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

[howandwhy99]

Does anyone remember the reason Attack & Move was used in the first place?

 

[Mistwell]

Move-Attack-Move definitely sounds like a good thing, and much more the way things 'should' be.

It does sound like there's a problem with reach weapons, and especially polearms, though - at the very least, approaching a polearm wielder should grant an AoO. Though, really, use of a polearm or similar should grant a chance to prevent that opponent from closing the distance at all. That is, after all, the reason why such weapons even exist.

The polearm feat goes a long way to address this, and the solution our polearm using fighter (not pictured in this example) chose to use.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Does anyone remember the reason Attack & Move was used in the first place?

Third edition/Pathfinder combat often became stationary, between fear of attacks of opportunity and full-round attacks. (Many more mobile options, such as charging, Tumbling and Spring Attack still denied you a full-round attack.) In 4e, full-round attacks vanished but opportunity attacks still provoke unreasonable fear, so PCs (and often NPCs) only moved when they had to.

I'd happily see attacks of opportunity nerfed (so only fighters or defender-type monsters got good ones, or even any) to free up movement. This would still let fighters anchor the line. Of course, the need for the "Conga-line of Spring Attack" would be eliminated, and only monsters and classes that need such abilities would get them.

 

[Argyle King]

Move-Attack-Move is one of those innovative design that i think will influences future RPGs to adopt similar rules.

A lot of other rpgs already have rules which allow for moving and attacking; attacking while moving, and various other things. However, other rpgs also treat a lot of aspects of combat much differently than D&D. (For example, some of the games I play have active defenses, so the fighter used in the example in the other MaM thread isn't just standing there and getting hit; he can attempt to dodge, parry, or block.) I don't find 5E particularly innovative for allowing movement during attacks. (Not deriding the idea as bad... just saying that it's odd to credit WoTC with creating an idea which other rpgs are already using.)

I don't see MaMing as a problem, but I do see some strange cases being created by how some of the various D&D rules for combat interact. Those cases aren't problems per se; they simply create a combat environment which is likely different than what most people expect. That's not particularly different than the previous edition though, so whether it's a problem or not depends upon perspective and how you feel combat and tactics should work in a rpg.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I didn't credit WoTC for creating Move-Attack-Move, but i think them using it will influences future RPGs who doesn't already use it to adopt similar rules - because D&D is one of the more popular RPG, if not the most, which give more visibility and influence.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Does anyone remember the reason Attack & Move was used in the first place?

If I had to guess, it's because the discrete move-type action in 3E played well with the action economy. One of the side-effects of the Next single "action" system is that a lot of things just aren't actions, or happen alongside an action; a return to Standard action and Move action would "solve" a lot of that weirdness.

 

[Ruzak]

Third edition/Pathfinder combat often became stationary, between fear of attacks of opportunity and full-round attacks. (Many more mobile options, such as charging, Tumbling and Spring Attack still denied you a full-round attack.) In 4e, full-round attacks vanished but opportunity attacks still provoke unreasonable fear, so PCs (and often NPCs) only moved when they had to.

I'd happily see attacks of opportunity nerfed (so only fighters or defender-type monsters got good ones, or even any) to free up movement. This would still let fighters anchor the line. Of course, the need for the "Conga-line of Spring Attack" would be eliminated, and only monsters and classes that need such abilities would get them.

Our 4e game was much more mobile than our 3e one, largely due to shift granting powers. This made the tactical game more interesting (and complex). I am overall in favor of a dynamic battle field, and it would be nice to do so without requiring the powers system.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Our 4e game was much more mobile than our 3e one, largely due to shift granting powers. This made the tactical game more interesting (and complex). I am overall in favor of a dynamic battle field, and it would be nice to do so without requiring the powers system.

My 4e game was also more mobile, but I noticed that most PCs don't have shift-granting powers. Of course strikers often have these, or other ways of avoiding opportunity attacks, and anyone can just stay close to a punishing defender (just move, anyone attacking you will get punished), but IME players show that unreasonable fear if they just want to move and don't have these built-in protections.

My NPCs will occasionally move and provoke opportunity attacks if they think they'll get more advantage out of it than not. (And sometimes the fighter will just stop them with Combat Superiority.)

 

[D'karr]

If I had to guess, it's because the discrete move-type action in 3E played well with the action economy. One of the side-effects of the Next single "action" system is that a lot of things just aren't actions, or happen alongside an action; a return to Standard action and Move action would "solve" a lot of that weirdness.

Distinct and separate Move and Attack actions are much older than 3e. In 1e you could not move to engage and attack in the same action. The only option for moving and attacking was the charge, and in that instance weapon length(reach) became more important. That is also where weapon speed factors became significant. I must say that I don't think we ever played exactly by the rules.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Distinct and separate Move and Attack actions are much older than 3e. In 1e you could not move to engage and attack in the same action. The only option for moving and attacking was the charge, and in that instance weapon length(reach) became more important. That is also where weapon speed factors became significant. I must say that I don't think we ever played exactly by the rules.

Looking over my 2e PHB, it's hard to say exactly what the rules even are. You can move up to half of your speed and then attack, or charge and move 50% further before attacking, or move up to half speed while making half of your normal amount of ranged attacks. Other than that, they just go into the whole "a round is a minute long, so obviously you get around wherever you need to be" thing.

Multiple different attacks took place simultaneously on your turn, but iterative attacks with the same weapon took place at the end of the round, so if I guess that means you can move between iterative attacks but two-weapon fighting (or a tiger's claw/claw/bite) would not allow movement between them? It was kind of a mess, so just simplifying things to two discrete action types and a single initiative pass for everyone probably seemed like the least complicated way of doing things.