Move - Attack - Move

[Abraxas]

If the Orc is in melee throwing his weapon will almost never work since he's got Disadvantage. Heck, he should have just spent his action to throw the thing in the first place and saved some initiative.

As to the idea that the players don't know what the Orc is doing when he skips his initiative - every group I've ever played with is too savvy for that. When a monster is waiting for something they make it a point not to come within reach.

Then you haven't had the orcs mix it up between delaying and readying enough. The people I game with aren't stupid.

See, I'm not sure how to limit those numbers based on the scenario. I don't see any hard-and-fast rules for how many friendly creatures can fit in a 10' square and shift around in it - let alone spill back into the next 10' square. If the wizard can get between the two front-line warriors to spring-attack the Orcs locked in melee with them then the limit obviously isn't 5' across per character.

Realistically 100 square feet can fit a lot of medium sized people fighting in close ranks, let along small-sized creatures. Upgrade to Goblins with a 30' move and the Merry-Go-Round of attacks can get really silly.

I don't think capacity is going to be a sufficient limiting factor.

I don't follow your math. You'd really have to spell it out for me.

While it doesn't specifically spell it out in the playtest document, I've never been in a game where the creatures that can attack are stacked like cord wood. All creatures occupy some sort of set space - they can allow someone to pass through that space - that doesn't mean that those creatures can attack from the same space. That is most likely the difference here. I would not allow a creature to attack while in a space occupied by another friendly creature (whatever size space that is). So there has to be a clear space adjacent to the target for the creature to move into to make the attack. Perhaps if the rules just made that statement this wouldn't seem so egregious.

As for the math - I just pictured a room with a 10' hall exiting it. If the defenders are in the hall right at the edge of the room - and creatures can't attack while in a square occupied by a friendly - only 20 kobolds could do the round robin melee conga line. If the defenders back up and are 10' back from the room only 8 kobolds could rotate through, and that would leave 2 of them adjacent to the defenders at the end of their turn.

Dashing in and out of melee is a reckless and frenzied activity. If you are trying to focus on doing something other than that (like shoot at someone) you're multi-tasking too hard and your defense suffers. In terms of economy there has to be some trade-off and I'm opposed to Opportunity Attacks for the sake of logistic simplicity. (Introducing the questions of "how many of the Orcs get OAs?" etc. is a nightmare for TotM).

YMMV - I would prefer something else. I see this as being excessively harsh on PCs.

I don't follow you. In my example Withdraw and Charge are actions. They double your movement when you declare them so you get the benefit of using your action to move. I didn't want the extra fiddly bits about what part of your movement is "charging" or "evading." I like the simplicity of "Take this Action: Get double-move + benefit."

You get an action and a move each round. So with your examples you can move and charge or withdraw and move - both of which net you a double move and a regular move = triple move. So, just make them Charge: move you speed and attack and Withdraw: Move your speed. You do not grant advantage for leaving melee during your turn.

Regardless, I don't doubt that there will either be a basic rule or a module with a rule that addresses this. As it is - the people I game with like it this way.

 

[Abraxas]

Run up, stun, run back. Run up, stun, run back. Win.

If you can stun the target you don't need to run back.

 

[gyor]

I like it, it just requires refinement. I like how you spend 5 feet to stand up from prone and I'd like to see certain none standard actions require you use up part of your movement in intervals of 5 feet. So Healing Word would cost 5 feet becuase you have less time to move. The simplest way to deal with moving in and out of melee without OAs is treating the area around enemies as difficult Terran. So if the fighter is 10 feet from the bad guy and he runs into attack he burns 10 feet instead of 5 feetp to get in range, makes his attack, but now he's in difficult terran, so it takes 10 feet to move back into his original position burning up precisous feet faster.

Another option more Auras (even none magical ones), moving back from an Aura you enter means you take a small amount of auto damage (no roll so it doesn't slow down the game).

 

[Sunseeker]

If you can stun the target you don't need to run back.

I said stun, but was thinking immobilize.

 

[Gorgoroth]

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.

I was going to post the exact same thing : "Guard".

