Legends and Lore - What Can You Do?

[LurkAway]

Imagine that a round is 3 seconds long.

For what it's worth, what I imagined was "Round 1: Fighter - I unsheath my sword from its scabbard and advance a few steps towards the orc! Wizard - I pull out the scroll from its case, unroll the parchment and allow my eyes to focus on the arcane letters while trying to ignore the fearsome orc." Not that it has to be articulated in such fine detail, but "3 seconds" makes me think fidgety, micromanaging, very simulationist and gritty.

Only Monte knows what "1 action" means, but I assume it would be an abstraction of a longer combat maneuver, somehow.

Now at the moment, it would seem that attacking trumps moving every time. What could be done to "moving" so that the choice between movement and attacking is a little more balanced? How would you make this work?

Alas, oh Herreman, the status quo is a fell and stout beast! It hath grown muscular and cunning, well-fed on many years of gaming. The quest for the holy movement is most noble or foolish, I cannot say, but the path is dark and treacherous.

 

[delericho]

Reading through Monte's article again, he really is looking to separate movement from other actions such as attacking or casting spells. ...

If it is literally a choice between moving and attacking, the game will break. Seriously. Because this will mean that moving into melee combat automatically gives the other guy the first attack, which against an evenly-matched opponent will mean losing. That's not a good risk, so you'll see the two sides just sitting there, never actually closing to attack.

Now at the moment, it would seem that attacking trumps moving every time. What could be done to "moving" so that the choice between movement and attacking is a little more balanced? How would you make this work?

Make environmental factors and positioning matter more, so that a round spent moving allows the character to gain a significant bonus to hit (and maybe damage) in the next round. Problem is, you then also need a way to prevent the other guy from just moving away so that you can't reach him in the next round. Those big bonuses do nothing for you if you don't get to use them.

 

[LurkAway]

If it is literally a choice between moving and attacking, the game will break. Seriously. Because this will mean that moving into melee combat automatically gives the other guy the first attack, which against an evenly-matched opponent will mean losing. That's not a good risk, so you'll see the two sides just sitting there, never actually closing to attack.

It has to be more complex than that. The party sees orcs at some distance. Archers and spellcasters hit them with ranged attack, while fighters form a defensive line in the front. The orcs can't just stand there. They'll probably toss some spears and charge at the front line, trying to nullify the party's firepower advantage and dish out some melee damage. That's one scenario anyway. The entire game doesn't break that easily.

 

[delericho]

It has to be more complex than that. The party sees orcs at some distance. Archers and spellcasters hit them with ranged attack, while fighters form a defensive line in the front. The orcs can't just stand there. They'll probably toss some spears and charge at the front line, trying to nullify the party's firepower advantage and dish out some melee damage.

Only if they're stupid. Without their own ranged weapons or spellcasters, the orcs cannot win that fight, so they should retreat.

Without "move and attack" actions, the balance in the game between close-combat and ranged attacks shifts dramatically. At the moment, it's about even (unrealistically so, but then we do have this crazy notion that the game should be fun for everyone), but this will move it vastly in favour of the ranged attackers. It's really not a good idea.

 

[LurkAway]

Only if they're stupid. Without their own ranged weapons or spellcasters, the orcs cannot win that fight, so they should retreat.

How do the orcs know they cannot win that fight? They think they're fierce glorious warriors. Unless outnumbered, why exactly in-game (unable to access metagame data that they don't have) would they automatically assume failure?

Without "move and attack" actions, the balance in the game between close-combat and ranged attacks shifts dramatically. At the moment, it's about even (unrealistically so, but then we do have this crazy notion that the game should be fun for everyone), but this will move it vastly in favour of the ranged attackers. It's really not a good idea.

The ranged attackers get a first advantage, yes, depending on the environment and context. Once closing into melee, their advantage is nullified and the melee fighters get to shine; the ranged attacked can switch to melee, reposition to get a new line of sight (taking a move turn to do so), etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't understand what feels to me like absolute resistance, and you're under no obligation to explain yourself, but I just don't see it so black-and-white.

