Everybody has Spring Attack

[Rhenny]

Keep in mind that while the new rules do allow those archers to just pop out of cover and right back in.....it also allows the big melee guy to just race into that group of archers because he doesn't worry about AOOs.

That's why I think its worth trying as is, certain actions are now possible that were not before, but at the same time new counters are also available.

I agree. Both sides are bound by the same rules so there is equity. Players and DMs just need to readjust strategy. Now it may be more probable that a fighter or monster will ready an action to guard against foes rushing past. Using terrain will be very important to control the battlefield (finding the choke point, using rough terrain or obstacles for cover and blockage). Class abilities will become important (defender and hold the line). Control spells like ray of frost will be meaningful to defend against attacks.

I liked that I could actually have wounded monsters run away from the party in the playtest. In my old games, monsters would never run because they knew that they would get cut down from behind by AoO. By the same token, it was also refreshing that some of my players ran from combat when they were injured. To be honest, I think the game without AoO simulates real behaviors more acutely because there is this freedom to run when you need to (unless restrained by some other ability or tactic).

 

[jadrax]

But I think you'd enjoy playing in my game at least slightly more than nailing appendages to a table. IMC you'd have the option to have it your way by taking a spring attack - like feat.

That did not work for me in 3.x - and frankly, NPCs need to be effective ranged combatants too. Having to buy a special-snowflake power to anyone with a bow is pretty much a non-starter for me. It's just a feat tax for playing an Archer.

I feel that overall giving such an ability to everyone results in less fun because of the awkwardness of readying actions.

I must admit readying has never been an issue for me. Your not the only person I have seen with the view point that its awkward (and some people have gone further), but I honestly have never had an issue with it.

 

[Trance-Zg]

AoO and feats that buff up/give more of them will be our friends

 

[Steely_Dan]

One of my favourite aspects so far in 5th Ed is being able to mix up your move and attack, and no OA; good riddance, a gamey, contrived kludge tacked on, IME/IMO.

 

[Hautamaki]

I think a simultaneous turns system is the best 'simulationist' answer to this problem.

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

Roll initiative as usual, but the assumption is that the entire 6 second battle round happens for all characters simultaneously. Initiative just gives you a split second advantage (and is only referenced when a split second would actually be relevant)

Phase 1: Ranged Attacks. Generally speaking any character with a readied ranged attack is going to be able to get it off before anything else happens, though a character can also choose to delay his ranged attack and spend his turn aiming which gives him advantage. When more than one character is trying to range attack quickly, they go in order of initiative.

Phase 2: Movement. All characters who want to move move basically simultaneously, but if two characters want to occupy the same equidistant square (factoring movement speed of course--for a character with 30 feet of movement vs a character with 20 feet of movement, obviously he can move 3 squares at the same time as the other character can move 2), the character with the higher initiative gets there first. This means that if character A charges monster B and monster B also wants to charge character A, they meet approximately in the middle. If monster B wants to run away, character A can follow him wherever he goes. In the case of the kobold carousel, since all kobolds must move simultaneously that obviously means only 1 or at most 2 can move into and out of the chokepoint per turn. A character who delayed their range attack can use it on this phase, but does not get advantage, and in fact gets disadvantage if he uses it on a character that is moving perpendicular to him.

Phase 3: Melee attacks: all characters make their melee attacks during this phase--that means they can't attack and then move away, unless you count waiting until the next turn to move away, in which case they can move away before the melee phase happens and avoid getting attacked. However their opponent can of course choose to move with them chasing after them, in which case it becomes a simple footrace unless another character interferes. Characters which did not move or shoot a ranged attack during this phase get advantage to their attack roll, and characters who delayed their range attack to use on this phase get advantage too, but of course no melee attack. All attacks are made in order of initiative.

On paper this all sounds very complicated I'm sure but in practice it all comes down to me just asking all players at the same time: First off, does anyone want to use a ranged attack? Ok, Ragnar, you have higher initiative than the shaman, you can shoot first then the shaman is casting a spell. Ok, now, who wants to move? Ok, where is everyone going. Ok, Tordek is charging the shaman, that's fine, but this cheeky goblin is going to run up into the gap you've left and hit Miali. Oh, Ragnar you're going to step into his path, ok no problem. Alright, melee attacks time; Tordek you have the initiative on the shaman, swing away. And so on..

Basically, you envision the battle in your mind and use common sense 98% of the time. It's a very organic battle system.

 

[Gorgoroth]

that would be

cool but a little too confusing, even WITH a battle grid. What if the enemy runs away before I get my melee attack? Why can't I drop my sword and fire an arrow? The simultaneous moves system seems like an RTS, i.e. a completely different game than D&D. D&D is, ipso facto, turn-based. I don't see that changing, in any edition...except maybe when we get holographic battle maps controlled by our minds...but at that point, let's just play VR games and be done with it. D&D will have to adapt or die at that point, because the alternatives will be too good in comparison.

AoOs ...not sure how I feel about that. If they're in an optional system, I feel like they could be enabled only during those big boss fights where you want to spend the extra time and pull out the battlegrid and minis. Without that, it's endless arguments about, well, I ran around his reach to position myself and attack the enemy over there. Do you have enough space to do this? who knows? narrative hiccup ensues..