Player : "I stand here, en guarde." (you attack before an enemy does, as it closes on you)

This should be in Core, not an optional rules module, for the same reason that Trip and all those other fun things should be Core. If I can trip someone running past me in real life, (and I could when I was 5 years old too), I should be able to as a heroic fantasy fighter.

All those maneuvers should be simple, with simple rules, that make sense. But definitely in Core.

Using up your action for the round to Guard / Hold the line is exactly what fighters should do if they want to defend the wizard. Defending now is pro-active, as others said, and requires concentration and planning and time...i.e. your action for the round. You move to where you want on your turn, then you say "I stand guard here until my next turn", or, I guard the wizard.

You might even say, "I use my action to block any attacks coming at the wizard", ala Darth Vader and the Emperor, when Luke swung his lightsaber at him in anger (feeeeeel the hate). In this case "Defend" should be a core action too. It's an active thing. You cannot defend someone while attacking someone else. It's either / or (unless you're a pro and have a special ability or double weapon that lets you do exactly that, like Darth Maul for example).

 

[mlund]

Then you haven't had the orcs mix it up between delaying and readying enough. The people I game with aren't stupid.

I just don't see the tactical significance. You can't come out of delay in the middle of someone's turn. Delaying as a result of hit-and-run tactics does noting to stop them. Players are pretty perceptive about when the DM is trying to counter a tactic that looks like it is being spammed.

While it doesn't specifically spell it out in the playtest document, I've never been in a game where the creatures that can attack are stacked like cord wood. All creatures occupy some sort of set space - they can allow someone to pass through that space - that doesn't mean that those creatures can attack from the same space.

Unfortunately, the rules only define an area of ownership for a character, where you can prohibit others from entering.

If we invented a general prohibition one medium or small character or monster from attacking from the same 5' square occupied by another then the "hit and run" tactics being discussed would be moot - the wizard couldn't step between the two front-liners to deliver his shocking grasp. He'd need to enter an unoccupied square just like 3E or 4E - though there we're back to grid-centric combat. At least two locked battle-lines would (two orcs vs. two guards) would be impermeable by either side.

On the down side, proper phalanx fighting is right out the window if you can only fit 4 soldiers into 100 square feet that would normally hold around 8-10 soldiers in a historical setting.

Perhaps attacking in tighter ranks would be at a disadvantage unless you were trained in formation fighting?

As for the math - I just pictured a room with a 10' hall exiting it. If the defenders are in the hall right at the edge of the room - and creatures can't attack while in a square occupied by a friendly - only 20 kobolds could do the round robin melee conga line. If the defenders back up and are 10' back from the room only 8 kobolds could rotate through, and that would leave 2 of them adjacent to the defenders at the end of their turn.

Assuming you can't have more than 2 kobolds at the front at a time and only 4 to a square with 20 foot movement I think I see what you're getting at now. With goblins this could expands to 12. If there's any ability to fit more than 4 small creatures in a 10' square while fighting then all bets are off.

And again, it really relies on the grid to regulate itself. A more chaotic (yet spacially plausible) melee tosses everything out the window. On the up side, more Kobolds packed in a square the more kobolds caught in the cone of a Burning Hands spell.

YMMV - I would prefer something else. I see this as being excessively harsh on Players.

It's just as harsh on Monsters, and they probably don't get to gain levels and thereby acquire fears to mitigate such a penalty. Additionally, opportunity attacks are way more harsh on Players than Monsters in these sorts of encounters since monsters have much greater numbers.

You get an action and a move each round. So with your examples you can move and charge or withdraw and move - both of which net you a double move and a regular move = triple move.

Charge and Withdraw do not say, "Move twice your speed," they say "Double your movement" - IE when you use that type of action you double your total move for the turn.

Regardless, I don't doubt that there will either be a basic rule or a module with a rule that addresses this. As it is - the people I game with like it this way.

Withdraw and Charge have existed in some form for the better part of two decades with good reason (in 1st Ed leaving a melee resulted in "free attacks" from every monster that could vaguely be described as nearby - simple but overly brutal). I expect to see them back (or a change in movement rules to make them moot) in one of the next couple of play test updates.

