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

[Mistwell]

In previous versions of the game, most characters had a move action, and a regular action (often used for attacking). Most of the time, you couldn't split your move, and had to move either before or after you attacked.

The ability to move before and after your attack was so special, you had to have a feat for it in some prior versions of the game (spring attack).

But now, in D&D Next 5e, we ave this new rule:

Breaking Up a Move. You can break up your movement on your turn, moving both before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, search for a trapdoor, and then move 20 feet.

There is still a "spring attack" mechanic for the rogue, where their cunning action ability allows them to do a full move both before and after their attack, or a full move, an attack, and a half-move without drawing an attack of opportunity (disengage). So, the rogue still is better at doing this.

But anyone can do it now to some extent. For example, with a ranged attack or a ranged spell a cast can move out from cover, fire, and move back to cover, for example. No special feat or ability required.

How has this changed your games, or if you have not had a chance to playtest much, how do you think it will change your games?

And for DMs, are you finding monsters you send up against the party are using this new "feature" a lot? Or is it taking a while to get used to it?

 

[Rhenny]

It is an excellent improvement, which has made movement in combat more fluid and realistic. I would house rule this for any version of D&D if I played other versions.

My players are much more mobile now and split movement allows for ranged PCs/creatures to hide, move out from cover, fire and then move back into cover. This is something I've always had trouble with in prior editions...problem solved.

 

[the Jester]

Unfortunately for my players, when we were playtesting, I proved far more tactically savvy than most of them. When we get back to 5e, I have a feeling that, at least at first, assuming that the monsters' math is fixed, I'll tear them apart.

They'll pick up on how to use the broken move to best effect eventually.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Unfortunately for my players, when we were playtesting, I proved far more tactically savvy than most of them. When we get back to 5e, I have a feeling that, at least at first, assuming that the monsters' math is fixed, I'll tear them apart.

They'll pick up on how to use the broken move to best effect eventually.

My concern -- haven't used it in play, but have in other games that have this mechanic -- is that it will extend combat significantly, as it's the smartest play for ranged & spell wielding combatants on both sides if there is any sort of cover available.

It's perhaps less "realistic" but not splitting the move forces closure and I suspect speeds up combat.

 

[TarionzCousin]

My concern -- haven't used it in play, but have in other games that have this mechanic -- is that it will extend combat significantly, as it's the smartest play for ranged & spell wielding combatants on both sides if there is any sort of cover available.

It's perhaps less "realistic" but not splitting the move forces closure and I suspect speeds up combat.

I agree in principle. I never got to see this mechanic in the limited playtesting my group did.

But I like the concept. My first thought was "As a DM, I'm going to need to charge those PC archers and no longer expect to be able to return fire."

My second thought was "Now my archers can pop out to shoot and return to full cover. Nice."

 

[KidSnide]

In previous editions, sniper archers behind a low wall could use a move action to stand up, fire their bow with their standard action and fall prone (back behind cover) as a free action. The new rule provides the same effect with much less mechanical complexity: win.

"I stick my head out, shoot my bow and go back to hiding behind the column."

That's a perfectly reasonable action. It shouldn't require a detailed discussion of the action economy to figure out how to do it.

-KS

 

[baradtgnome]

I have not had a chance to see this in action yet, but it is very powerful. Of course it cuts both ways. As noted above, those who do not think tactically will be at a significant disadvantage.

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.

I like it.

 

[Derren]

It's perhaps less "realistic" but not splitting the move forces closure and I suspect speeds up combat.

I don't even think it is less realistic. Unless for situations where an archer (or rather crossbowmen) steps out of cover, shoots and retreats back behind it combatants did not constantly zip around the battlefield. Instead they moved carefully as otherwise they would give the enemy an opening he can exploit.

 

[Ruzak]

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

 

[Rhenny]

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

It probably will. My players haven't picked up on it yet. Truth be told, I've only used the pop out attack and hide tactic 2 or 3 times in our games so the light bulbs above the players' heads haven't lit yet.