D&D 4E 4E combat more mobile?

[Prophet2b]

What I've realized recently (based on some playtests) is that, counterintuitively, the more mobile the characters are in-game, the more it slows down the play of the game. That's because if there are more options of possible move/action combinations to a player each turn, then there are more possible moves to consider, and it takes more time to do so. All it took in my games was one "problem" player who had to analyze every possible move to bring the game to a halt.

In my game I just recently prohibited 5' steps, and any action that could provoke AOOs, in order to speed up the actual play. But I guess I'm swimming in a different direction with this one.

Or, you set a time limit. After 30 seconds, you lose your standard (or move) action. After 45, you lose your entire action. I dunno... something like that would seem to work. Players should be able to think far enough in advance to figure out what they're doing that quickly. And, hey, if not, then... well... fighters made mistakes in real life, too. It's battle. It's chaotic. That stuff is bound to happen.

 

[Grog]

This is intriguing. I would say that allowing multiple attacks + move is not, in itself, enough to encourage more movement. That's because if you are under attack, you have no reason to move if your attacker can just follow you and still get all their attacks in. Similarly, just because you _can_ move and get multiple attacks is not, in itself, a reason to move. There has to be a relative benefit in doing so, or you might as well not bother.

It's true that removing a disincentive is not the same thing as providing an incentive. But I suspect that that's where the dynamic battlefields will come in.

In any case, even if all they're doing is removing the disincentive to move in combat, that's an improvement over the current situation, IMO. If they do that much, at least a DM will be able have a "hero battles the villain atop the castle wall" combat if he wants to - all he has to do is have the villain move in that direction. Under the current system, the villain would be dead from AoOs before he got halfway across the courtyard to reach the stairs up to the wall.

 

[Grog]

What I've realized recently (based on some playtests) is that, counterintuitively, the more mobile the characters are in-game, the more it slows down the play of the game. That's because if there are more options of possible move/action combinations to a player each turn, then there are more possible moves to consider, and it takes more time to do so. All it took in my games was one "problem" player who had to analyze every possible move to bring the game to a halt.

That's not a reason to penalize movement in combat, that's a reason for the DM in your games to find a way to deal with the problem players. Just because some players are bad with options is no reason to deny them to the rest of us.

 

[Delta]

Or, you set a time limit. After 30 seconds, you lose your standard (or move) action. After 45, you lose your entire action. I dunno... something like that would seem to work.

Sure, I tried that. But then in practice it turns into a meta-argument about whether the player had enough information to properly analyze the situation in the time given, or had other questions about the environment, etc., which slows down the game even more.

Edit: Moreover, I find that even I myself take marginally more time to figure out the perfect 5-ft. step for all the monsters and NPCs every turn, which again is slowing down the game for all involved.

 

[(contact)]

Sure, I tried that. But then in practice it turns into a meta-argument about whether the player had enough information to properly analyze the situation in the time given, or had other questions about the environment, etc., which slows down the game even more.

Unfortunately, I don't think the 4e ruleset will be able to write difficult players out of the game.

That's your job.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

This is intriguing. I would say that allowing multiple attacks + move is not, in itself, enough to encourage more movement. That's because if you are under attack, you have no reason to move if your attacker can just follow you and still get all their attacks in. Similarly, just because you _can_ move and get multiple attacks is not, in itself, a reason to move. There has to be a relative benefit in doing so, or you might as well not bother.

Then give the characters a +2 to AC if they move at least half their move score. It's just a pittance, but "every little bit helps".

Of course, I'm not saying that will exist in 4e, but the disincentive (AoO) is a lot more difficult to address.

IMO there should be both types of characters available: those who get lots of attacks even when moving (or, more generally, whose combat power is unaffected by movement -- this might include spellcasters, for example, if spells in combat still works like in 3E), and those who are best when standing still. This is what leads to a dynamic combat: the fast guys want to make the slow guy chase them around, while the slow guy wants to knock down the fast guys to stop them running away.

Those would be "striker" an "defender" roles, I think. As for spellcasters, at least in the case of wizards, I'd figure they'd want to keep moving on account of low AC scores to keep from being slaughtered... But even defenders ("tanks") should probably need some measure of mobility, if for nothing else than to counter some of the strikers' range advantages.