Increasing combat mobility

[SuedodeuS]

Wait what, you lost me explain how your system is working again please. Are you saying it's just if you move more then Half-speed lose one attack (assuming you have two), when do you lose your secound attack? your third attack?

A character with 3 attacks can move up to 1/3 his speed before losing one of his attacks. He can move another 1/3 before losing another. Thus, he could move up to 2/3 of his speed (thus losing 1 attack) and still have two left. A character with 2 attacks can move up to 1/2 his speed before losing his second attack. Although the character with 2 attacks can move further than the character with 3 attacks and still have his full attack remaining, his full attack is still only 2 attacks. Thus, a 3 attack character can sacrifice one of his attacks, move further than the 2 attack character, and still get off two attacks. Does this clarify things?

Umm I realize now that it may not have been clear but my original intention was that as long as the character made took only a single move-action then he could scatter his full-attack throughout the move. Does that change things?

Actually, that's what I thought you meant to start with. I just thought that making the character lose attacks in a step-wise progression would make more sense from the perspective of logic, although it does make things more complicated.


Having thought a little bit about the archer problem, I realize that my system actually causes more of a problem than yours. Under mine, the archer could run away and get off a full attack, and when the enemy reached him it would only be able to get off one. Under yours, they could do the same tactic, but once the enemy reached him it could get off its full attack, tearing the poor archer to ribbons.

 

[Thondor]

OK now I'm getting it. I did have it originally, lost it somewhere along the way.

Having thought a little bit about the archer problem, I realize that my system actually causes more of a problem than yours. Under mine, the archer could run away and get off a full attack, and when the enemy reached him it would only be able to get off one. Under yours, they could do the same tactic, but once the enemy reached him it could get off its full attack, tearing the poor archer to ribbons.

Not really, wouldn't the archer be suffering the same restrictions as the meleeer (swordsman)? Assuming the ranged weapons person must shoot at the end of their move, or at the begining . . .
(Do I really want to be defending your system? ah well here goes)
Taking a level 6 archer and Level 6 swordsman (fFull BAB characters, ie both have 2 attacks) both Human in Light armor.
Use it you lose it system
1)Opponents start 30 ft away,
a) Swordsman wins initiative, takes full move, gets one Attack. If archer moves away provoques attack of oppurtunity, Archer either drops bow and starts melee or plays the stupid 5ft game.
b) Archer wins initiative, moves back 15ft makes 2 attacks. Swordsman charges 45st, gets one attack. If archer moves away provoques attack of oppurtunity, Archer either drops bow and starts melee or plays the stupid 5ft game.
c) Archer wins initiative, moves back 30ft makes 1 attacks. Swordsman charges 45ft, gets one attack. If archer moves away provoques attack of oppurtunity, Archer either drops bow and starts melee or plays the stupid 5ft game.

Given situation 1) under my system, differences are as follows
a) Swordsman Gets full attack
b) and c) the archer gets 2 attacks regarless of wether he moves 5 or 30ft.

Situation 2) combatants start 45st away
Use-it -lose it system
a) swordsmen wins initiative and charges gets one Attack. If archer moves away provoques attack of oppurtunity, Archer either drops bow and starts melee or plays the stupid 5ft game.
B) Archwer wins initiative moves 15ft and makes 2 attacks. Swordsman charges 60ft and makes one attack. If archer moves away provoques attack of oppurtunity, Archer either drops bow and starts melee or plays the stupid 5ft game.
c) Archer wins initiative, moves back 30ft makes 1 attacks. Swordsman runs 75 feet, cannot make attack. If archer moves away provoques attack of oppurtunity, Archer either drops bow and starts melee or plays the stupid 5ft game.

Given situation 2 under my system,
A) no change
B) smart archer will move more then 15ft (see c) in order to make charge impossible.
C) Archer makes 2 attacks.

