D&D General Half Formed Thought On Martial Control

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I’m not sure how “here are things you can do with movement, many of which change your position and possibly that of one or more other creatures” will suppress movement.

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.

As for OAs already doing so, I’ll just say that is very much not my experience. Generally, it is very easy to circumvent them.

In what ways do you have people circumventing them?

I don’t think this necessarily follows. Steady Aim is more costly than its benefit merits, to begin with. I don’t have to give up any of my movement to Hide for advantage.

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gorck

Prince of Dorkness
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.



In what ways do you have people circumventing them?



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.
Hide also requires that you have something to hide behind. Steady Aim works perfectly even when in the middle of a wide open field.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Hide also requires that you have something to hide behind. Steady Aim works perfectly even when in the middle of a wide open field.

True. I kind of thought, "may be impossible" covered that, but pointing it out makes it clear.
 

Quickleaf

Legend
I’d rather not increase complexity any more than, say, weapon masteries do.
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.

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.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
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..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.
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.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.
 


Quickleaf

Legend
Quoting part of a sentence in order to leave out the part that clearly contradicts your position, so you smarmily claim the other person agrees with you when you know they don’t, is extremely rude.
I was teasing Tony. He often does the same to me, selectively quoting my messages, like actually what just happened in this thread where he responded to the later part and not the earlier part of what I posted. It was not meant maliciously - just a little fun turnabout & hopefully a gently sarcastic way to help reflect how my responses were being selectively replied to.

I'll also add that I was not undermining your premise, nor did I encourage scrapping the idea, which you asserted. I was offering legitimate design challenges, but if you want this to be a (+) thread, I can retract my posts. I can respect that. Just let me know?

Anyhow, to understand your objective, I think it would be helpful to clarify how deep into emulating 4e you wish to go. For instance, the forced movement in 4e, IME, contributed to increased combat handling time. I did not like that about our 4e games. If that wasn't an issue for you - or you enjoyed that aspect - then that opens up a lot more design space for you. Whereas if you're trying to limit increasing combat time, then that's also good to know, because that would suggest a different or more limited approach than 4e. IOW, it's hard to offer ideas that would be relevant/useful/what you're looking for, without having a better sense of where that dial falls for you.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I was teasing Tony. He often does the same to me, selectively quoting my messages, like actually what just happened in this thread where he responded to the later part and not the earlier part of what I posted. It was not meant maliciously - just a little fun turnabout & hopefully a gently sarcastic way to help reflect how my responses were being selectively replied to.
👍
I'll also add that I was not undermining your premise, nor did I encourage scrapping the idea, which you asserted. I was offering legitimate design challenges, but if you want this to be a (+) thread, I can retract my posts. I can respect that. Just let me know?
Dude you are not who prompted that comment.
Anyhow, to understand your objective, I think it would be helpful to clarify how deep into emulating 4e you wish to go.
Right off the bat, that is never my goal on any level. Past iterations of something are 100% examples to explain and understand abstracts, 0% something I care about emulating.
For instance, the forced movement in 4e, IME, contributed to increased combat handling time. I did not like that about our 4e games. If that wasn't an issue for you - or you enjoyed that aspect - then that opens up a lot more design space for you. Whereas if you're trying to limit increasing combat time, then that's also good to know, because that would suggest a different or more limited approach than 4e. IOW, it's hard to offer ideas that would be relevant/useful/what you're looking for, without having a better sense of where that dial falls for you.
Just a reminder, this was a very half formed thought in the OP, so I don’t have a totally set answer.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top