D&D 5E Move Attack Move: Issues with The New Standard for Combat

[I'm A Banana]

Ultimately, it's an issue. The relevant question in my mind is, what kind of issue is it? Sounds like it's kind of a gameplay issue: the fighter didn't want to be the target of every enemy. So the natural question to ask: what about Mistwell's set-up allowed every enemy to attack the fighter without the Fighter getting a response (or only one measly response)?

The thing that did that wasn't move-act-move per se. Without move-act-move, every monster still would have been able to focus fire. They might not've been able to all melee attack conga-line, but they could've all rained death on the fighter at once from range. Whether the attack is melee or ranged matters little if the core issue is being attacked over and over again without being able to respond. (If the core issue is being attacked IN MELEE specifically over and over again, I'd want to dig into why that's any different from getting hit at range in practice...)

What allowed all that concentrated fire was group initiative.

You sometimes see something very similar in 3e or 4e when the die gods randomly clump all the enemies together. If they're focusing fire, then you might have one person in the party (you can HOPE it's someone meaty like the fighter, but it isn't always) the center of a bunch of attacks, all at once, without reprieve. Any time you use one initiative count for a load of critters, focused fire can be a bit relentless. It's something of a consequence of being a turn-based game.

The benefit of group initiative is generally that it's a big time-saver/bookkeeping-remedy. The cost of it is that we have clumping effects like this that have frustrating play results (leaving aside for the moment their lack of verisimilitude). So how might we change group initiative to something that lazy DMs can use that doesn't clump up turns like that?

Might I recommend "take turns" initiative?

Roll initiative like you normally would for the whole group, however that is. But that initiative count isn't the count of EVERYBODY. It's the count of one of the members of that group.

After that group member goes, the next person in initiative goes. Then, the next group member goes. Then, the next person in initiative. And so on.

Say you roll group initiative for a group of 4 duergar, vs. a 4-person party (C/T/F/M - cleric, thief, fighter, mage). You get a 20, and the players get C 13, T 10, F 4, M 17.

The turn order plays out like this:

- A Duergar
- Mage
- A Duergar
- Cleric
- A Duergar
- Thief
- A Duergar
- Fighter

...if the Duergar rolled a 1 for initiative, they'd just all go at the bottom.

This gives the party (if not the fighter personally) a chance to respond to the enemy's action. The Deurgar can still dogpile on the fighter if they want, but their actions may change in relation to what the party does, and the party can try and protect their fighter from ALL the attacks (if they want). And the bookkeeping is easy, just remember to take a turn for one of your group members after every other person's turn.

Clumping is a result of the initiative system, and group initiative makes clumping worse. If the problem is the conga line of attacks, I don't see that as a move-attack-move problem. It's an initiative system problem. There's probably a lot more solutions out there than mine.

 

[Gadget]

KM, I'm not sure how your 'its merely a problem with initiative' solution is actually a, well solution. The issues is that a fighter should be able to hold a narrow place against a larger force without all that larger force being able to attack him. That's kind of the point of the whole, holding in a narrow place tactic. Previous Editions with cyclic initiative did not manifest this problem, at least to this degree, yet this edition does. That does point to the move-attack-move, in combination with cyclic initiative, as being the problem. Furthermore, in Ranged combat, it is logical to assume that all of the opponents would not be able to cluster in the doorway to fire at the fighter without getting in each other's way. It seems to me that the problem is being able to move too freely through an ally's space: there should be some cost associated with it. I'm by no means a simulationist, but the whole defend a choke point is something that I would like to see logically and intuitively supported.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Pop out, fire, pop back? Yes

Conveniently for me, I consider this to be almost as cheesy as the example at hand - a turn is only six seconds long, and at some point during those six seconds, you need to open yourself to retaliation if you try to take a shot - so I have the easy solution to just ban the splitting of movement.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've seen this pop up most often with ranged attacks and attackers who are too fast for their melee counterparts.

Hide behind cover, move - shoot - move back into cover and away from your target. ...repeat until target is dead.

In two encounters I did something ridiculous like this in 4e.

