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

[Sword of Spirit]

Opportunity Attacks: "The attack interrupts the creature's movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach."

Ready an Action: "If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."

 

[Halivar]

The Tactical Warrior feat gives, as a benefit, "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, that creature must stop moving for the rest of the turn."

Either that aspect of the feat makes no sense, or their double-move implementation makes no sense. Either way, I'm leaning towards invalidating both at my table just to avoid the issue.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Either that aspect of the feat makes no sense, or their double-move implementation makes no sense. Either way, I'm leaning towards invalidating both at my table just to avoid the issue.

The Tactical Warrior feat is basically the passive benefit of being a Fighter in 4E - you can mark targets, they provoke around you, and you stop them in their tracks. I would wager a safe bet that the default movement rules are just supposed to be that your opportunity attack does not prevent further movement in that round - "they move, you attack, and they move again" is not much different from "they move, they attack, and they move again" in terms of the attack "interrupting" the movement.

 

[Plaguescarred]

There is a door you're not seeing. They were each aware of the other well before the encounter. The Duerger's knew the party was coming (spied them through a peep hole earlier, and gathered together waiting for them), and the party was aware the Duerger were back there (heard them at the door, and knew from other clues they would likely be there). They opened the door to the passageway, and a horde of Duerger were seen on the other side. Fighter's actual first move was to move in, attack, and move back to that spot in the corridor, as the rest of the party took up positions behind him to fire down the corridor or hold the door or heal the fighter.

Ha the fighter won initiative, moved in to attack and retreated midway in the corridor and took 3 OAs so he could hold the corridor? He had been better retreat back into the room and close the door if he feared ranged attacks. If you take OAs for moving back, better be to take cover!

The party had the opportunity to do the same, but unless they readied ranged attacks, they had no target for ranged attacks on their turn.

I don't understand why the party had no target for ranged attacks based on the scenario, they all seem to see at least one duergar.

 

[Mistwell]

I disagree with this interpretation.

The rules say a creature can continue its turn after a reaction (p.16, Your Turn - Reactions)*, but I consider the OA to be a more specific rule (p.16, Movement in Combat - Opportunity Attacks) in saying it interrupts movement right before the creature leaves your reach. Calling it an interruption indicates full stoppage, and movement is ended.

If I'm missing something somewhere else, let me know.

*References are from "How to Play" in the playtest packet released with GoDSC

"The opportunity attack is the most common type of reaction (see “Movement in Combat”). You can take only one reaction per round. When you take a reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature’s turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction. " Interruption is saying right there what it means, in the same friggen paragraph referencing opportunity attack as being included!

As for the "more specific" come on now, there are only two reactions which interrupt, a readied action, and an opportunity attack. There is no point to that sentence if it only applies to readied actions...you'd just include it in readied actions. It's saying "here is the rule to override ALL interruption text for reactions". In this case, all 2 of them. And it makes that clear by mentioning opportunity actions in the same paragraph, not far back.

 

[Mistwell]

Ha the fighter won initiative, moved in to attack and retreated midway in the corridor and took 3 OAs so he could hold the corridor?

It's how he plays, and he has a high AC. He didn't care about a few more opportunity attacks.

He had been better retreat back into the room and close the door if he feared ranged attacks.

He didn't fear ranged attacks. He simply didn't expect so many melee attacks from that position.

I don't understand why the party had no target for ranged attacks based on the scenario, they all seem to see at least one duergar.

They did. That part of the first post was wrong, and I mentioned a few times since they did make some ranged attacks. I recall there was one turn where they did not, because there were a bunch of dead Duerger in sight but no living ones (and one had turned invisible).

 

[Halivar]

"You can take only one reaction per round. When you take a reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature’s turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction. " Interruption is saying right there what it means. You'd have to define interruption somewhere else as "stopping from continuing". Anywhere else. I think you're thinking of a different version of the game that might define it that way.

As for the "more specific" come on now, there are only two reactions which interrupt, a readied action, and an opportunity attack. There is no point to that sentence if it only applies to readied actions...you'd just include it in readied actions. It's saying "here is the rule to override ALL interruption text for reactions". In this case, all 2 of them.

I was already convinced by other posters, which makes me sorry because I think these movement rules are silly now.

For one, the rotating attackers is not just a possibility; it will happen every single combat because my players are smart enough to figure out how to do it. It's getting house-ruled out.

Second, I object to using the word "interrupt" in the rules as they did. It's not an interruption at all. Interruption already means "stopping from continuing". The OA is, by definition, non-interruptive.

 

[Mistwell]

I
Second, I object to using the word "interrupt" in the rules as they did. It's not an interruption at all. Interruption already means "stopping from continuing". The OA is, by definition, non-interruptive.

Interrupt doesn't mean stop from continuing later. It just means to break the continuity of something. If I interrupt you during a conversation, you can continue to say what you were saying, after the interruption.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Ha ok thanks for the clarification Mistwell.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Second, I object to using the word "interrupt" in the rules as they did. It's not an interruption at all. Interruption already means "stopping from continuing". The OA is, by definition, non-interruptive.

As Mistwell said, interrupt doesn't ncessarily means stoping, it can mean making a break in continuity (i.e movement)

Interrupt verb
1. to cause or make a break in the continuity or uniformity of (a course, process, condition, etc.).
2. to break off or cause to cease, as in the middle of something: He interrupted his work to answer thebell.
3. to stop (a person) in the midst of doing or saying something, especially by an interjected remark:May I interrupt you to comment on your last remark?