Back to the doorway?

[Hussar]

I think the OP does make something of a good point though.

In AD&D and 3e, moving was discouraged. You took free hits if you backed out of combat (by and large) and in 3e you lost attacks. This applies equally to PC's and critters as well. If I've got 3 attacks, moving costs me two of them, drastically reducing my effectiveness. For that to be a good choice, I have to gain at least as much as I've lost.

And, most of the time, you didn't. Losing two attacks, from a monster's point of view, just to take a single attack at another target was generally a poor idea, particularly when he's on the receiving end of additional attacks. Tony Vargas points out how certain fighter builds made it even less attractive to move in combat.

Did we see choke point fights in 4e? Of course we did. It's a good tactic and it makes sense. I've seen it from both ends - baddies blocking us or us blocking the baddies. But, the choice was always something that made sense in the game. We didn't move because it made sense not to move.

In 3e, particularly, the choice to not move was almost always a meta-game choice. I can move and make one attack or I can stay here and make three (or more) attacks. Other than 5 foot shifts, once targets got engaged, they stayed that way.

I have to admit, 4e is the first time I've ever seen a highly mobile fight in D&D and I like it. Even 3e classes that were built for mobility like the Scout, still were far less effective than a straight up Rogue at higher levels. Sure, you got to move and make one sneak attack. The rogue, though, usually got to make two or three sneak attacks if he set it up right.

I have to admit, I hope that 5e does keep the level of mobility of 4e. I like that level of tactical thinking in the game.

 

[pemerton]

Really, it seems like there's a debate here between the idea that games should't have to be good, because you should only game with perfect players & DMs, and the idea that players & DM shoudn't have to be good because the system should be perfect.

Those are both pretty ridiculous. Obviously, you should try to be the best player/DM you can be, and try to get together/into the best group you can. And, just as obviously, you should choose a game that minimizes the problems it presents you with.

I want to add: if my desire, as a GM, is to be able to push hard against the players with the action resolution rules, and have them push back, then those rules had better be pretty robust.

For example: I'm happy, as GM, to adjudicate whether or not a magic-jar type spell can be used to read the mind of an NPC (I ruled that it could, in combination with an Arcana check). But I want to know where to set the DC, and I want to know how to resolve the player's skill check. Otherwise, I'm playing a game of solitaire - I set up the win conditions, and decide whether any given move by the players meets those conditions!

In other words: putting all onto the GM to use the appropriate amount of force in action resolution is fine for a game that relies heavily on GM force. But I don't want that game.

 

[Aenghus]

The motivation of my original post , I think, originated in a concern that the static nature of 3e combat manoeuvre for melee PCs (as I found casters tend to run around, dimension door etc much more ) was boring and not designed to be as static as it turned out, but an accidental emergent property of the system. Mechanics created to add mobility mostly didn't work as intended.

The next edition looks like it is deliberately being less designed, and hence may suffer from accidental emergent properties and unintended side effects. Comments on a need for more DM reliance to make the system work seem to support this.

I currently have a number of more casual players whose ideas are influenced by over the top manga. They aren't really interested in D&D as small unit tactics, and I think slaughtering their PCs for not maintaining a rigid SOP is a bad idea.

Editions of D&D have varied on the power levels available to PCs implementing various character concepts. The swashbuckler or light fighter is one that has varied in effectiveness over the editions, but in 3e was worse due to the static nature of melee combat.

I don't think players should be punished for their character concepts, nor should people with decent system mastery be forced to choose between following their concept, which happens to suck mechanically, or playing something that is mechanically effective but they aren't drawn to.

Players should have simpler classes available to them, but there are multiple reasons for wanting a simpler class. Casual players are one important group, but I've had highly invested players who just happen to lack system mastery. I think it's important that no classes be sabotaged so as to produce a sucky game experience for those that use them.

I also think the rewards for system mastery should be limited. The largest "character sheets" I ever had were for two high level 2nd edition spellcasters, along with photocopies of all the spells and monsters I researched and invented to leverage their power and nova potential.

I think it's easier to get spells approved than improvised manoeuvers, as in the former case it's possible to wait till the referee is in a good mood and try and sneak the broken stuff through hidden in more innocuous material, whereas during play referees are busy and more critical, so more likely to be harsh to improvisation.

But I do think binding the base tactics too close to reality is dangerous in a game with huge physics-defying dragons flying around, giants, cloud castles etc.

It's important that swashbucklers and such niche concepts be viable in the core rules, and not be accidentally gimped.