Everybody has Spring Attack

[Stalker0]

It looks like the design team is considering solving this problem with "withdrawal attacks." I've played a ton of Savage Worlds which uses a similar mechanic and works well. It's not like AoOs because it's very easy to figure out.

Been awhile since I played savage worlds, how does the withdrawal attack work?

 

[Connorsrpg]

In Savage Worlds, enemies simply get an attack if you move away from adjacent to them. That is it. There is a Dodge-Type action to decrease your chances of getting hit, but if you move away it is a free attack.

Mind you, you can move 'around' your enemy to other adjacent spaces. That also is kind of cool, as it can help with mobile fights, and reflects the movies where they circle each other or even switch sides in an instant.

Hence our House Rule - kind of inspired by the Savage Worlds version, but there was a way you could not get OAed, AND it worked with the new 'take action at any time during move'...which we loved

 

[RangerWickett]

I like the ability to stop one person from running past you. I also dislike that the rules let you be absorbed in dueling one person, then freely smack someone else who happens to run behind you.

So, what if we just had a rule like, "If a hostile creature enters a space adjacent to you, and it is the only enemy adjacent to you, you can choose to stop its movement."

Basically, you can run up to someone and attack. And if you're fighting and you want to run away, you can do that too. And if one of your buddies is distracting an enemy, you can run past without concern. But if the enemy isn't currently engaged with anyone else, you can't run past it unless it lets you.

 

[Rhenny]

I like the ability to stop one person from running past you. I also dislike that the rules let you be absorbed in dueling one person, then freely smack someone else who happens to run behind you.

So, what if we just had a rule like, "If a hostile creature enters a space adjacent to you, and it is the only enemy adjacent to you, you can choose to stop its movement."

Basically, you can run up to someone and attack. And if you're fighting and you want to run away, you can do that too. And if one of your buddies is distracting an enemy, you can run past without concern. But if the enemy isn't currently engaged with anyone else, you can't run past it unless it lets you.

I like this. It is simple, and it limits moving past foes when they are actively ready to resist the movement. There may be groups that want to allow giving up a move and action to dive, tumble or juke past a foe (DC 13-16 depending on how difficult you want to make it).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, what if we just had a rule like, "If a hostile creature enters a space adjacent to you, and it is the only enemy adjacent to you, you can choose to stop its movement."

Basically, you can run up to someone and attack. And if you're fighting and you want to run away, you can do that too. And if one of your buddies is distracting an enemy, you can run past without concern. But if the enemy isn't currently engaged with anyone else, you can't run past it unless it lets you.

Extend that to let the fighter (and probaby the paladin and other similar classes) to so block two or three such creatures, and you might have something. Otherwise, it doesn't mean much when 6 goblins come charging, even though a big part of that kind of fighting would be keeping the goblins in a bad position, making it harder for them to get by.

Alternately, include such extension in themes that fit some of the main fighter ideas.

I'd just say that Fighters and other qualified characters can stop movement of creatures equal to their Str mod. Everyone else can stop one and only one. With the flat scaling, that should work fine.

You might also have a qualifier that when a creature is bigger than Large size, the Fighter types can stop one, and other characters can't even do that.

 

[Connorsrpg]

The action during moving is fine.

If orcs are 'stupid' and have to come up with other tactics, why would you have them doing the 'carousel' anyway?

I wouldn't put penalties on the action during the move if it was taken in the middle. I picture these things happening WHILST moving. That is how it would 'look'.

It is the idea of a 'carousel' that is wrong. Why do we need to change an awesome rule to stop GMs doing this? Only use it for creatures set up with the capacity and mental knowledge to do so, and then limit it to the front 2 rows. If you have to sit there planning every kobold's move like chess pieces then it doesn't sound like a fun game anyway (for the players watching all this).

Think of their tactics beforehand and implement them quickly. I just find it a little frustrating that we have to have rules to account for all the 'dumb' situations. But we play the game as we would 'see' it, so we make off the cuff calls for OAs too.

I realise people are pushing the rules to playtest, but would people really do that in a game? If it is only a very few DMs, why change an awesome rule? Why not keep it and wait to read the advice that comes along with it?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If orcs are 'stupid' and have to come up with other tactics, why would you have them doing the 'carousel' anyway?

I wouldn't put penalties on this. I picture these things happening WHILST moving. That is how it would 'look'.

It is the idea of a 'carousel' that is wrong. Why do we need to change an awesome rule to stop GMs doing this? Only use it for creatures set up with the capacity and mental knowledge to do so, and then limit it to the front 2 rows. If you have to sit there planning every kobolds move like chess pieces then it doesn't sound like a fun game anyway (for the players watching all this).

Because the carousel is wrong not that it is bad tactics or good tactics or whatever in the game, but that the thing it represent in the game world s is stupid. No one would do it. (And I don't want to hear anyone that complained bitterly about Come and Get It even try to defend the carousel. Talk about verisimilitude destroying. )

This is another one of those things where not having cyclic initiative woudl fix it. A bunch of orcs want to all run in an attack at the same time, they should get in each others' way somewhat. This is what would allow the fighter a decent chance at making them regret it.

Of course, one could also look at the number of opponents around a given target by size, right there in the playtest rules, realize that the spirit of the rules says this is how many people can attack in a given round, and go with that.

The only thing that would even halfway make sense as a semi-carousel would be a bunch of orcs running by the fighter in a couple of lines, all taking a shot, and then keep going--presumably to smash the wizard next round. That also has problems, as the fighter isn't going to just sit there and take that, but at least it doesn't ask the orcs to do modern dance while they swing their axes around.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here's a system I've been experimenting with: a 3 phase turn system.

Old School Hack uses a similar concept, though the rounds have 7 phases.

And like your proposal, Ranged (phase 2) happens before Movement (phase 4), which happens before Melee (phase 5).

-Hyp.

 

[jadrax]

The action during moving is fine.

If orcs are 'stupid' and have to come up with other tactics, why would you have them doing the 'carousel' anyway?

I wouldn't put penalties on this. I picture these things happening WHILST moving. That is how it would 'look'.

It is the idea of a 'carousel' that is wrong. Why do we need to change an awesome rule to stop GMs doing this? Only use it for creatures set up with the capacity and mental knowledge to do so, and then limit it to the front 2 rows. If you have to sit there planning every kobolds move like chess pieces then it doesn't sound like a fun game anyway (for the players watching all this).

Think of their tactics beforehand and implement them quickly. I just find it a litle frustrating that we have to have rules to account for all the 'dumb' situations. But we play the game as we would 'see' it, so we make off the cuff calls for OAs too.

I realsie people are pushing the rules to playtest, but would people really do that in a game? If it is only a very few DMs, why chamge an awesome rule. Why not keep it and wait to read the advice that comes along with it?

Quoted for Truth because I cannot XP you!

 

[vagabundo]

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] You mentioned Side-by-Side initiative earlier in the thread, maybe I'm being dense, but what did you mean by that?