Move - Attack - Move

[RangerWickett]

For simple combat rules, this is fine.

When they have a more advanced tactical module, I hope you have something like a list of maneuvers:

Bull Rush
Disarm
Grapple
Trip

Hold the Line -- Until the start of your next turn, you can make a free attack against any creature that moves within your reach.

Intercept -- Until the start of your next turn, you can head off an enemy as a reaction. You move up to your speed and make an attack against that enemy. You can't move after the attack.

 

[Naszir]

What about "squares within the reach of an enemy are difficult terrain"?

Shouldn't bog down play, does make passing enemies harder.

My thoughts exactely.

 

[WizarDru]

In our playtest, it worked fine. My players were surprised when they discovered it, but they weren't terribly concerned, either way. The wizard still tried to stay as far away from melee as was reasonable, given that he had lower hp and AC than others. When fighting the ogre, there was no way he was going to be in 'walkable' range of the ogre if he could help it. It was most helpful to the rogue for dash attacks...but again, anyone you can dash and reach usually do the same.

In fact, I think several players liked it because it didn't feel like they needed to metagame their movement to a specific effect, so it all balanced out, IMHO.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like it. But there is the lack of an AO like feature if you disengage to discourage annoying tactics.

 

[Stormonu]

House Rule we are using:

You get and Opportunity/Free Attack - If creatures adjacent to you moves away from you without attacking you.
.

How would you handle an opponent withdrawing/retreating from combat? In 3E, using the withdraw action allowed you back away (double move?) without attackers getting an AoO (it was a little more complicated, but that was the basics)

I think I like the idea of granting disadvantage if you try to slip away/past someone in melee.

 

[IronWolf]

How would you handle an opponent withdrawing/retreating from combat? In 3E, using the withdraw action allowed you back away (double move?) without attackers getting an AoO (it was a little more complicated, but that was the basics)

I would likely rule if the player was giving up their action in order to withdraw without AoO then that would be fine.

I think I like the idea of granting disadvantage if you try to slip away/past someone in melee.

So disadvantage on the person trying to slip away on their next attack roll?

 

[Nebulous]

I think a simpler solution is to have to have moving through or out of a threatened area cost an additional 5 feet of movement. Basically, you have to take extra care to defend yourself, so you're slowed.

This makes enemies kind of sticky. Moving past the fighter is difficult. You might have to give up your action to have enough speed to do it and get where you're going. Disengaging from an enemy eat movement, meaning a wizard probably doesn't have enough speed to move in, cast a spell, and step out.

I like this, and it is very simple. Opportunity attacks might be more fun if they are reserved as special tactics for fighter-types.

 

[Stormonu]

So disadvantage on the person trying to slip away on their next attack roll?

Yeah, I kinda assume the person slipping by is having to duck, dodge, parry (spin...) in their effort to get at another target.

The double movement works well for gridded combat, but it's a little harder to implement in TotM.

 

[IronWolf]

Yeah, I kinda assume the person slipping by is having to duck, dodge, parry (spin...) in their effort to get at another target.

Cool - I thought that was what you meant, but wasn't sure! Might be an interesting modification to try as well. I just feel like there needs to be some penalty for moving through "threatened squares".

 

[Viking Bastard]

I don't like losing an action from the next turn. I am fine with someone getting a free attack because someone thought they could move by you with impunity.

I don't know how exactly Mearls was thinking of handling this (he's mentioned it once or twice when asked about AoOs/OAs), but I kind of like it in theory. But in practice... I don't really see my players ever going for that option and it would just mean another thing for me to track ("No, you already used your action to bash that Kobold").

Of people's ideas in this thread, I think I like the Threatened Zone = Difficult Terrain the best.