D&D 5E Move Attack Move: Issues with The New Standard for Combat

[Sunseeker]

In 4e we ruled that if all the monsters go on the same initiative, each one still counts as having his own turn, so the fighter would get the OA against each one. I would probably treat 5e the same way.

I agree with this, and yes I realize that DDN only allows one OA per round, but frankly, with "move, attack, move", it becomes the only solution that doesn't allow the enemy to play "hit and run" all day long, which of course is a great strategy, but it's one of those "if the AI was really that smart, they'd win." Which doesn't make for a very enjoyable game when your foes keep employing the same tactics and keep trouncing you.

I've made some general alterations to my game, and I generally allow my players to act as a group, since you can hold your turn until a specific action takes place, the group already has the option to buckle down and group up their initiative. So I just skip the foreplay and let them all act as a coordinated group in whatever order they want within that group action.

To some extent, the solution is for bad guys to do dumb things, like charge in and not run away.

As a DM, I simply wouldn't do that. If a group of monsters are all attacking, then have them behave as a group of attacking monsters would. Either they hang back and attack at range, or they charge as a group.

This too. Like with my players, if my NPCs are a coordinated group (which acting in sequential initiative can imply), they coordinate their actions. Not all NPCs are going to be a coordinated group, even if they act in a block inititive, and when they do, I'll often provide a "leader" NPC. Someone for the players to take out in order to disrupt a coordinated foe. Yay morale bonuses/penalties!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Where is the hold/delay action in Next? As far as I can tell you can either act or ready, but your initiative doesn't change, and you can't ready a MAM, just a single action (from a limited list).

 

[Manbearcat]

The inevitability of the Conga/Carousel - O - Skirmish/Spring Attack with multiple enemies reared its head, speculatively and during play, early on in the playtest.

My guess is that the tactical combat module will clean this up. Something as simple as implementing the Opportunity Action that refreshes every turn (turn being "when any combatant spending their suite of actions") from 4e and changing Reactions out for OAs in these instances will resolve this. That would also allow the effective holding of choke points, defender-level melee control (and build options that leverage synergy there - eg 4e Fighter), and would value, and thus engender, PC and NPC mobility-augmenting ("shift" or OA avoidance) effects being brought into play.

This was one of the great things about 4e combat. Great passive and activatable melee control makes for enjoyable tactical play for martial defenders but it also opens up, and values, the design space for melee skirmishers (such as the swashbuckler archetype moving nimbly through the battlefield, unloading a flurry, and deftly dancing away unscathed). Obviously with those things comes increased mental overhead and the potential for increased table handling time for players lacking proficiency or for folks who are inclined toward analysis paralysis. However, if you want a robust combat system that is dynamically tactical and induces mobile skirmishes, you've got to expect a certain level of workload for the GMs and PCs and complexity within the interface. If you don't want that then I suppose you can just "gentleman's agreement" the Conga Line out of existence.

 

[Mistwell]

Where is the hold/delay action in Next? As far as I can tell you can either act or ready, but your initiative doesn't change, and you can't ready a MAM, just a single action (from a limited list).

You're right, I don't see a delay/hold action. I just assumed it was there.

Though I refuse to call it MAM. It's move-attack-move, or something similar.

 

[Sunseeker]

Where is the hold/delay action in Next? As far as I can tell you can either act or ready, but your initiative doesn't change, and you can't ready a MAM, just a single action (from a limited list).

I don't believe there is one. I just let players arrange their initiative because it generally benefits my games. Plus I usually run big groups and having an organized turn order in-and-out-of-combat helps the table stay orderly. IE: players aren't talking over each other and we don't have to play Model UN in order to speak.

So I may have missed that it didn't exist in DDN at all. I just let my players do it because it helps things run smoothly and coordinate their tactics.

 

[Rabbitbait]

Not that the rules exist yet, but there are 2 simple things I would do as a DM.

1. Monsters act as they would: zombies would not be darting in and out but vampires might.
2. House rule: It takes double the movement rate to move through an allies space if you have already attacked in the same turn. So easy to get in to attack but harder to get out.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Btw, the example with the narrow corridor and such make the rule sound stupid, but if you instead take the example of several horsemen with lances attacking a single target, and then riding past it seems completely natural. I think the "issue" presented in the OP isn't very problematic and not something I would bother adding a rule to handle.

 

[MortalPlague]

To offer a counter opinion...

I love move-attack-move.

It has created a refreshing amount of mobility in our combats, both for PCs and for monsters. We have a monk in our game who is dancing around foes, leaping from strike to strike like a whirlwind of death. Our barbarian cuts down an orc, then closes with his next foe.

Our group has generally avoided any sort of 'conga-line' cheese, and for me, the best solution is for the DM to simply say 'no'. There are places in the 5th Edition rules where it's up to the DM to make a ruling. The advantages of being so flexible on movement, for my group and I, are too great to lose them because of a cheesy exploit.

I don't want to get back into the 'let's all stand in a line and whack at each other' style of combat.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Honestly, I don't see a huge problem with move-attack-move. They can only move a total of 30 feet in most cases, so when they move back they are only 15 feet away. Does that allow a number of them to attack a PC in closed quarters? Yep. I don't think I care much about that. When they move back they still have to end in spaces that aren't occupied by other creatures.

So if you have a hallway that looks like:

|PC|
|M1|
|M2|
|M3|
|M4|
|M5|
|M6|

Then only M1 through M4 will be able to attack since they are the only ones who can move forward, attack and still make it back to their original spots. M1 actually can't make it to its original spot, but it can attack and them move to the end of the the line to free up its spot for others to attack.

I can imagine it as a large pressing throng when all of the monsters are almost shoving each other aside in order to make attacks against the PC. I also wouldn't even do it with most monsters who wouldn't be coordinated enough to do this. In most cases M1 isn't going to get out of the way so anyone else can attack. He also is not going to stand 15 feet away and constantly move-attack-move since that in not intuitive. But I might make some especially intelligent monsters try it. It is easily countered as soon as there is a wall behind them.

 

[Blackwarder]

Ever since the good ol' days of BD&D my take on combats was to do what seems right and not bow down to combat mechanics, I quit groups that munchkins the system during 3.5e and 4e.

IMO, playing a RPG require a measure of self judgment by the group, and Especialy the DM, the Move-Attack-Move rule isn't here for some players to game the system, it's here in order facilitate play using a combat system that isn't very simulationist.

One of the things that should be stressed in the PHB is that when something doesn't make sense, even if it is backed up by a rule, than it shouldn't happen, so the idea of 7 dwarves running down a small corridor to attack someone and than back up again while passing through each other, while correct by the RAW, shouldn't happen.

Warder