Situation 3) start 50ft apart, under use you lose
A) same as 2 a)
B) Archer Movevs 15ft gets 2 attacks. Swordsman runs 65 feet, cannot make attack. If archer moves away provoques attack of oppurtunity, Archer either drops bow and starts melee or plays the stupid 5ft game.
C) smart archer has no reason to move 30ft

Given situation 3) under my system
nothing changes

Situation 4) start 65 ft apart.Under Use-or_you-lose
A) Swordsman wins initiative runs 65 feet, cannot make attack. If archer moves away provoques attack of oppurtunity, Archer either drops bow and starts melee or plays the stupid 5ft game.
B) Archer wins initiative. Has no real incentive to move. makes 2 attacks. Swordsmen runs 65 feet, cannot make attack. If archer moves away provoques attack of oppurtunity, Archer either drops bow and starts melee or plays the stupid 5ft game.

Given Situtation 4) under my system
nothing changes

The situations don't become that different unless there is large distance in the begining and/or large discrepancies in movement. IE. Archer has 40ft speed, swordsman has 20ft or 15ft.

 

[Thondor]

In the later case where there is serious discrepancies in the movement (especially if the archer is mounted), the Swordsmen is best off using Total Defense and/or attacking someone else and letting someone who is more mobile, or who has a ranged weapon take the archer down.

which is how things were under the normal system as far as I can tell.

 

[SuedodeuS]

Actually, under my system, any character can move his full movement and get all of his attacks - provided the first few are done early on. A character with a 30 ft move and 2 attacks, for example, could move all 30 ft and get off both attacks, so long as the first was made within 15 ft. With that in mind, let's take two higher level characters, each with 30 ft move and 3 attacks. We'll assume the swordsman closed with the archer last time, so we'll start them in melee but on the archer's turn. The archer moves, swordsman gets AoO. Archer gets 10 ft away, looses an arrow. He gets another 10 ft away and looses an arrow. Then he goes yet another 10 ft away (30 ft now) and looses one last arrow. The swordsman moves 30 ft, gets one attack. Cycle repeats.

Humorously, I wasn't even thinking about good old attacks of opportunity. This doesn't make it quite as bad - the archer gets 3 attacks, each with a 25% lower chance to hit than the last, and the swordsman gets 2, but they both are made at his highest BAB. There's a bit more discrepancy once they each have 4 attacks, but it's still not as big of a deal as I originally thought. Besides, if the swordsman gets too annoyed, he can just sunder the bow.

 

[exempt]

Would it not be simpler to say that you can make up to your full allotment of attacks and move up to your base speed if you take a -5 circumstantial penalty on each attack after the first if you make more than one attack? Then you don't have to go about calculating distances moved and all.

I specify "after the first attack" because it allows characters to choose whether to keep moving or not after their first attack, knowing that moving imposes costs them but not being penalized for rushing the enemy then deciding to stay put after the enemy doesn't drop in the first hit.

Hey, I like this. I might house-rule it. But are there comments? Am I overlooking something?

In any case, in this system or use-or-lose, I would make Cleave and Great Cleave work only when you downed the first foe within your weapon's reach. That is, you can't drop someone, skip 20 feet, and use the extra attack granted by Cleave or GC. You could use it if there was someone within the area you threatened when you took down the first guy, though. That kind of falls in line anyway with what I imagine a cleave or great cleave event to be -- a large swing of whatever that smacks through the first foe and then onto teh second, third, etc.

I might also play around with Spring Attack, maybe decreasing the movement-related attack penalty by 1 or 2, but not by more, or just introduce a feat that says you can take your second attack (but not third, etc.) at no penalty when doing this kind of movement-attack action.

 

[SuedodeuS]

Would it not be simpler to say that you can make up to your full allotment of attacks and move up to your base speed if you take a -5 circumstantial penalty on each attack after the first if you make more than one attack? Then you don't have to go about calculating distances moved and all.

I specify "after the first attack" because it allows characters to choose whether to keep moving or not after their first attack, knowing that moving imposes costs them but not being penalized for rushing the enemy then deciding to stay put after the enemy doesn't drop in the first hit.

That would probably be a pretty good system to implement. To tell you the truth, the use-or-lose system I came up with is more an attempt at realism than balance (although I suppose it does make the balance closer to the status quo than the other system). An additional penalty after the first attack might be a good idea, but too large of one might make it so that only the first one or two have a chance (without a natural 20) of hitting. It would probably need some playtesting.

