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

[Garthanos]

Thanks for helping me think about this

 

[Garthanos]

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.

 

[Garthanos]

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]

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]

Well it doesnt seem uber hard to steal next step is just try it I suppose

 

[Garthanos]

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

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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]

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.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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]

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?