What's not in the rules: my modest proposal

[SteveC]

I'm getting ready to run the playtest, and one of the things I've noted is that a lot of the rules from previous editions aren't in the playtest doc. That's understandable, it's a short document.

What I'm doing is having one member of my group keep a running list of what rules we expected to see but weren't there. This can give an indication of what house rules we had to come up with, and hopefully will give Wizard's an idea of things the might want to include.

The most obvious example is that currently there's no reason with enough space that monsters couldn't run right by a blocking character (such as the fighter) and attack a weaker target. With the split move and act option, a group of monsters could all choose to move by the fighter, attack the mage and then move back. I'm going to have to make a ruling to deal with that, but in practice, I'd say it's something that should be in the rules--maybe just saying you stop when you become adjacent without a contest.

That's just one example. What does everyone think?

 

[Dragoslav]

That's a really good idea. I know I had a mental list of "things I found conspicuously absent" when going through the rules the first time.

A couple more:
-Charging
-Flanking

 

[The Shadow]

With the split move and act option, a group of monsters could all choose to move by the fighter, attack the mage and then move back. I'm going to have to make a ruling to deal with that, but in practice, I'd say it's something that should be in the rules--maybe just saying you stop when you become adjacent without a contest.

Wouldn't that obviate the Guardian feat 'Hold the Line'?

 

[Remathilis]

I have a feeling I will adding the "break off of melee = action or free attack" rule

 

[SteveC]

Wouldn't that obviate the Guardian feat 'Hold the Line'?

I wouldn't think so: there are a lot of cases where characters are near each other and get attacked. In a 10x10 square, you'll have to characters fighting most of the time.

I'll have to see what the players think, of course, and if they're okay with it, why not. I just know that if I were playing, I'd have a serious issue with it being ... unrealistic. Yep, I just invoked that word in D&D. Please excuse me.

 

[Lalato]

So basically all monsters have spring attack. No big deal. If I'm the wizard, I just explain that I'm 30 feet behind the fighter and done. They can certainly approach me, but they may not actually reach me if they're on the other side of the fighter.

Granted, some encounters may not allow for that, but it's not impossible to avoid being ganged up on by the monsters. In all editions of D&D monsters can get behind the front line. If you're playing Theater of the Mind, it's trivial to say the orc gives a wide berth to the fighter and attacks the soft underbelly of the wizard. So I don't see the problem that you're trying to fix.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I am actually keen to try out the move before and/or after attack. I am looking forward to fights being more mobile (like the movies ).

But I am very apprehensive about enemies just swarming past an armed PC at the front of a group (for a purpose) in say a tunnel! Some sort of OA effect must come into play.

I just can't remember how we dealt with it in 1E and 2E when we played. I think, if the players simply asked to hit them as they went by we allowed it.

3E had my fav OA rules though. Maybe implement something like that after a while?

 

[Li Shenron]

The most obvious example is that currently there's no reason with enough space that monsters couldn't run right by a blocking character (such as the fighter) and attack a weaker target.

Well there's plenty of reasons for me, but they all go under the umbrella of realism and believability. Monsters (and maybe not even most PC) aren't professional tacticians unlike players so they would naturally engage the closest enemies.

Think of it this way: if you were involved in a battle/brawl, would you really have the instinct or expertise to make the choice of disengaging from the first opponent to go and target another one?

Anyway, back to the OP, "missing" tactical rules are missing for a purpose: the core game is supposed to be minimally tactical for gamers who aren't interested in a tactical combat. They don't need such rules because they're not going to play their PCs in combat very tactically, and their DM should do the same.

But you can bet that you'll find those rules in the tactical module which 99% will be presented at the next iteration of the playtest already, since it needs to be playtested ASAP.