 5' steps, and any action that could provoke AOOs, in order to speed up the actual play. But I guess I'm swimming in a different direction with this one.
Or, you set a time limit. After 30 seconds, you lose your standard (or move) action. After 45, you lose your entire action. I dunno... something like that would seem to work. Players should be able to think far enough in advance to figure out what they're doing that quickly. And, hey, if not, then... well... fighters made mistakes in real life, too. It's battle. It's chaotic. That stuff is bound to happen.
This is intriguing. I would say that allowing multiple attacks + move is not, in itself, enough to encourage more movement. That's because if you are under attack, you have no reason to move if your attacker can just follow you and still get all their attacks in. Similarly, just because you _can_ move and get multiple attacks is not, in itself, a reason to move. There has to be a relative benefit in doing so, or you might as well not bother.
It's true that removing a disincentive is not the same thing as providing an incentive. But I suspect that that's where the dynamic battlefields will come in.
In any case, even if all they're doing is removing the disincentive to move in combat, that's an improvement over the current situation, IMO. If they do that much, at least a DM will be able have a "hero battles the villain atop the castle wall" combat if he wants to - all he has to do is have the villain move in that direction. Under the current system, the villain would be dead from AoOs before he got halfway across the courtyard to reach the stairs up to the wall.
What I've realized recently (based on some playtests) is that, counterintuitively, the more mobile the characters are in-game, the more it slows down the play of the game. That's because if there are more options of possible move/action combinations to a player each turn, then there are more possible moves to consider, and it takes more time to do so. All it took in my games was one "problem" player who had to analyze every possible move to bring the game to a halt.
That's not a reason to penalize movement in combat, that's a reason for the DM in your games to find a way to deal with the problem players. Just because some players are bad with options is no reason to deny them to the rest of us.
Or, you set a time limit. After 30 seconds, you lose your standard (or move) action. After 45, you lose your entire action. I dunno... something like that would seem to work.
Sure, I tried that. But then in practice it turns into a meta-argument about whether the player had enough information to properly analyze the situation in the time given, or had other questions about the environment, etc., which slows down the game even more.
Edit: Moreover, I find that even I myself take marginally more time to figure out the perfect 5-ft. step for all the monsters and NPCs every turn, which again is slowing down the game for all involved.
__________________ ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. (1E DMG p. 9)
Sure, I tried that. But then in practice it turns into a meta-argument about whether the player had enough information to properly analyze the situation in the time given, or had other questions about the environment, etc., which slows down the game even more.
Unfortunately, I don't think the 4e ruleset will be able to write difficult players out of the game.
That's your job.
__________________
"Even if you’re a snake, and even if you’re on fire, adventurers will still kill you."
-- Logan Bonner
This is intriguing. I would say that allowing multiple attacks + move is not, in itself, enough to encourage more movement. That's because if you are under attack, you have no reason to move if your attacker can just follow you and still get all their attacks in. Similarly, just because you _can_ move and get multiple attacks is not, in itself, a reason to move. There has to be a relative benefit in doing so, or you might as well not bother.
Then give the characters a +2 to AC if they move at least half their move score. It's just a pittance, but "every little bit helps".
Of course, I'm not saying that will exist in 4e, but the disincentive (AoO) is a lot more difficult to address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hong
IMO there should be both types of characters available: those who get lots of attacks even when moving (or, more generally, whose combat power is unaffected by movement -- this might include spellcasters, for example, if spells in combat still works like in 3E), and those who are best when standing still. This is what leads to a dynamic combat: the fast guys want to make the slow guy chase them around, while the slow guy wants to knock down the fast guys to stop them running away.
Those would be "striker" an "defender" roles, I think. As for spellcasters, at least in the case of wizards, I'd figure they'd want to keep moving on account of low AC scores to keep from being slaughtered... But even defenders ("tanks") should probably need some measure of mobility, if for nothing else than to counter some of the strikers' range advantages.
After 30 seconds, you lose your standard (or move) action. After 45, you lose your entire action. I dunno... something like that would seem to work. Players should be able to think far enough in advance to figure out what they're doing that quickly. And, hey, if not, then... well... fighters made mistakes in real life, too. It's battle. It's chaotic. That stuff is bound to happen. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