It's really not supposed to be on the DM to house rule away kiting and spring attacks in a game like D&D.

- Marty Lund

 

[Abraxas]

I just don't see the tactical significance. You can't come out of delay in the middle of someone's turn. Delaying as a result of hit-and-run tactics does noting to stop them. Players are pretty perceptive about when the DM is trying to counter a tactic that looks like it is being spammed.

The players don't know if the orc delayed or readied - they have to guess. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they don't. If they guess wrong and the orc readied and they close they get hit. If they guess wrong and the orc delayed and they choose not to close they don't get their touch spell attack. And if it's a group of orcs they all don't have to do the same thing.

Unfortunately, the rules only define an area of ownership for a character, where you can prohibit others from entering.

The incomplete playtest rules.

If we invented a general prohibition one medium or small character or monster from attacking from the same 5' square occupied by another then the "hit and run" tactics being discussed would be moot - the wizard couldn't step between the two front-liners to deliver his shocking grasp. He'd need to enter an unoccupied square just like 3E or 4E - though there we're back to grid-centric combat. At least two locked battle-lines would (two orcs vs. two guards) would be impermeable by either side.

It's not grid centric. The DM decides whether or not there is space. Why do you assume it's going to be different from previous iterations given that this is a playtest with incomplete rules? I don't ever recall running combat in D&D, or hearing of someone running combat in D&D, in the manner you are suggesting - where one character attacks when in an ally's space (without some special ability). Even when there are ways to move-attack-move no one did this that I know. In fact, until you suggested this - it hadn't even crossed my mind that the rules would be read that way. From what I've read so far from people who have been using the playtest rules no one has played it the way you suggest - I could be wrong, but I haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet. If you did and it's a problem - and I see how it could be - tell the developers.

On the down side, proper phalanx fighting is right out the window if you can only fit 4 soldiers into 100 square feet that would normally hold around 8-10 soldiers in a historical setting.

Perhaps attacking in tighter ranks would be at a disadvantage unless you were trained in formation fighting?

I'm pretty sure you could never do proper phalanx fighting in D&D without the DM making a modification to the rules.

Assuming you can't have more than 2 kobolds at the front at a time and only 4 to a square with 20 foot movement I think I see what you're getting at now. With goblins this could expands to 12. If there's any ability to fit more than 4 small creatures in a 10' square while fighting then all bets are off.

And again, it really relies on the grid to regulate itself. A more chaotic (yet spacially plausible) melee tosses everything out the window. On the up side, more Kobolds packed in a square the more kobolds caught in the cone of a Burning Hands spell.

It doesn't rely on the grid. It relies on the DM - if you don't trust your DM to be fair why are you gaming with him?

It's just as harsh on Monsters, and they probably don't get to gain levels and thereby acquire fears to mitigate such a penalty. Additionally, opportunity attacks are way more harsh on Players than Monsters in these sorts of encounters since monsters have much greater numbers.

YMMV - I don't like OAs in this case either.

Charge and Withdraw do not say, "Move twice your speed," they say "Double your movement" - IE when you use that type of action you double your total move for the turn.

That was not clear from the text. From your text I was under the impression that the charge and withdraw actions included the double move - separate from the characters move action for the turn.

Withdraw and Charge have existed in some form for the better part of two decades with good reason (in 1st Ed leaving a melee resulted in "free attacks" from every monster that could vaguely be described as nearby - simple but overly brutal). I expect to see them back (or a change in movement rules to make them moot) in one of the next couple of play test updates.

I don't doubt they will be back.

It's really not supposed to be on the DM to house rule away kiting and spring attacks in a game like D&D.

I have to ask, have you played much D&D without a grid or battlemat? The problems you mention just don't happen IME. Plus, yes the DM certainly can houserule anything he and his players want to houserule - again IME. What is or isn't supposed to be houseruled will vary from table to table. Regardless, this is waht a playtest is for, let the developers know what you like or don't - and then play the game you want to play.

