D&D 5E Splitting your Move - The Move-Attack-Move Dynamic

[dd.stevenson]

It never came up in playtesting, but I'm certain that's just because my players aren't used to that option being there. Other than helping ranged characters benefiting from hard cover, I'm not sure what difference it will make.

Are there abilities or feats that allow characters to avoid eating an AOO? I suppose that might lead to some brokenness.

 

[Mistwell]

Are there abilities or feats that allow characters to avoid eating an AOO? I suppose that might lead to some brokenness.

Yes. The rogue comes built-in with "Cunning Action," which lets them do any of the following:

1) a full move, attack, and then a disengage action, which is half-move without drawing opportunity attacks. This is pretty useful for running out from behind cover, hitting something with a melee weapon, and then moving back to closer cover.

2) a full move, attack, and then a hustle action, which is another full move that does draw an attack of opportunity if applicable. This is quite useful for moving out from cover, attacking with a ranged weapon at closer range, and then moving back to the same distant cover.

3) a portion of their move, attack, then the rest of their move, and a hide action at the end. This is rather useful for dodging out of cover, attacking with a ranged weapon, then dodging back to cover and hiding (which normally takes a full action for other classes to hide).

It makes the rogue very flexible for movement during combat.

 

[dmgorgon]

Attacking shouldn't end your movement.

I hated how 3e nerfed the fighter in this regard. In my 2e game my fighter could move, attack, move again, and then make two more attacks at the end of the round.

You also shouldn't need a feat for a ride by attack.

 

[Mistwell]

Ah now that is an aspect I had not considered.

You can move, attack, move some more, and attack again if you have a second attack.

In fact... it's unclear from the rule as written, but if you have 30' move, can you move 10', attack, move 10', attack with your second attack, and then move 10' more?

 

[Rhenny]

Ah now that is an aspect I had not considered.

You can move, attack, move some more, and attack again if you have a second attack.

In fact... it's unclear from the rule as written, but if you have 30' move, can you move 10', attack, move 10', attack with your second attack, and then move 10' more?

I would think you could do all that. No restrictions are mentioned.

 

[Abraxas]

For those who have tried it, does it result in a lot of readied actions?

It hasn't for us. What it has been is a lot of fun.

 

[KidSnide]

Ambushes are now as dangerous as they should be, and battle position with ranged weapons from cover should be a significant challenge as it should be. This just gives the rogue opportunities to sneak to the opposing line to defuse the attack, or the wizard a chance to show the battle field control spells to good effect.... or of course for some light brigade style charges which will be stories retold of the fallen dimwits who tried it.

Ambushes are deadly in D&DN, but the deadliness primarily comes from the huge benefit that comes from attacking with advantage. If one side starts off hidden / invisible and gets a full round of attacks off with advantage, the ambushers can devastate their victim's casters and glass-cannons. It turns an evenly matched fight into a one-sided slaughter pretty quickly.

Sure, the hidden ranged attackers can also strike with impunity from behind cover, but it's hardly going to matter. Unless the ambushers are attacking a superior force, the victims of the ambush aren't going to have any ranged attackers left by the time they get their first action.

FWIW, I consider this a very good thing. It makes weak monsters potentially dangerous to PCs and it makes strong monster defeatable, if the PCs can come up with a good strategy.

-KS

 

[dmgorgon]

Ah now that is an aspect I had not considered.

You can move, attack, move some more, and attack again if you have a second attack.

In fact... it's unclear from the rule as written, but if you have 30' move, can you move 10', attack, move 10', attack with your second attack, and then move 10' more?

Well you might need to execute a withdrawal for that, but if you have a reach weapon and you're not threatened you should be allowed.

 

[ren1999]

You can split up your move.
But you must expend an action to disengage from an adjacent enemy.
If you don't disengage and you move away from an adjacent enemy who is not adjacent to your ally, you are opportunity attacked at advantage.
if you are flanked by two enemies who are not adjacent to your allies, they attack you at advantage.
These are the tactical rules I'm using in my game.

 

[dmgorgon]

You can split up your move.
But you must expend an action to disengage from an adjacent enemy.
If you don't disengage and you move away from an adjacent enemy who is not adjacent to your ally, you are opportunity attacked at advantage.
if you are flanked by two enemies who are not adjacent to your allies, they attack you at advantage.
These are the tactical rules I'm using in my game.

I have players provoking on purpose all the time. Even with rules like that it still happens.

Extra attacks in D&D Next do not get wasted when a kill is made on the first attack. The character can move to another target and complete his attacks.