 

[delericho]

How do the orcs know they cannot win that fight? They think they're fierce glorious warriors. Unless outnumbered, why exactly in-game (unable to access metagame data that they don't have) would they automatically assume failure?

Experience. If that is the way the world works, they will know it. And so they'll know that the guy who closes for the fight loses.

If this isn't the way the world works, but it is the way that the rules work, then the model used by the rules is rubbish and needs revision.

(An analogy would be the situation with the high level character who is happy to throw himself off a cliff, secure in the knowledge that he can't die from the fall. If you want players to take that threat seriously, there must be at least a chance of it being a serious threat.)

The ranged attackers get a first advantage, yes, depending on the environment and context. Once closing into melee, their advantage is nullified and the melee fighters get to shine; the ranged attacked can switch to melee, reposition to get a new line of sight (taking a move turn to do so), etc.

There won't be a move to melee. The two sides will each set up a defensive screen, and then slug it out with ranged attacks. Whichever side loses their ranged attacks first loses - they either retreat or die.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't understand what feels to me like absolute resistance, and you're under no obligation to explain yourself, but I just don't see it so black-and-white.

The D&D combat system is already quite ridiculous with it's fixed-to-grid movement and especially with its discrete actions followed by several minutes of idly waiting for your next go. Removing move-and-attack as an option just adds yet another absurdity.

Mostly, though, I object because Monte's columns seem to be intent on fiddling around with bits of the rules that are just fine (in either 3e or 4e), while ignoring the genuine problems in the system (again, both editions have weaknesses). I would be happy to welcome a good 5e; at the moment, it looks like we're just going to get a 5e.

 

[LurkAway]

Experience. If that is the way the world works, they will know it. And so they'll know that the guy who closes for the fight loses.

I'm still missing some key point here. Closing the fight means giving the opponent a moment to counterreact, but doesn't mean an automatic lose, not in real-life, and not in fantasy narrative AFAICT.

There won't be a move to melee. The two sides will each set up a defensive screen, and then slug it out with ranged attacks. Whichever side loses their ranged attacks first loses - they either retreat or die.

In my example, the orcs only have a few spears. The orcs are superior at melee. Just like any historical battle where a foot solider charges to engage in melee, hoping not to be hit by an arrow on the way, the orcs will do the same in this example scenario.

The D&D combat system is already quite ridiculous with it's fixed-to-grid movement and especially with its discrete actions followed by several minutes of idly waiting for your next go. Removing move-and-attack as an option just adds yet another absurdity.

We don't know how miniatures and initiative will factor into a single action round and a 5E with a supposed complexity dial, so I'm keeping an open mind that everything will be synchronized, that's not just 3E or 4E as is with attack or move.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Experience. If that is the way the world works, they will know it. And so they'll know that the guy who closes for the fight loses.

If this isn't the way the world works, but it is the way that the rules work, then the model used by the rules is rubbish and needs revision.

(An analogy would be the situation with the high level character who is happy to throw himself off a cliff, secure in the knowledge that he can't die from the fall. If you want players to take that threat seriously, there must be at least a chance of it being a serious threat.)



There won't be a move to melee. The two sides will each set up a defensive screen, and then slug it out with ranged attacks. Whichever side loses their ranged attacks first loses - they either retreat or die.

That's not necessarily true. It all depends on the details.

Assuming that the two sides begin 30' apart (or whatever the maximum one round movement is in this [hypothetical] combat system) with weapons drawn, it's true that the ranged attackers do get the first attack.

But then the melee closes with the archers and the archers potentially have to "waste" an action to draw their melee weapons, making it even as melee can attack on the second round while the archers can't. Given the reasonable assumption that ranged attacks in melee are either heavily penalized or outright forbidden, it's a draw. The archers can't exactly take a shift every round and still make an attack in this system, after all.

