Re-examining the 5' step

[Delta]

Is that "first-editiony"?

Looking at Celebrim above and the last couple posts, I'd say in some sense they are.

The main thing in 1E is that you could not both move and attack in the same round. (Exceptions: Within 10 feet, and on a charge.) That seems pretty elegant: 1 major action per round, period. I sometimes have to ask, why did 3E decide to allow 2 actions per round (move and attack)? Did it just seem doubly-more-awesome?

Because it certainly exacerbates the turn-based-granularity problems. To me, solutions like Celebrim's (resolve movement for all, then attacks for all) or Philotomy's (from S&S, even more granular round structure in ~6 stages) are more elegantly achieved by just saying "everyone gets just one small action on their round, either move or attack/spell, not both".

 

[Saurdaux]

4. You can only ready a single action, but I'm pretty sure by RAW you cannot ready a 5' step and attack. So you can either hit the mage when he moves or move with him, but not move with him and hit him.

Sure, but the reason behind the wizard taking a 5' is to avoid the AoO. Readying a move should be enough for the orc to maintain the threat and get the attack off. The sequence would go W: 5' > O: 5' (readied to respond to a wizard's move) > W: Cast > O: Attack of Opportunity, all this of course only if the orc doesn't otherwise spend his move on his own turn, and has the sense to prepare the contingency plan. If the orc has lower initiative or is otherwise unprepared, he's simply taken by surprise by the unexpected movement.

 

[Storm Raven]

In another case, as a PC and party leader, I wanted each player to have a buddy and to stick with their buddy. Turned out to very very hard using the initiative system.

We've also tried to have coordinated charges, and have run into problems with that.

Isn't this exactly what readied actions are for?

 

[malraux]

Sure, but the reason behind the wizard taking a 5' is to avoid the AoO.

No, its primarily to avoid the AoO for casting, possibly disrupting the spell.

 

[Saurdaux]

No, its primarily to avoid the AoO for casting, possibly disrupting the spell.

Is that different from what I said?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

How about a "halfway" house rule? Should work in either 3E or 4E: If you attack someone on your turn, you have the option to "lock" onto them. That means that you give up the option to do AoO or OA on anyone else, but that you get to follow the target through 5' steps or shifts.

That should even prompt a few more charges--get to the guy this turn, just to make the attack, so that you can stay on him through his turn. It makes the 1 on 1 fights of caster versus warrior much tougher for the caster (forcing him to withdraw or flat out run away instead of casting, or risk the extra attack), but gives his friends a chance to help him.

In 4E, marks will help. Even in 3E, though, you could have wizard on Team A locked by fighter on Team B who is then locked by paladin on Team A. At least the paladin gets to stay with the action, too, in help of his buddy.

 

[malraux]

Is that different from what I said?

yes. Two different things can provoke the AoO: moving and casting. If a caster takes damage from moving, he takes damage. If he takes damage while casting, not only does he take the damage, he also has to make a concentration check (DC 10 + damage + spell level) or have the spell be negated. And since the caster isn't using combat casting, then he's likely not put ranks into concentration and thus won't get to cast.

 

[Saurdaux]

yes. Two different things can provoke the AoO: moving and casting. If a caster takes damage from moving, he takes damage. If he takes damage while casting, not only does he take the damage, he also has to make a concentration check (DC 10 + damage + spell level) or have the spell be negated. And since the caster isn't using combat casting, then he's likely not put ranks into concentration and thus won't get to cast.

Gotcha. My bad on the lack of clarity. I meant it in both ways, in that the wizard moves to avoid the casting AoO, but makes it a 5' to avoid the movement AoO. I figured most of that was assumed, as it's a fairly standard maneuver.

In any event, readying a move against a caster shimmy would be an effective tactic for keeping the wizard in combat.

 

[Runestar]

In any event, readying a move against a caster shimmy would be an effective tactic for keeping the wizard in combat.

Which is why abrupt jaunt (PHB2) is so useful. Teleport 10ft as an immediate action...

 

[Woas]

I forget what game it was from, but a couple years back I remember going over some rules for a game system I ran very briefly (I believe just one session) which had initiative set up in a neat way that I always liked.

The game had a cyclical order of combat much like D&D however the person with the highest "initiative" (it was called something else like perception or whatever. Can't remember it...) actually went LAST. In addition, the players would announce what their character was doing only but the action did not occur until after everyone had a chance to announce their action. Then you would resolve the actions either simultaneously or in reverse order (highest ot lowest), I can't recall.

So what that means is that the player with the lowest initiative would announce their move/action "Jorzan is going to run here.. blah blah" and the second lowest initiative and so on up the line. The benefit granted to the characters with a high initiative the ability of knowing what their targets were doing so they could react accordingly.


Taking this to a D&D example, an Orc with the higher initiative standing next to a wizard. The player of the wizard would actually state his/her actions first, even though the orc is technically 'faster'. So, going with the example from earlier in the thread, "Jorzan the Wizard moves 5' back and begins to prepare a burning hand spell at the orc!". But not actually role dice or do it yet.
Then the Orc (DM playing as the orc) would announce their move with full knowledge of what Jorzan has done and announce perhaps, "Seeing the wizard back away, the orc follows, axe overhead and strikes at the wizard and his hex!"
Then you would resolve them moving together (i sort of remember movement actions were resolved sort of simultaneously while other actions were resolved highest to lowest) and then the orcs swing would happen first, and then if that attack from the orc didn't kill or stop the wizard from casting the spell, the spell would then go off.


Well then. That was sort of a wordy description and not was not as slow and clunky to play as it reads... I thought it was a pretty neat system.