Move - Attack - Move

[slobo777]

I really like it. The restrictions on movement in 3e was something that annoyed me. The idea that you can't move attack move in a single turn is just downright silly.

I'd say that the idea of turns is what's silly, and the rules for actions are just a way of coping with that. It's pretty silly that you'd move 15 foot up to someone standing ready to block you, then another 15 feet past, get an action to do what they were trying to stop you doing in the first place (e.g. attack their spallcaster friend) and only *then* do they turn around, run up to you and get you back!

Usually I find move/attack or attack/move represent the limitations you'd expect (of having trouble moving through or disengaging from a fight) nicely.

I agree the 3.5 and 4e rules get annoying when you feel a character should be capable of something more dynamic. But this has been addressed in those games - hence 3.5's feat fix of Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack, or the many attack/bonus move combons in 4E. The problem being extra rules to track.

The limitation gets really annoying for me when the action that ends the move should really be something a lot less fiddly (e.g. you start your turn one square away from a door, with two weapons equipped, and by RAW have to take a step forward, sheaf a weapon, open the door - what a boring, book-keeping turn!)

 

[Abraxas]

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."

Cool, then include it in your feedback that they need to explicitly spell out you can't attack without adequate room.

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


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?

It was your text. Simply adding the text "for this round" would have led me to understand what you wrote in the manner you intended.

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."

I am honestly surprised by this. So you've been playing as long as me. Way back in the dim days did you or your DM allow creatures to stack up the way you are suggesting people might do now? If yes, we obviously played in a much different style. Actually don't worry bout answering that - we are taking this whole thread too far afield as it is. Please do make sure to give your feedback to the developers - they're the ones who need it.

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

Very true, and i'm sure there are more than the few games you mentioned that don't sweat breaking from combat or some of the other items you have mentioned. Perhaps your experience with later editions of D&D is coloring your view on how important detailed rules for such things are? Me, I'll go with trusting the DM and the people I play with to come up with a method for dealing with these items that makes us happy. I hope they spend more effort on helping people become good DMs and good players than sweating coming up with rules that may or may not really matter much to the people who play (and not us strange few that seem to delight in arguing minutiae )

Good Gaming

 

[Gryph]

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.

This is where I miss the facing rules from 1e.

If they move in such a way as to not expose their back to an opponent, than I don't think an AoO is appropriate anyway. I would use the additional 5' of movement precedent to cover attempting to back away from a melee opponent.

On the other hand, if an opponent shows their back, say by running past the opponent or turning and running away, then the opponent gets a free attack.

 

[Lalato]

An opponent can get past you using lateral movement without ever showing their back or being completely exposed to an attack. It will slow their movement down somewhat, but it wouldn't be impossible to get past you. Additionally, some people are just plain fast and can get past you before you have a chance to react.

I honestly don't see the problem everyone arguing for free attacks sees. Everything is happening at the same time. Turns are an abstraction to make game play easier to follow. Just because a creature is in a space doesn't mean that creature threatens everything 360 degrees around them.

Sure, it makes it simpler for those that advocate for free attacks to say the creature threatens all areas around them, but if you're really trying to simulate combat then you have to admit that people do not have eyes in the back of their heads (unless that person is a beholder or some other such aberration).

Certainly a nod to facing rules could correct some of this and allow a creature to threaten an area near them, but that would complicate things needlessly, especially for TotM tables. Why anyone would want to bog down combat for this, I'm not sure. It doesn't really simulate anything other than 3e/4e had it.

 

[IanB]

Why anyone would want to bog down combat for this, I'm not sure. It doesn't really simulate anything other than 3e/4e had it.

For me personally, it is because without battlefield control via threatened areas or something similar, I forsee melee characters being totally outclassed (and ranged character play devolving into a lot of kiting.)

It probably destroys the whole front line/back line thing, which hurts my immersion a good bit. Imagine how bad a game DDM would have been without attacks of opportunity; this is really no different. I mean, even 1e let you swing at someone who backed out of engagement.

Also, and this is just a minor point, but having AOOs/OAs/whatever-you-want-to-call-them in the game opens up some nice design space for ways to avoid or modify them. I consider that a good thing.

EDIT: I mean, consider something like a stone golem. A big slow monster with no ranged attack. Without charge actions or attacks of opportunity a ranged character with more movement (which should be all of them) can literally just run away and shoot until he runs out of ammo. Even if the golem double moves to be adjacent to the character, he can just waltz away. Editions prior to 3rd controlled this a bit by having initiative order change every round, but that isn't there to provide any uncertainty in 5e.

 

[Lalato]

I think that's where good monster design comes into play. Monsters can have all manner of special abilities that don't necessarily make sense for PCs. A slow monster like the Stone Golem you describe might have an aura where all adjacent squares are hindering or difficult terrain. Basically, if a creature needs to be sticky, the creature can be made sticky.

For the record, I'm OK with limited AoOs. I just don't think it should be the default that all creatures get a free attack just because an enemy creature moved near them. I would be OK with AoOs as the default in a module or as a houserule for some specific games.

I'm not sure that DDM needed it either. I've played other tactical minis games where pieces could move about more freely. All it does is change the tactics that one employs in the game. It's neither more nor less realistic. I think it would be interesting to see how DDM would change with all characters having Spring Attack and with limited AoOs. Probably would still be fun, just different.

I really think limited AoOs offer more design space than freely given AoOs.

 

[variant]

A single turn is all suppose to be happening within the same 6s, why would you automatically be able to freely hack at someone just because they moved within 5' of you?

 

[Boarstorm]

F: "What?!? The goblin moved right past me? And I just let him?!?"
DM: "Yup. You were busy cleaving his buddy in half at the time, as you might recall."

 

[Gorgoroth]

which

is exactly why an AO should take your next action, if you wish to take advantage of it. I completely agree, it's silly to gain extra actions the more...well, action there is around you.

But you should be able to guard a square or a person as a readied action, with a certain trigger. And it shouldn't change your initiative though. If I take the AO for the kobold running by, and miss him, I should be able to at least move on my regular initiative that's coming up, not lose it entirely or wait a whole extra round to be able to move.

 

[LostSoul]

I'd like it if the rule was set up like this:

Movement: You can move up to your speed during your turn. (other stuff about moving through opponents & friendlies)

Then I'd have another rule like "If you can do it, you can do it", explicitly giving the DM authority to make rulings about what actions are possible, as well as the responsibility to maintain the consistency of the game world or genre conventions.