• 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
Powers which allow normal movement between would just allow a higher effective speed the round they are used it is more like monk than ability that way used
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).
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Hya... not sure there is any action economy loss in the offing more like allowing movement to be split up.
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?
 

JohnLynch

Explorer
I suppose you could do this: "Move (move action): You can move up to your maximum speed before the end of your turn. You can perform other actions during this movement." I suppose that would work. Personally I think 4th ed has too many elements baked into giving you mobility at the cost of damage (Ranger powers for example) that would be made less desirable by letting someone split up their movement.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
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).
Remember those moves that allow you to move while doing them they are all extra movement,so your 6 or 7 just went up.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
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.
Focus fire is the only real tactic in town isnt it. That is something I find myself interested in addressing where generally speaking you get a better defense against any enemy you attack

I am considering upping the use of Afflictions in the system. A system where you may induce afflictions with attacks so an enemy that has an affliction becomes less threat. Perhaps triggered on Bloodying and involving impairments caused by the attacks to determine nature of the affliction. And a few other tricks to discourage focus fire a bit. Its the only tactic in D&D land.
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
You do have a point this may be a really low impact allowance, there are fighter powers for a specific build and fighter burst powers that do not seem to make sense with a move in the middle and the entire slew of ranger powers.
 
Remember those moves that allow you to move while doing them they are all extra movement,so your 6 or 7 just went up.
I was only specifically talking about splitting a move action with an attack in the middle. Yes, of course, if you also move as part of your attack then that changes things. However, you don't need a split-move rule for THAT stuff to work, really. Anyone who is willing to charge CAN kite, to a degree...
 
4e tends to have non-debilitating conditions (IE slow, weakness, marked, minor attack/defense penalty, dazed). So its rare that one can really put certain monsters on the 'back burner' to a really significant degree. If this were more possible (but say you had to keep working at it, like a standard action sustain or something) to keep them up, then it might be more tactically interesting to engage more than one or two opponents at a time, or to switch targets at times. As it stands there MAY be a few specific tactical situations where PCs switch, but it isn't prevalent. Wasn't prevalent in previous editions either, for similar reasons. Really isn't very prevalent in any game where cumulative damage is a thing, unless there's also serious combat degradation mechanics as well (IE it has to mechanically make sense to knock the shine off several opponents vs just killing one outright). It makes more sense in games where attacks results are more variable and you can hope to switch off to a more threatening target and knock them out in one shot. AD&D spell tactics are more along these lines.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
eally isn't very prevalent in any game where cumulative damage is a thing, unless there's also serious combat degradation mechanics as well (IE it has to mechanically make sense to knock the shine off several opponents vs just killing one outright).
I am thinking multiple tricks one is the making a broad the enemy has been bloodied and takes a sustained negative condition so its safer to do the same on the next enemy (right now NPCs only because for the hero's when the going gets tough ... well different tropes appy) .

Beyond the above we get that sustained thing sort of encourage splitting your attacks by having it increase your defense if you just attacked or damaged them with a melee attack.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I am thinking multiple tricks one is the making a broad the enemy has been bloodied and takes a sustained negative condition so its safer to do the same on the next enemy (right now NPCs only because for the hero's when the going gets tough ... well different tropes appy) .

Beyond the above we get that sustained thing sort of encourage splitting your attacks by having it increase your defense if you just attacked or damaged them with a melee attack.
Weakness when bloodied to non extraordinaries
 
Well, another element would be a greater separation of role function. If, say, controllers did a good bit less damage, then using your controller to debuff/tactically disadvantage some of the baddies while the fighter blenderizes the rest would be more of a thing...
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Well, another element would be a greater separation of role function. If, say, controllers did a good bit less damage, then using your controller to debuff/tactically disadvantage some of the baddies while the fighter blenderizes the rest would be more of a thing...
Any allow non-damage to compete a bit better with kill it ... regardless of role separation
 
Any allow non-damage to compete a bit better with kill it ... regardless of role separation
I think 4e takes that to something of an extreme. Anyway, I think you could cut damage output by, let us say for the sake of argument, a 'wizard' vs a 'fighter' and give the wizard a bit more in the way of 'status effect' kind of stuff without wrecking the game.
Here's a thought. Instead of saying Wizbang can daze and Swordbang can do loads of damage, how about if Wizbang has to pay a resource cost to play the damage game at Swordbang's level, and vice versa? This is actually CLOSE to how 4e seems to have wanted things to work, but it tends to get more and more mushy with added layers of supplements and whatnot.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I think 4e takes that to something of an extreme. Anyway, I think you could cut damage output by, let us say for the sake of argument, a 'wizard' vs a 'fighter' and give the wizard a bit more in the way of 'status effect' kind of stuff without wrecking the game.
Here's a thought. Instead of saying Wizbang can daze and Swordbang can do loads of damage, how about if Wizbang has to pay a resource cost to play the damage game at Swordbang's level, and vice versa? This is actually CLOSE to how 4e seems to have wanted things to work, but it tends to get more and more mushy with added layers of supplements and whatnot.
its intriguing I grant you...
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
4e tends to have non-debilitating conditions (IE slow, weakness, marked, minor attack/defense penalty, dazed). So its rare that one can really put certain monsters on the 'back burner' to a really significant degree.
I am thinking sustained weakness means offense has been taken down a significant notch. (its actually similar in some ways to a major attack penalty)
 
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
In the sense of the non-convertible move action? It'd screw with the action economy, a bit. The ability to intersperse movement & attack might make some powers seem less significant, though they usually involve additional movement over and above that of the move action, so maybe not.

In the sense of counting diagonals, nah, not worth the added complexity. ;P
 

Advertisement

Top