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

[Garthanos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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