1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[hong]

Actually, by saying IQ 70, you're implying they're mentally retarded, since that's the point at which you go from "borderline mentally retarded" to "mildly mentally retarded." Maybe you should find a better way to say that.

Hey! I'm only mostly mentally retarded!

 

[The Little Raven]

Yes they can. If the PCs are on a diagonal from the monster, there is no way for the monster to bypass the defenders without using extra movement.

Effectively (and assuming there is no other mechanical solution already in place) creatures can no longer block approaches along the vertical/horizontal grid, but they are still able to block diagonal approaches.

With all this talk of fighters being "sticky," hampering the movement of foes around them, being masters of opportunity attacks and generally filling the role of "guy taking punches so you don't have to," I think it's a pretty big assumption that he can't block movement to his squishy allies.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Maybe so. We do have some indications of possible rules.

1. I believe that there was a preview somewhere that mentioned fighters getting 2 OAs. If that's true then it's a little bit more risky to step away from him--assuming that you can't just shift and charge (which will often but not always be possible depending upon how you are based).

2. We were told that the fighter and the paladin killed the knight and took his stuff. One of the most significant knight abilities was to make every square he threatened difficult terrain. If that rule was ported into 4th edition as a fighter ability, it would make no difference to the kind of charges and movement that avoid OAs but would make it harder to move past the warrior.

3. The newly previewed death knight miniature has a champion ability that deals damage to an adjacent enemy and prevents it from moving. If there is an action point type mechanic that emulates that, it would make fighters "sticky" but again would only help if the fighter actually bases the monster. (If you don't stick tape to something, the sticky doesn't help). It should be noted that the mini is based on a creature expected to show up at paragon levels.

4. The merchant guard mini has a bodyguard ability that lets him take an attack for an adjacent mini. We've had bodyguard effects in DDM for years without a corresponding mechanic in D&D though (yes, I know 3.0 had a devoted defender prestige class but none of the minis were based on it and their abilities worked very differently), so this might or might not reflect D&D mechanics.

5. The eternal blade has a "defender" ability that enables them to make an attack against any adjacent enemy who attacks one of their allies. (On the DDM boards, this ability has been widely decried for quite a few broken applications--particularly the way it intersects with the bodyguard ability (or at least the way it did intersect with the bodyguard ability before the draft attack resolution sequence made its way to the boards)).

6. IIRC the paladin smite preview included a smite that gave an ally a boost to AC or defenses.

7. And this is more of a disincentive to the extreme mobility afforded by charging (which is also exacerbated by the 1/1/1 rule)-- in the DDM rules, a charging creature is limited to a basic attack but a lot of creatures have more dangerous special attacks. Killing Blow--a power now seen on two fighter minis that seems to allow extra damage against bloodied targets (possibly with an attack bonus) can't be used on a charge but can be used as an attack action. Likewise, the Ossyluth's reaping claws ability more than doubles its damage output but only works as an attack action rather than a charge. More effective non-basic attacks can work as a disincentive to the move+charge mechanism to attack anyone you want any time you want and the shift+charge mechanism to escape being based and still attack anyone you want. Still, that's only a sidelight to the 1/1/1 issue (which enables more movement without charging as well as enabling far more movement than one might think while charging).

All of the abilities that I've seen in the previews or might extrapolate from the minis rules and vague preview comments (killed the knight and took his stuff) seem geared towards protecting an ally by making it unpleasant or pointless for an adjacent enemy to move away at full speed or attack anyone except you. If there are any abilities to shift when it is not your turn or immediately move to block a monster's movement, they haven't given those without playtest priviledges a hint regarding them. Perhaps more importantly, as the 3.0 Devoted Defender and the DDM bodyguard/defender combo illustrate, those abilities have at least as many offensive uses as defensive ones and possibly work even better as offensive force multipliers when applied to other so-called defenders (or maybe strikers) than when applied to those who need protection.

With all this talk of fighters being "sticky," hampering the movement of foes around them, being masters of opportunity attacks and generally filling the role of "guy taking punches so you don't have to," I think it's a pretty big assumption that he can't block movement to his squishy allies.

