Move - Attack - Move

[SatanasOz]

I don't dig the argument about the wizard and hit & run. Where is the difference between the wiz getting into melee & fizzing and being glued to the ground for that vs. him taking two steps back?

Wizards shouldn't be in melee because their AC and HP suck. Such a behaviour should hold repercussions. The other guy strikes back.But he can do so either way. In 3e, he strikes the Wizard conveniently glued next to hin, now he pursues him with 2 small steps and whacks him over the head.

My point being: Split movement doesn't give you "more" of it. The only way of staying clear of melee is to be at least a whole move away from any enemy. Or in other words: staying clear of melee yourself.

 

[justinhalliday]

Some egregious uses would involve:
- Cycling multiple monsters/characters in and out of a narrow corridor so that all of them could get attacks at the front rank of the enemies trying to block the corridor.
- Jumping monsters/characters in and out of cover (during their initiative) to make their attacks against distant enemies that can't close to melee range.

 

[jadrax]

Some egregious uses would involve:
- Cycling multiple monsters/characters in and out of a narrow corridor so that all of them could get attacks at the front rank of the enemies trying to block the corridor.
- Jumping monsters/characters in and out of cover (during their initiative) to make their attacks against distant enemies that can't close to melee range.

See the first of these is silly and should not be allowed while the second is sensible and exactly how the game should work.

 

[justinhalliday]

See the first of these is silly and should not be allowed while the second is sensible and exactly how the game should work.

But both are supported by the RAW.

The second is an unfortunate side-effect of dividing each 6-second round into its own action time. So the only way to get around it involves setting up reactions, which means that you have to drop your inititative lower.

 

[MortalPlague]

Some egregious uses would involve:
- Cycling multiple monsters/characters in and out of a narrow corridor so that all of them could get attacks at the front rank of the enemies trying to block the corridor.

This is the only thing about this particular movement rule that I dislike. I'm not sure how to fix it while still preserving mobile conflicts...

 

[VannATLC]

Grant disadvantage if you move through or into a threatened square.

I reckon that would be painful enough to stop most people.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I guess in a real melee, the opportunities to back off from an opponent are few and far between. If you attack them, then their defense might give you that moment in which to escape. Simiarly, if they attack you, then you have a moment to escape, though it hurts.

So if you are in melee (that is, close enough to be attacked by an enemy) and make an attack, you should be able to move freely afterwards. If you move away/past without attacking then the enemy should be allowed to follow you *or* get an attack on you (and the person provoking this gets the choice). Enemies engaged in melee themselves (with your allies) can't follow you.

So a single enemy can either follow you or get a free attack on you, your choice. If they are busy with allies, or you attack them, they can't react at all.

Maybe this is a little complex..

Stripping it right back: if you move away from melee without first attacking, you provoke a free attack from the enemy, unless they are also engaged with another ally.

So you can wander into or past an existing melee. You can move-attack-move away. You can attack-move away. You can move-attack. You can't move away-attack.

 

[justinhalliday]

Grant disadvantage if you move through or into a threatened square.

I reckon that would be painful enough to stop most people.

Yeah, but that really penalises fighters who are closing to attack (but have no intention of moving again).

I guess in a real melee, the opportunities to back off from an opponent are few and far between. If you attack them, then their defense might give you that moment in which to escape. Simiarly, if they attack you, then you have a moment to escape, though it hurts.

So if you are in melee (that is, close enough to be attacked by an enemy) and make an attack, you should be able to move freely afterwards. If you move away/past without attacking then the enemy should be allowed to follow you *or* get an attack on you (and the person provoking this gets the choice). Enemies engaged in melee themselves (with your allies) can't follow you.

So a single enemy can either follow you or get a free attack on you, your choice. If they are busy with allies, or you attack them, they can't react at all.

Maybe this is a little complex..

Stripping it right back: if you move away from melee without first attacking, you provoke a free attack from the enemy, unless they are also engaged with another ally.

So you can wander into or past an existing melee. You can move-attack-move away. You can attack-move away. You can move-attack. You can't move away-attack.

Sounds pretty complicated, which is obviously what they're trying to avoid. A simpler rule would be just to change the wording of the current movement rule from this:

"You can break up your movement to move both before and after your action."

To this:

"As long as you don't use an attack or spell, you can break up your movement to before move both before and after your action."

 

[bruceparis]

I've run one playtest session as a DM (with 4 players). The Move-Action-Move rules seem to work OK for "door openers" and "ranged attackers ducking for cover", etc. In fact, the party thought it was much more realistic and "fun". They thought the opposite about the notion of being able to "run a gauntlet" without penalty (and the same with monsters). Their response: "This just doesn't feel like any version of D&D we've played" (and my players date back to 1st Edition). The notion of being able to "disengage from a threatening situation without penalty" has roots even in common house rules dating back to my own BECMI games in 1982. When I used to DM those games I would tell PCs when they were "threatened", and when moving past an enemy (or away from an enemy) might garner a "free attack" (as we often called it back then). I played TotM quite successfully (and still do) with those rules.

 

[SatanasOz]

Sounds pretty complicated, which is obviously what they're trying to avoid. A simpler rule would be just to change the wording of the current movement rule from this:

"You can break up your movement to move both before and after your action."

To this:

"As long as you don't use an attack or spell, you can break up your movement to before move both before and after your action."

I am still not digging why, though. That would again defeat the purpose. And, your suggestion is still twice as complicated as the playtest one.

Further, I think we should really addressed the two things covered in this thread as the different things they are. Most of the complaints are more about a missing AoO rule than about being able to break up your movement.

Step out, shoot, cover. Totally cool for me, but if this should be avoided, then it is an issue with the "move-act-move" rule.

Hit & Run tactics - also very cool with me, but if this should be avoided, you could (and in my opinion should) do so with a seperate AoE rule (like the suggested granting advantage for retreating from melee)