Move - Attack - Move

[Connorsrpg]

Yeah I am for seeing how this goes. I like the idea of mobile combats.

What I don't like is the idea of moving straight past guards (fighters etc) that are purposefully up the front to stop others getting past, esp in a tunnel.

The House Rule I have in mind already is if you leave an adjacent enemy and have not attacked them, then they get a free hit (OA).

So you can move attack and move away from the enemy you attacked, now worries.

But you can't move adjacent to the frontline fighter, then move on past them for the wizard without attacking the fighter on the way.

So, that is the compromise I will use. (A little similar to Savage Worlds - where you simply promote OAs from moving away from an adjacent enemy. You can even circle them, but not move away).

Besides, it is so metagamy for the kobolds to all just rush past anyway. They must have some fear/concern for the armoured/armed guy out front. Most would not be thinking, "Oh we will just move past him/her (within reach of their weapon) and we will be fine".

 

[rjfTrebor]

i haven't seen anything really abusive done with it yet. though it did make it incredibly easy for me to ignore the fighter and have all my goblins chop the wizard down.

as long as some characters/monsters get an OA mechanic, it should work ok in the core game.

 

[Lalato]

I like this innovation. Almost every players has felt frustrated at one time or another that he cannot move five feet, open a door and then step through. Truly segmented action systems like in Aces & Eights naturally allow this sort of split movement.

This. Move-Action-Move should appeal to the simulationists out there. It's way more realistic than Move-Action or Action-Move. As for AoOs/OAs, these should not be the default off-action option available. Some PCs might get this ability through a feat or theme... and perhaps some advanced monsters will have it, but it shouldn't be the default.

Just because an orc is moving past you, doesn't mean he isn't doing so defensively or while your attention is elsewhere. An automatic attack for movement is, in my opinion, too powerful... and is one of the reasons combat takes so long in the two most recent editions (two editions which I enjoy greatly, by the way). I do like the idea that a fighter might get an opportunity attack, but will lose an action on the next turn. YMMV.

 

[jadrax]

This. Move-Action-Move should appeal to the simulationists out there. It's way more realistic than Move-Action or Action-Move. As for AoOs/OAs, these should not be the default off-action option available. Some PCs might get this ability through a feat or theme... and perhaps some advanced monsters will have it, but it shouldn't be the default.

Just because an orc is moving past you, doesn't mean he isn't doing so defensively or while you're attention is elsewhere. An automatic attack for movement is, in my opinion, too powerful... and is one of the reasons combat takes so long in the two most recent editions (two editions which I enjoy greatly, by the way). I do like the idea that a fighter might get an opportunity attack, but will lose an action on the next turn. YMMV.

Oh why, why, why has the 'Give XP' button forsaken me!

 

[mlund]

It's been a giant pain in the backside from my end as a DM. There are zero rules to keep characters engaged in melee other than that 3rd level Defender theme ability. Basically, melee is completely permeable and my players don't like it.

Correction: the players take exception to monsters charging right past them to wreck the characters in the back row like the front row isn't even there. They don't seem to worried about doing that to the monsters. Likewise they don't mind the wizard or cleric waking up to the melee, sticking a hand In, and waltzing away.

They don't complain as much about a monster that starts in a melee breaking off to chase down a hit-and-run artist like the cleric, wizard, or rogue.

After the second playtest session, though, it was getting a bit stale. The ability of range attackers to just scoot-and-shoot back and forth across a melee was wearing kind of thin. The rogue didn't even bother to try and hide, he just moved and used his sling for d8 every round. The wizard generally couldn't get entirely clear of a fight in a given encountear area so he'd typically jump in and deliver his "electric pimp slap" on an enemy and then jump back.

Basically, it was really, really hard to mechanically justify a "line of battle" in melee. There needs to be something discouraging disengaging melee casually, maybe getting disadvantage and granting advantage until the start of your next turn.

Without a battle mat you need a good definition of who is engaged in melee, though. People who made a melee attack or got attacked in melee are obvious, but what about the cleric reaching into a swirling battle to tag a fighter with Cure Light Wounds? He's just as vulnerable to getting stabbed by the Orc engaging the fighter as the fighter is.

I think a good rule of thumb is that if you are within melee reach of an enemy or within 5' of someone who is then you are "stuck in" and take a penalty to get out without using your action to do so. Using the Caves of Chaos map as a reference, if you go or reach into a 10' square where people are swinging melee weapons in it you're in melee.

So run past the front line if you dare, but it'll cost you. Suffering Disadvantage and granting Advantage to enemies until your next turn would probably fit the bill.

- Marty Lund

 

[dammitbiscuit]

I wouldn't double it up, mlund. i'd just make it one or the other, at the stationary combatant's option -
If a creature enters and leaves a threatened square in the same turn, you can as a reaction choose to Hamper their defense (get Advantage against them on your next attack) or Harry them (give them Disadvantage on their next roll).

This keeps things mobile by permitting disengagement, while still penalizing goofier behavior such as the electric pimp slap or darting right through a gap between two big dudes with axes.

 

[Li Shenron]

I haven't tried it in practice, but I was also a bit worried about it.

The fact is, I am worried because I am still more or less stuck with the idea in mind that combat is run with minis and grid, because that's what 3ed and 4ed got us used to (even tho I've run 3ed adventures without minis and grid, but it was very hard...).

I think that probably if you play without minis and grid, then this ability is not going to matter as much.

OTOH, if you do use minis and grid, you are probably going to need the entire upcoming tactical rules module, which will take care of abuse of the movement abilities.

 

[variant]

I really like it. The restrictions on movement in 3e was something that annoyed me. The idea that you can't move attack move in a single turn is just downright silly.

 

[AeroDm]

Haven't GM'd yet, but I conceptually like it. My concern is if they introduce a wide range of movements. If the lightly armored barbarian or monk can move up, attack, and move out of the range of the platemail knight, this is going to be an issue. Otherwise I like the streamline and I think mobile combats are a really fun asset.

 

[GX.Sigma]

It's cool that a fighter with multiple attacks can run up to a monster, attack him, run up to another monster, attack him, etc.

Not so cool that a wizard can run in, shocking grasp, then run out.

There could be a rule that allows the former and not the latter. Maybe the "OA unless provoker has attacked you this turn" suggestion upthread would work.