Then again, having an optional rules thingy that completely and fundamentally changes the game from a fast-paced skirmish game to one basically requiring a grid to make sense of it all...seems like a high price to pay. I think some sensible system to "prepared counters when X happens, spend my next action to swing at the wizard who just ran up to me to shock me before he can get away behind his allies again or around the corner"..like "defend these squares within reach from enemies running through them" or "defend this person", or block this 10` wide hallway from anyone attempting to run past me.

We NEED rules like those, in Core, if there are no AoOs...I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with

 

[Hautamaki]

cool but a little too confusing, even WITH a battle grid. What if the enemy runs away before I get my melee attack? Why can't I drop my sword and fire an arrow?

You can, on the beginning of the next round, which is after all just a few seconds of game time away. Or you can just run after him. But as for why you can't do that instantly? Because it would take you at least a few seconds to draw, knock, aim, and loose an arrow, and in those seconds he's going to have moved his movement speed away from you. Seems like a realistic and common sense answer to me anyway.

 

[Gargoyle]

That did not work for me in 3.x - and frankly, NPCs need to be effective ranged combatants too. Having to buy a special-snowflake power to anyone with a bow is pretty much a non-starter for me. It's just a feat tax for playing an Archer.

Feat tax is a term I'd use to describe a feat that is needed to be viable in combat, like some believe the weapon expertise feats in 4e to be, not feats that are needed to be viable in a specific combat role. Otherwise, all feats are feat taxes; i.e. there are a lot of "archer feats". But this is a matter of degree and taste, as you said, it's subjective, and I get your point. If you have to spend all your feats to be a viable archer, that's no fun either. But for 5e, I don't think anyone can judge whether we have enough feats yet. It is a potential issue.

I must admit readying has never been an issue for me. Your not the only person I have seen with the view point that its awkward (and some people have gone further), but I honestly have never had an issue with it.

In fact, I really don't have much of an issue with readied actions myself, but my players get confused by it, and it seems to slow my game down dramatically.

 

[Aldarron]

So I've DMed a few sessions of Caves of Chaos. We're using the grid (it's what we're used to, and we like it, and one of the players has a really sweet collection of minis). Now, AoOs/OAs are completely gone, and it turns out I don't miss them AT ALL. The combats are much faster and more dynamic, and easier to run, without worrying about "threatened zones" and making a bunch of extra attack rolls.

...But, by the rules, you can take your action at any point during your movement. This has led to two phenomena:

1. Everybody has Spring Attack. You can run in to melee, stab a guy, and then run BACK around the corner, out of range and next to the Defender. Even the wizard can "Spring Burning Hands" to line up a shot and then retreat to safety. Worse, if the PCs have formed a choke-point, enemies can use this tactic against them by having each monster run up, make an attack, then run away, clearing the square for a new monster.

2. Ranged attackers in melee can move back, shoot, then move UP to re-form the line (notably for our laser-cleric who picked up a shield and is now a decent front-liner). Taking disadvantage for making a ranged attack never happens unless you are truly pinned.


I have a potential house-rule fix and want to run it past the peanut gallery before exposing my players to a potentially bad idea. What if you just couldn't split your movement. So you can take your action before or after your movement but not during. This eliminates the spring-attack issues entirely. It doesn't quite solve the ranged attack issues but seems like it should help; it forces a ranged attacker to move out of melee and adopt a new position which may be a worse position in some other way.

What do you think, sirs?

-- 77IM

This is nonsensical. I'm not a playtester, so I'm informed only by RL and the rules systems I'm familiar with. Unless a player is hasted, "spring attack" should never be possible. In the TSR era D&D rules of various stripes, once the character jumped in to "melee range" (10 feet) of an opponent, they were engaged. The only way to break off is fighting withdrawl or full retreat. Both options provide the opponent with the opportunity to strike the withdrawl/retreat character with a bonus to hit and damage.

 

[77IM]

Thanks for all the advice. I want to reiterate that this post was after playing two whole sessions of DDN (about 10 hours) and everybody getting creative with the Spring Attacking. It really was a problem, especially the Kobold Karousel.

For our third session, we tried playing with no split movement, and it worked like a charm. The only PC who was really badly inconvenienced was the wizard -- because he could no longer run into melee, toss burning hands, and then run back out. I think that's an improvement. Melee spells should be dangerous, and monsters shouldn't have to guess when to ready actions for counterattacking the wizard's burning hands.

Conversely, applying this rule probably prevented a TPK. The party was already a little scratched up when they found themselves sandwiched in a corridor between 20 orcs on one side and the chieftain and his elite orcs on the other. The PCs did a great job bottling up the hall with grease but there were several times that the orcs could have done an Orc Carousel but were not allowed to. This forced the orcs to adopt better tactics (and since orcs are stupid, I limited what they were actually capable of thinking up).

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. It does introduce extra checks in combat but that could speed things up if those checks result in more damage.

I do like the idea of allowing split movement, but at a disadvantage (or with a DC 10 check, for things that don't normally require checks). I'll have to keep that in mind.

-- 77IM