 

[mlund]

The incomplete playtest rules.

Yup. That's all we had to play test with. Infer rules not in the supplied rules set by drawing on the conventions of prior editioed or implicitly customizing the play-test with house rules makes for less useful feedback. Instead it seems more constructive to illustrate gaps and saying explicitly, "I had to add this because the rules omitted it, and this was not a hedge case."

It's not grid centric. The DM decides whether or not there is space. Why do you assume it's going to be different from previous iterations given that this is a playtest with incomplete rules?

Why would I assume it is the same as a prior edition? That's not the rules set we were given to test. It's also not a rules set a new DM would be familiar with so it would be a defect in accessibility.

I don't ever recall running combat in D&D, or hearing of someone running combat in D&D, in the manner you are suggesting - where one character attacks when in an ally's space (without some special ability).

There aren't any rules to prohibit it in this version we have to work wit, and prior versions of D&D I've played either didn't give character's expanded personal space (OD&D, AD&D) or were grid-based (3, 3.5, 4E). Both our play tests were Theatre of the Mind only.

I'm pretty sure you could never do proper phalanx fighting in D&D without the DM making a modification to the rules.

I don't recall anything preventing it in AD&D, though 3 3.5 and 4 all had OAs but also had reach weapons to fight in ranks too.

It doesn't rely on the grid. It relies on the DM - if you don't trust your DM to be fair why are you gaming with him?

"Fair" is a horribly subjective term - especially looking at all the varied play test feedback and even prior discussions. From people cheering for PCs being wiped out by chain-triggered encounters because, "It's good characters aren't super heroes anymore" to people arguing Quadratic wizards just leads me to believe that hand-waiving fundamentals like "who can come or go where in a fight" off to the DM isn't going to typify a good product. Hence, pointing out those gaps should be plugged strikes me as necessary and constructive criticism.

That was not clear from the text.

I'm not sure how to be any more deliberate than explicitly writing, "Double your movement."

From your text I was under the impression that the charge and withdraw actions included the double move - separate from the characters move action for the turn.

So was my text implying anything of the sort, or was the experience of text from the Hustle rules and previous editions' ways of writing out Charge and Withdraw causing you to infer such a meaning?

I have to ask, have you played much D&D without a grid or battlemat? The problems you mention just don't happen IME.

Cut my teeth originally with Basic and AD&D without mats. It was TotM and it was a complete jumbled and arbitrary mess when it came to tactical combat considerations. It was often just, "You're all in this room. Everybody can hit everybody. Try to get out of the way of Fireballs. Roll a bunch of dice."

Heck, in retrospect nobody ever complained about a lack of OAs in Werewolf, Vampire, or Mage, though. I suppose the de-emphasis on tactical melee combat as a critical factor may have played into it. I mean, everybody had crazy superpowers and could have guns to boot. People were more concerned with soak rolls, dodge rolls, and aggregated damage than trying to keep people from moving about in melee.

- Marty Lund

 

[Libramarian]

This system is driving me crazy. Time loses all meaning.

Last session my Wizard pulled a "castle" maneuver with the Fighter, switching places while the rest of the world remained frozen in time.

Tonight my Cleric of Pelor did an American Football handoff play with the Halfing Rogue hiding behind.

I'm on the front lines, the Halfing is hiding behind me. I hold my intiative until he pats my rump. We synchronously move backwards, then the Halfling moves around for a ambush attack, then back behind me, then we move forward and I attack. I stood up to demonstrate this maneuver.

Later in the same battle, 6 kobolds ran through us, and stopped. Then we turned around and grabbed two of them.

It was kinda funny but mostly just stupid.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION]

Regarding the House Rule I came up with and withdrawing.

Withdrawing is easy, Basically you attack before you withdraw. (A move seen all the time in actual combats), So you still get your mvt away from the person you attacked.

OR

As mentioned above you simply move away using the Dodge (but foe gets the OA).

BTW we have not trialled this yet. Our playtest in 5 sessions next weekend (but we have discussed and are going to give it a try).