Enemy archers in a building, shooting at the PCs from the window. Each round, the archer gets up from prone (move action), shoots (standard action), drops prone (free action). I gave the archers improved cover for being prone beneath a window (realistically they couldn't be targeted at all, but then realistically they'd have to waste actions finding the PCs again). The PCs clustered behind a building, and the encounter was pretty boring until someone pulled a strategic flank attack. (Specifically getting into that building and ganking vulnerable archers.)

Readied actions are a "cure" but it seems like that tactic is still "too easy". In any event, I stopped doing that (except for one specialist lurker ranged attacker that hasn't met my Pcs yet).

I think in the quoted example, that only works if the archer is a lot faster than the melee attacker. (Ranged attackers can used readied actions to counter.)

I agree that M-a-M is creating a problem here. In 3e, the attackers would stop right after attacking the fighter, and since they can't share spaces, pretty soon they can't all target the fighter. In 4e, same only the fighter gets more opportunity attacks and if they have some sort of Spring Attack ability might get "stopped in their tracks". (A lot of Spring Attack/Mobile Melee Attack abilities in 4e deny an opportunity attack as they move away, however.)

It even makes a difference with ranged attacks. If the duergar are all popping out of a tunnel and firing at the fighter, usually they have to stop right away, occupying positions that another duergar could have used and reducing the incoming volume of fire... unless they're using M-a-M. Of course in a wide open space said fighter could get killed before he even draws his sword; M-a-M wouldn't make things different there.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Without move-act-move, every monster still would have been able to focus fire. They might not've been able to all melee attack conga-line, but they could've all rained death on the fighter at once from range.

That's just a matter of being outnumbered, though. Many creatures are much stronger in melee than at range.

Most importantly, though, splitting up the initiative doesn't actually give them less turns. If the fighter moves on 10, it doesn't matter whether all of the enemies move on 12, or all of them on 1, or whether they're evenly spaced on every odd number - the result is that the all act back-to-back between when the fighter acts and when the fighter gets a second chance to act.

 

[frogimus]

Considering that the actor uses half movement to get to the fighter and half to get back, how many could realistically make it down a corridor to melee range?

3?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Considering that the actor uses half movement to get to the fighter and half to get back, how many could realistically make it down a corridor to melee range?

3?

Not many, but the fighter has to chase them to really dish out the damage, which means he's no longer blocking the doorway. (Alternatively, the fighter could just stand there and take the damage, obviously not a good strategy for him, even if it's keeping the rest of his team alive.)

Since there's fewer opportunity attacks, couldn't the duergar just rush past him and gank his friends instead? And now they're between the fighter and his friends.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, the duergar would move up to the fighter, stop to attack him, and then continue the movement. But regardless, each duergar could ready an action to charge once his comrade passed the fighter, so the order of initiative is moot.

But how wide was the corridor? Only halflings can pass through the spaces of larger enemies. If the corridor was 10-15 feet wide, there was no hope for the fighter to hold a rushing wave of duergar fury. If the corridor was a mere 5-feet, though, the duergar would have to kill the fighter to go through.

Yeah it was 5 feet, but the Duerger were not trying to get past him, just kill him and then retreat to force the party to chase and endure another swarm attack.

 

[Mistwell]

Considering that the actor uses half movement to get to the fighter and half to get back, how many could realistically make it down a corridor to melee range?

3?

I think it was 7 that ran in (more stayed behind as reserves)? It was a short corridor, and the fighter was 10 back. Three started as close as 10 feet away, three more 15 feet away, one 20 feet away (he's the one that didn't make it all the way back in the room). So 10-15 feet in, attack, 10-15 feet back. Those who start closest move back furthest in the room when done. They knew the party was coming, and had all gathered in the room together.

 

[Mistwell]

The more I think about it, the less I think group init is at issue here. They can all just delay until after the last initiative of their allies. So if the worst roll of theirs is an 8, they can each delay to go when appropriate (7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1). Or if they need room in init order, until simply later in the round fitting around that lowest roll. But if any group wants to all go after each other, but individually on an init count, they can, provided they're willing to go late in the round.