If the archers begin further away than one round of maximum movement will cover, then they certainly have a distinct advantage, but that has been true of all editions, including 4e.

Whether it works or not depends on how heavily ranged attacks (including spells) are penalized in melee. If they aren't worth making once you're in melee, then balance is restored. Effective tactics will revolve significantly around using your melee to neutralize ranged attackers, while protecting your own ranged attackers. That's a good idea even now, it just becomes even more important under this [hypothetical] system.

 

[delericho]

I'm still missing some key point here. Closing the fight means giving the opponent a moment to counterreact, but doesn't mean an automatic lose, not in real-life, and not in fantasy narrative AFAICT.

Closing to melee gives the opponent the first attack. Against an opponent of equal skill, that means you'll almost certainly lose. The orcs will have grown up fighting opponents of equal skill (other orcs), so they'll know this.

In my example, the orcs only have a few spears. The orcs are superior at melee. Just like any historical battle where a foot solider charges to engage in melee, hoping not to be hit by an arrow on the way, the orcs will do the same in this example scenario.

If the orcs don't have their own ranged attacks, they lose. If they stay where they are, the ranged attacks will pick them off. If they move to melee, their opponents get the first strike and so will kill them. The only sane course of action for the orcs is to retreat.

We don't know how miniatures and initiative will factor into a single action round and a 5E with a supposed complexity dial, so I'm keeping an open mind that everything will be synchronized, that's not just 3E or 4E as is with attack or move.

That is true.

That's not necessarily true. It all depends on the details.

Assuming that the two sides begin 30' apart (or whatever the maximum one round movement is in this [hypothetical] combat system) with weapons drawn, it's true that the ranged attackers do get the first attack.

But then the melee closes with the archers and the archers potentially have to "waste" an action to draw their melee weapons, making it even as melee can attack on the second round while the archers can't. Given the reasonable assumption that ranged attacks in melee are either heavily penalized or outright forbidden, it's a draw. The archers can't exactly take a shift every round and still make an attack in this system, after all.

The example postulated that some PCs used their ranged attacks, while others with melee weapons formed a defensive line. It's not an either/or proposition.

The party would still have melee combatants - they just wouldn't get to do anything.

I would also be extremely surprised if "draw a weapon" didn't become a free action under this system - spending an entire round doing nothing else is going to really suck even if a round is only a couple of minutes long.

Edit to add:

Combat starts. Round one:

Fighter: "I draw my sword!"
Wizard: "I cast fireball!"

Round two:

Fighter: "I move to attack!"
Wizard: "I cast creeping obligation of doom!"

Round three:

Fighter: "I attack!"
DM: "Actually, that orc died last round."
Fighter: "Okay, I move over to attack the next one!"
Wizard: "I blast him with a magic missile!"
DM: "Okay, that orc is dead."
Fighter: "Noooo!"
Wizard: "That's okay, maybe you'll get to attack next combat. After all, fireball is a daily, so I not kill them all..."

 

[Naszir]

I think it gets messy fast.

Suppose you are prone. Does your "move plus attack" action let you get up instead of moving? Or do you have to do a "move" action to get up? Or is it a "Free" action?

With the first option, you effectively now have an attack that is a "move equivalent plus attack" - effectively two choices - two actions. With the second option, getting tripped/pushed prone sucks rocks - you miss a turn, effectively. With the third option, knocking/pushing/tripping creatures prone is essentially worthless.

This is just one example - I really think separate Move and Standard actions represent the minimum for interesting, dynamic combat. Allowing a mixture and calling it "one action" just adds confusion to complexity, once there are choices within the "action".

I see your point. However, if you make a one action per turn type of game you have to make changes. You can't take the 4e rule of prone and then try and stick it in a none 4e system.

What if you make it so that you are considered prone only until the start of your next turn? This takes into the account the fluidity of combat. With combat in the game considered to be abstact, it not far fetched to consider that once you have been knocked prone you most likely are attempting to get on your feet as soon as possible. By the time your "turn" comes you will be on your feet.