In any case, in this system or use-or-lose, I would make Cleave and Great Cleave work only when you downed the first foe within your weapon's reach. That is, you can't drop someone, skip 20 feet, and use the extra attack granted by Cleave or GC. You could use it if there was someone within the area you threatened when you took down the first guy, though. That kind of falls in line anyway with what I imagine a cleave or great cleave event to be -- a large swing of whatever that smacks through the first foe and then onto teh second, third, etc.

Yeah, this is definately a must. Imagine a barbarian with Great Cleave, a trait or feat that adds an additional 10 ft movement rate, and some magical boots to double his land speed. Hell, a monk with Great Cleave would wreck some serious carnage without the caveat of it only being used against an immediately adjacent enemy. Personally, I might allow the character to move up to 5 feet before using the extra attack, but that would be at a maximum.



Oh, and back to the Spring Attack thing from earlier (whether it should work on the first enemy or all of them). I decided to crunch the numbers to see what I got. The situation is this - a character with mobility is running past and attacking four enemies. The enemies have to get a natural 13 or better to hit the character normally, but since he's using mobility it is instead a natural 17 or better (20% chance).

      Mobility                       Mobility+Spring Attack
Times hit    % chance                Times hit    % chance
0            40.96                   0            51.2
1            40.96                   1            38.4
2            15.36                   2             9.6
3             2.56                   3             0.8
4             0.16

x>0          59.04                   x>0          48.8

This is assuming the Spring Attack feat only works on the first enemy. x>0 indicates the probability that you'll get hit at least once. Personally, I don't think that a feat should knock a probability like this down from ~59% to 0.00%. Now, a knockdown from ~59% to ~49% is pretty decent, probably good enough to warrant a feat. I'd say limit the Spring Attack to the first target, and maybe have another feat (Improved Spring Attack, maybe) that lets you ignore any additional targets.

 

[exempt]

An additional penalty after the first attack might be a good idea, but too large of one might make it so that only the first one or two have a chance (without a natural 20) of hitting. It would probably need some playtesting.

Good point. Maybe a cumulative -3 penalty to each attack after the first if you move immediately before the attack? For example, if you have an attack bonus sequence of +15/+10/+5, you can run up to the fisrt guy and smack him at +15, then move and whack the second at +10-3 = +7, then stay put and boff him again for +5-3=+2 or move yet again and smack a third target at +5-3-3 = -1. Is -3 too much or too little? If your BAB is low, -3 is "too much", but then why are you wading through foes if your BAB is low? If you're a fighter type though, it may not be enough of a penalty. I don't have a feel for this.

It still pays not to move if you don't drop the current target (assuming your goal is to do just that), unless you want just to damage (not drop) foes. Then it probably does pay to move, even for that smaller chance of striking the next enemy. In movies the guy wading through enemies usually does so because he is dropping them, not just hurting them (or given that it's the movies and not D&D, hurting them enough that they're effectively dropped).

 

[The Levitator]

While I don't have a lot to offer this discussion on the mathematical side of things, I just wanted to chime in with some support on the concept. I really like this idea, and since we play a very gritty version of 3.5, something like this might really add to our system which we feel is already very cinematic. As long as I'm here, would this type of system work well with all of our current variants? Here's the short list:

* Opposed Defense Roll
* Armor As DR
* Facing Variant
* Clobbered Variant
* Battle Fatigue (a system I created to emulate the cumulative effects of wounds and exertion during battle)

Damage taken during battle can have serious consequences. We use “Battle Fatigue” to represent the cumulative effects of wounds during combat.

75% of total HP: Light Battle Fatigue (-1 STR and -1 DEX)
50% of total HP: Battle Fatigue (-2 STR and -2 DEX)
25% of total HP: Heavy Battle Fatigue (-4 STR and -4 DEX)

Battle Fatigue can only be improved/removed by healing, unlike normal Fatigue which wears off after a short time.​

* All shields are +1 from Core

* Class Defense Bonus

* Death is at –CON, not -10.

