• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

4E Stealing 5e movement for 4e : how hard?

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
What do people think about transporting 5e movement back to 4e? what challenges might there be?
Any issues you see?

It feels natural ... i see powers that allow delivery of multiple attacks some have intrinsic movement between and others do not those seem like they would be a challenge factore
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Which parts of 5E movement are you talking about? I presume it's the ability to move between attacks, yes? I suppose you could, but the only issue I see is the same issue the game has had from 3E to 4E and now into 5E... there is no meaningful reason built into the game to warrant doing so.

Due to more powerful monsters having large pools of hit points, there is never any real reason to actually move from away from a creature you are engaged with. Until that creature finally is killed, you will just stand there in front of it just attacking and attacking until it is dead. The game has not been built in any way to incentivize a character to leave one opponent behind to go attack another. You gain nothing from doing so, and in fact usually are punished for it via Opportunity Attacks.

The only time "move between attacks" ever really comes up are when you finally kill a creature following your first attack and still have a second attack to come. But correct me if I'm wrong... aren't there only the smallest isolated number of powers in 4E that grant two attacks in a single round (I haven't played 4E in several years so I forget)? So really how often will a PC be using a power that grants two attacks and also manages to kill one monster on the first of the two attacks, warranting a move to another creature for the second? I suppose it might happen on rare occasions and if so, I don't see any reason not to allow it... I just don't know if it's a ruling that needs to be a big deal for the game. At least nothing the players are going to bother keeping at the forefront of their rules knowledge.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Its been a long time since I played 4e, but In general, I don't see any big hiccup. There will be things here and there that pop up, but you can handle them on a case by case basis.
Which parts of 5E movement are you talking about? I presume it's the ability to move between attacks, yes? I suppose you could, but the only issue I see is the same issue the game has had from 3E to 4E and now into 5E... there is no meaningful reason built into the game to warrant doing so.
There are many reasons being able to move before and after an attack would be useful in 4e (and 5e). Moving in and out of range, in and out of cover, after cutting down a minion or two, etc.

Also, he could be talking about the action cost too?
 

MarkB

Hero
The main thing I think it would do is devalue certain powers in 4e which were designed to compensate for the binary nature of movement in that edition. I.e. I seem to recall there being some powers and/or feats, particularly for fighters and barbarians, that allowed them additional movement after taking down opponents. I know the barbarian in our campaign was eventually able to effectively pinball his way through large groups of minions.

So, maybe look at some of those features and see if they need a little more oomph when they're no longer essential in order to move between targets.

Also check on anything which lets you do something as part of / at the end of a move action. You may have to carefully consider the timing of such triggers.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Also, he could be talking about the action cost too?
I am interested in all the implications

Action economy wise It does seem to present a change for instance if you lack a move action it is one fewer minor action potentially and that means if you have a power which sustains on a minor you might be less flexible
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
There are many reasons being able to move before and after an attack would be useful in 4e (and 5e). Moving in and out of range, in and out of cover, after cutting down a minion or two, etc.
and those make combat more mobile...
 

Shiroiken

Adventurer
One thing you'd have to determine is how to resolve the Move Action. The simplest solution would be to say that using the move action allows you to move your movement for the duration of the turn. Since you also use your move action to shift, stand up (IIRC), and can turn it into a minor action, you need to explicitly state when the action is being used and for what.
 

aco175

Explorer
I see shifting at the bigger problem. In 5e, my players keep asking if they can shift in order to not have to use the disengage action. They mostly want to be able to attack and break away, or break away and cast a spell.

You could have a mechanic similar to the rogue where they can use a bonus action to disengage or in essence shift. You should consider which classes would be able to do this though.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I see shifting at the bigger problem. In 5e, my players keep asking if they can shift in order to not have to use the disengage action. They mostly want to be able to attack and break away, or break away and cast a spell.
if shifting takes 6 squares normally is that covering it?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
One thing you'd have to determine is how to resolve the Move Action. The simplest solution would be to say that using the move action allows you to move your movement for the duration of the turn. Since you also use your move action to shift, stand up (IIRC), and can turn it into a minor action, you need to explicitly state when the action is being used and for what.
I might not be understanding what if things which cost a move action now cost squares of movement
so shifting costs 6 squares of movement unless granted by a power
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
We could reward high speed characters a tad by having standing up cost 3 squares of movement and shifting cost 6 squares of movement. (would that be too valuable for dancing out of enemy reach). Perhaps once per turn a minor action uses 3 squares?

How many times are people downgrading their move for a minor action?

