Tactical movement to avoid opportunity attacks

[DNH]

The players in my game are rather too scared of making mistakes and generally over-strategise combat encounters. I have taken steps to counter that but there is one thing that still riles me and I am not sure if I can or should clamp down on it. In fact, to be honest, I’m sure I do it myself when playing so it’s actually a bit hypocritical to complain about it. That doesn’t stop it annoying me though.

This thing I am talking about is exaggerated tactical movement in order to avoid an opportunity attack. I have seen it happen where a character skirts around the battlefield in a preposterously wide arc in order to avoid the enemy’s threat range. Or there’s the whole shift-out-of-threat-range-then-move-around tactic.
I can argue this whole thing both ways, come to think about it, so I am wondering what anyone else thinks.

 

[Nichwee]

IMO it is fine for the players to do this sort of thing as long as they don't take all day at it in real playtime.

IRL I am not an experienced adventurer, but I still know to run wide around someone if I think they may want to attack me, and I want to get past them - I learned this trick playing Tag-Your-It when I was about 5 years old. So my characters should have no problem doing this as a matter of habit.

 

[wedgeski]

They are perfectly reasonable and expected tactics? Characters with high mobility get to show their quality and characters with low mobility rely on armour and other defenses to ablate incoming hits.

OA's are one of the fundamental methods by which battle-mat movement is made a tactical challenge. Players are forced to consider different routes across the battlefield, and to weigh the cost of taking hits against the benefit of getting from A to B more quickly (for example to aid a fallen comrade).

 

[delericho]

IMO it is fine for the players to do this sort of thing as long as they don't take all day at it in real playtime.

Broadly I agree with this. Provided the players are declaring and taking their actions promptly, I don't see any problem.

Remember that the battlemat is necessarily an extremely broad approximation of the events on the battlefield. If the mini moves in a ridiculously wide arc, or takes a seemingly arcane route through the battlefield, that doesn't mean that the character should be thought of as taking that route - he's just picking his way carefully though the battle avoiding the hazards as best he can.

Two things, though:

1) You should probably include some 'invisible hazards' on the battlefield - terrain that is rougher than it appears at first glance, pressure plates for traps, hidden pits, whatever. So, when the player oh-so-carefully plots out his route, it sometimes turns out not to be as safe as he thought. (Passive Perception should probably apply, but even then it's valid to have them notice at the last minute and be forced to choose - carry on and risk the hazard, or end their movement right there.)

2) Don't let the player spend ages plotting out his route, and certainly don't let him plot out multiple routes for his character. The PC gets a fraction of a second to weigh up his options, and although it's reasonable for the player to take longer, it's not reasonably for them to over-analyse things. So, require them to start moving within 15 or 30 seconds of their turn starting, and don't let them 'take back' a move once it's done. (Of course, this should be a non-issue anyway - involved players should probably have worked out all the routes while waiting for their turn. Consider that a reward for paying attention - a player behaviour that you want to encourage!)

 

[On Puget Sound]

shift then move uses up two actions, so it usually costs you either your attack or an action point (Some attacks include a shift; this benefit is figured into their opportunity cost). If your players are so cautious they're routinely forgoing attacks just to move safely, I can see how that might drag out combat a bit. It also seems unusual; most of the players I've seen are reluctant to ever skip an attack, even when they should. Are you mistakenly granting those shifts as a free or minor action?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I can see how you would find this behaviour to be a little... irritating. I'm not sure that's the right word. I think 'disappointed' is a better choice.

I'm blessed with a group that mixes things up. Sometimes they're cautious, but other times, they'll take risks. Such as, "oh, crap, the healer just went down! I'm going to double-move away from this beast to drop a potion on him!"

For the most part, anyway. One of my players is very prone to combat paralysis and doesn't want to make any "wrong moves" tactically. She's getting better about it though.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

The players in my game are rather too scared of making mistakes and generally over-strategise combat encounters. I have taken steps to counter that but there is one thing that still riles me and I am not sure if I can or should clamp down on it. In fact, to be honest, I’m sure I do it myself when playing so it’s actually a bit hypocritical to complain about it. That doesn’t stop it annoying me though.

This thing I am talking about is exaggerated tactical movement in order to avoid an opportunity attack. I have seen it happen where a character skirts around the battlefield in a preposterously wide arc in order to avoid the enemy’s threat range. Or there’s the whole shift-out-of-threat-range-then-move-around tactic.
I can argue this whole thing both ways, come to think about it, so I am wondering what anyone else thinks.

DNH, although I think I agree 100% with your general feeling, I am not sure your examples are good ones. I can easily find it plausible that a character would make a safe arch as he prepares to attack an enemy. I can also see "shifting" away (a sly tumble perhaps) and then "moving" in to a better position.

One that riles me up is the "shift or move directly away from your target so you can charge straight back at them". It is a little too "bugs bunny" for my taste.

Note two things: 1) I am sure I am being somewhat hyporcritical with my above examples. 2) When playing I am probably the opposite of careful and probably detrimental to the 'sucess' of my party.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Rules Compendium says the end of a charge has to be at least 2 squares from the 'starting position'.

Maybe you want to make it from the 'starting position' of your turn instead of the starting position for the Standard Action.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

One that riles me up is the "shift or move directly away from your target so you can charge straight back at them". It is a little too "bugs bunny" for my taste.

On the grid it may seem silly or cheesy, but from what I know of historical combat, it wasn't all that far-fetched. I will try to dig up the link to support it, but for now a description will suffice.

Basically the gist of it was, two combatants would close rapidly (i.e. charge) and fight furiously for a short span (less than a minute), then if neither opponent were killed, when one or both were tired, they would disengage for a moment, circling each other, getting their wind back, until they came charging back in to fight again.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

Rules Compendium says the end of a charge has to be at least 2 squares from the 'starting position'.

Maybe you want to make it from the 'starting position' of your turn instead of the starting position for the Standard Action.

jody, if charges weren't such a fun thing for my players to do, that is essentially how I would houserule it. They like charging, so I live with their looney tunes shenanigans.