* Falling unconscious at -1 or lower is NOT automatic. You are allowed a FORT save (DC=10+ negative HP total). For example, if you were hit and dropped to -3 HP, you could make a FORT save=13 to remain conscious. You are still disabled and dying, just not unconscious and helpless. You must make a FORT save every time you suffer damage, like making an exerted move or from bleeding when not yet stabilized, or of course, taking damage.

* Bows and crossbows are altered to make them more lethal. Arrows now have a threat range of 19-20 with a critical multiplier of x3. Bolts now have a threat range of 18-20 with a critical multiplier of x3.


As you can see, we play a pretty modified game. Does anyone see a major problem with incorporating a movement system like this into our game? I'm hopeful that we could implement something like this into our game to encourage more strategy and less toe-2-toe smashfests.

 

[Thondor]

As you can see, we play a pretty modified game. Does anyone see a major problem with incorporating a movement system like this into our game? I'm hopeful that we could implement something like this into our game to encourage more strategy and less toe-2-toe smashfests.

The only major think I would consider is your Facing rules. The increased mobility of combatants might make it easy to move "behind" your enemies. Since I don't know how your facing rules work I can't give much constructive criticism.
I think the other house rules should fit well with any of the systems we've proposed. (Although under either system ranged weapons are slightly more potent, depending on the system.)

That reminds me that under standard rules this variant shoud be much easier to flank people, and thus for rogues to sneak attack.

SuedodeuS
I think you should initiate the "ranged weapons person must shoot at the end of their move, or at the begining" that I suggested in the previous post. It keeps the ranged weapon and meleer closer together. If you leave under your current proposal then ranged attackers will always get all their Attacks , while meleer's won't. it also means you won't have to deal with changes in distance penalties.
Under my system ranged attackers still always get all attacks (after all they will rarely see a reason to move more then their speed unless running away), but as long as they only move their speed so do meleer's.
I'm OK with archer's being slightly more powerful then they are now, I'd like to see more players focusing on ranged attacks in my game.

Exempt
I like it, it's simple and has a certain elegance to it. Even -3 might be to much though. PErhaps a -2? After all each additional Attack is at a much lower BAB.
Still . . . It seems to me that it will make it less likely to see combat really mobile. As you said once the person is droped they'll probably just stay their. Why continue on and draw and attack of Oppurtunity that has a very good chance of hitting, when you only have a very small chance of hitting?

 

[Thondor]

Because of increasing mobility in combat, their will likely be more attacks of oppurtunity. This makes mobility much better. It also has the effect of making Combat reflexes much better.

PC's and their opponents will often have one person draw some AofO so that the other can move through clean, an go hit the person they really want to take down first.

I mentioned this before but any of these systems will make it much easier to take down spellcasters, both the parties and their enemies.

I have one major concern that has to be addressed.
Classes with extra movement.
Barbarian - extra 10 ft. I'm not really worried about this, it will help the Barbarian be a little more powerful, I think he needs the extra kick. (A well designed fighter can almost always take down a raging Barbarian, if the Barbarian isn't raging . . . forget it.)

Monk - this greatly concerns me. A character being able to move 90ft. . . and getting +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 (at 18th level) that's a different story. While I think the Monk should be one of the classes who excels at moving through combat, this seems excessive.
I've never seen a monk played at mid-or high levels so I'm not sure how well they balance . . .
I doubt they need this big of an increase though. So what should we do. I can think of two possibilities:
1) Monks flurry-of-blows remains a Full-round action, meaning the Monk can only take a five foot step and flurry. They can still use standard (medium) BAB no matter how far they travel.
2) Monks can only flurry within their racial land speed. If they move beyond this (20 or 30 plus depending on race) then they can only use standard attacks at medium BAB ie. they cannot use flurry.

Oh, as a side note all magical items that increase base land speed (boots of Speed) should be considered more powerful, then they are under current rules. (Expeditious retreat, haste, and similar effects as well - probably not enough to change the spells). Mounts are also more useful.
I like this, and would rather not change them.