One thing you'd have to determine is how to resolve the Move Action. The simplest solution would be to say that using the move action allows you to move your movement for the duration of the turn. Since you also use your move action to shift, stand up (IIRC), and can turn it into a minor action, you need to explicitly state when the action is being used and for what.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Also check on anything which lets you do something as part of / at the end of a move action. You may have to carefully consider the timing of such triggers.
perhaps that becomes at the end of a move of 3 or more squares or following a shift
 

Shiroiken

Adventurer
How many times are people downgrading their move for a minor action?
I suppose it depends on your group. My group tended to become stationary for most of a combat, occasionally moving if there was a benefit or they needed to reach an enemy (flanking chains were fairly common). Because of this, we valued minor action powers and abilities highly, so downgrading for one wasn't really rare. I'd say it probably happened about once every 3-5 encounters or so (based on my memory, as I haven't played 4E in quite some time).
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
One thing you'd have to determine is how to resolve the Move Action. The simplest solution would be to say that using the move action allows you to move your movement for the duration of the turn. Since you also use your move action to shift, stand up (IIRC), and can turn it into a minor action, you need to explicitly state when the action is being used and for what.
You know this may be the most concise way of doing it
 
I don't think there is much to it TECHNICALLY. You can simply rule that the move action (that is walk, etc. the action actually taken by expending the move action, 4e's pit of bad terminology is particularly acute here) is 'interruptible'. Thus you can expend a Standard or minor (or free) action in the midst of it (this is already the case for Free actions in the most updated incarnation of them).

No doubt there are going to be some edge case issues, but the main impact is simply in devaluing a LOT of powers which include 'shoot and scoot' as a benefit (there are, IIRC, 2 builds, one rogue and one ranger, which actually codify some of these benefits as class features).

In HoML I simply codified this as a part of the game. Since I mandate that all actions invoke a 'power' (at least notionally, they don't have to be spelled-out formal powers in most cases) it is easy enough to simply define the 'walk' power as allowing an intermediate attack, etc. Fly, Swim, and possibly even Jump can do likewise. While this might seem to make things more complex it eliminates a large class of "just about the same as X but with a move added to it" powers and constructs which litter classic 4e. I was aiming at 'less is more' and I think in this sense 5e is kinda doing it right (I object to their regressing in terms of turn structure and other elements however, so it is not like 5e actually wins much from this 'innovation').
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I don't think there is much to it TECHNICALLY. You can simply rule that the move action (that is walk, etc. the action actually taken by expending the move action, 4e's pit of bad terminology is particularly acute here) is 'interruptible'. Thus you can expend a Standard or minor (or free) action in the midst of it (this is already the case for Free actions in the most updated incarnation of them).

No doubt there are going to be some edge case issues, but the main impact is simply in devaluing a LOT of powers which include 'shoot and scoot' as a benefit (there are, IIRC, 2 builds, one rogue and one ranger, which actually codify some of these benefits as class features).
Lots of that scooting is a shift though if I recall in many cases not much devaluing at all.
In HoML I simply codified this as a part of the game. Since I mandate that all actions invoke a 'power' (at least notionally, they don't have to be spelled-out formal powers in most cases) it is easy enough to simply define the 'walk' power as allowing an intermediate attack, etc. Fly, Swim, and possibly even Jump can do likewise. While this might seem to make things more complex it eliminates a large class of "just about the same as X but with a move added to it" powers and constructs which litter classic 4e. I was aiming at 'less is more' and I think in this sense 5e is kinda doing it right (I object to their regressing in terms of turn structure and other elements however, so it is not like 5e actually wins much from this 'innovation').
I am going to give 5e its due where it earned it and I do not find "bounded accuracy" one of those areas but this aspect I like.

I am also unimpressed with absolute restrictions on reactions. Which seems to be a rewind instead of progression.
 
Some of it is, but there is the 'shoot and stab' ranger build, for example, which is pretty much based on making attacks while moving. Also a rogue build which is designed to do kiting/sniping that gets some similar abilities. There are also a range of powers for various martial classes (I think all of them have at least a couple) that provide similar capabilities wrapped in a power.
Anyway, yes, there are 'make an attack and shift a square' things as well, coupled with a move action they provide similar capabilities. There is of course also the monk with its combined powers concept which provides some similar capabilities.
In any case, I'm not sure why anyone was thinking that this concept would pose any issues coupled with shifting. Shifts are a lot more expensive in terms of how far you move, but they serve a different purpose. Obviously players will still need to make choices and balance possibilities of provoking vs getting the spot they want to be in, even with a split-move concept.
Mostly I just think the concept is more effective in the context of a game where it was incorporated from day one. 4e could have been that game, and you could simply denigrate powers and whatnot that provide a similar capability and go on ahead and implement it in your game. It won't really HURT anything. It makes a degree of kiting possible, but with a total of 6 or 7 squares of movement to play with that isn't going to be super effective anyway (you cannot get out of charge range of any realistic opponent by moving 4 squares after an attack, or usually even 6).
 

JohnLynch

Explorer
Long time no see Garthanos. I don’t think you can outright steal 5e movement. The action economy is too important in 4e,

But what if you had three options of moving:
  • Run (Standard): You move up to double your speed.
  • Charge ( Standard): You move up to your speed and then make a melee basic attack.
  • Walk (Move): Youmove up to your speed.
  • Shift (Move): You carefully move 1 square without provoking an AoO.
  • Other Adjective (Minor): You move half your speed.

This keeps the action economy intact while making the game more mobile. What do you think?
 

Advertisement

Top