 

[Delta]

Since we have not seen the new rules for (specifically) Fighters or (in general) AoOs, Shifting, reach weapons. . . or any of the other 99% of the applicable rules, I think it premature to say that 1 or 2 Fighters will be unable to block a line of approach. Given that we have been told that their role will involve doing just that, wouldn't it make more sense to wait and see?

No, not really.

To me, the most reasonable thing is to judge based on the information currently at hand. We have what the designers said about movement. We see how the DDM rules work. We have players in other threads saying how they've learned in DDM that you can't effectively block a line of approach. There is enough information to model the result with a high degree of confidence (say, >90%).

 

[FadedC]

No, not really.

To me, the most reasonable thing is to judge based on the information currently at hand. We have what the designers said about movement. We see how the DDM rules work. We have players in other threads saying how they've learned in DDM that you can't effectively block a line of approach. There is enough information to model the result with a high degree of confidence (say, >90%).

But we also know that fighters have been specifically stated to be more "sticky" and harder to simply move around in 4E. That would seem to trump information gained from playing a completely different game.

 

[Hussar]

I draw it for you
On a gridless game, the red monster can attack characters 30 ft away from him. So he can attack the blue guy but not the green guy.
If you put a square grid below the minis, now the red monster can also reach the green guy.

Except, with a charge action, he can hit both of them anyway. So, the only time it would actually matter is if there were 12 squares between the two. In the example you gave, there is absolutely no difference on the table - the bad guy can still reach both targets.

 

[delericho]

With all this talk of fighters being "sticky," hampering the movement of foes around them, being masters of opportunity attacks and generally filling the role of "guy taking punches so you don't have to," I think it's a pretty big assumption that he can't block movement to his squishy allies.

Two things:

1) If such powers exist, they are almost certainly special-case powers available only to the Fighter, or perhaps a few other classes. So, if the character doing the blocking is a Cleric (because the Fighter is elsewhere, or you don't have a Fighter, or whatever), you're SOL. The existence of these powers really doesn't plug the hole in the rules left by the 1-1-1-1 diagonal rules, and the consequent ability of attackers to circle defenders without penalty.

2) If they have introduced a whole bunch of powers and special cases to patch the hold in the rules left by the 1-1-1-1, the net effect is to make the game even harder for those of us who want to house rule back to 1-2-1-2, because we then have to strip out and/or alter all these special cases as well as the base rule. That's really not an encouraging thought.

 

[Derren]

Except, with a charge action, he can hit both of them anyway. So, the only time it would actually matter is if there were 12 squares between the two. In the example you gave, there is absolutely no difference on the table - the bad guy can still reach both targets.

If charge is still in the game.
And even if it is it doesn't change the situation. With 1-1-1 the monster can hit both guys with a normal attack while it would need a charge attack to hit the green guy when using a sane geometry.

 

[WayneLigon]

I had a (new) player once ask "Which dice do I have to roll?". Does that mean that having multiple dice is too complicated and slow down the game unnecessarily?

The last couple of years, I've come around to the idea that multiple types of dice are indeed an unnecessary feature.

 

[satori01]

The fervor over this rule is a bit surprising. I dropped this rule years ago, and can not say I saw a big change in the way the game played out. Since what is good for the goose is good for the gander, overall effects were balanced evenly.

What I am curious about is how does terrain complexity factor in most people's campaigns? I am getting the sense that those that are ardently supporting 1-2-1 movement tend to play in flat plains, maybe with some rubble or other obstructions on the ground but mostly players and monsters are on the same plain.

Due to some racial choices (Assaimar w/ racial Feats from Races of Fareun, Fey Sprite from Arcana Evolved), flight was in play at 3rd level, and most of my level design incorporates multi level structures, and obstructions. Counting diaganols when flying can get confusing for some people, and frankly that delays for everyone. The rule also tended to make aerial combat a very straight line affair, which in reality it just is not. Taking out the 1-2-1 rule made aerial combat much more the circling swirling dogfight one sees in old WW1 movies, which is more appealing to me.