If you disincentivize moving (with AoO), and give incentive to do something else with movement (cool footwork), the likely/expected result is folks not actually moving much.
If "have people stand still and deliver" is a goal, then fine.
I already said that the abilities would involve moving. That’s what repositioning is.
In what ways do you have people circumventing them?
By going around, by sending two people past a single enemy bc they only have 1 OA, with various character abilities that make them immune to OAs for the turn, I mean…it’s an odd question.
Steady Aim uses a bonus action and all your movement, and automatically grants advantage.
Hide (for a rogue with Cunning Action) takes a Bonus action for a Stealth check, which can either be impossible or fail, to do the same thing. Either that, or the Hide takes your Action for the round, which is even more expensive.
Hide is cheaper, but less certain and more situational. That seems fair.
Steady Aim is overpriced. I’m not balancing anything against its cost.
Tracking the current movement speeds of multiple creatures (and what "special movement trade-off" they've activated) sounds like too much of a burden on the GM, what with all they're already tracking. It might work on player-facing content though.
I also agree that this approach can easily produce lots of movement trade-offs, but more difficult to design incentives to move – and that's arguably what the Big Picture objective is, to encourage more movement.
Sure. I think that making movement part of what you do (for most manuvers) is the key there. You spend 10ft of movement to move 5ft and manipulate an enemy into moving where you want through footwork and deceptive blade work.
Hell, if they are things you have to get via class features or feats, you could have some basic stuff not even eat movement, but just involve moving in a specific way, more like 4e move action powers but with less hardline restriction of what they can do.
Maybe they do use half your movement (which is bad design already as it nullifies move speed improvements from class or race or feats when you use them) and is “you do XYZ and can move up to half your speed before or after doing XYZ.” There are many ways to cook a fish.
I realize the objective is (limited) increased mechanical complexity, but I'll add that a lot of cinematic movement can be injected as flavor when describing the scene. For ex, I'm constantly describing how monsters or NPCs are moving around a scene theater-of-the-mind, without needing to touch any minis/tokens at all, simply describing how the missed ogre's club causes the player to careen backward, their back striking the alcove behind them, colliding with the interned skeletons, but allowing them to push off the wall to reengage. There's not necessarily any mechanics, but it creates the feel of dynamism & gives players some narrative beat to build off of in their own creative ideas / action descriptions.
While I do stuff like that as well, I do give it mechanical weight when possible, even if it’s just changing the positioning of combatants, because I dislike narrative beats that should matter without any mechanical weight.
I mean, you could describe spell effects dramatically without them doing anything mechanically, but I feel like it wouldn't go over well. I think the idea of the thread was to create more things for martial characters to actually do.
Yeah I should have just made it a + thread.
I’ll never understand how “don’t tell the OP that their premise is bad and the whole idea should be scrapped” is anything other than neon-lights-in-the-dark obvious.
