Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5955833" data-attributes="member: 27160">Oh, heavens, where to start?First off - practical gameplay considerations: as    [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] says, if attacking can take the place of moving there is no reason to do anything but attack. The so-called "Minor Action problem" of players searching for something to do with their Minor Action would be writ large - the desperate search for ways to attack with every action would be on...As almost an aside, early DragonQuest actually did almost exactly this - but changed it in the next version for a "Tactical Movement Rate" and single attack action. I.e., it has already been tried - it doesn't work well.Next point:This is based on a series of serious misconceptions about how hand-to-hand combat using medieval martial systems works. The idea that two handed weapons are "slower" than one handed ones, to begin with, is totally false. The idea that "sword and board" fighting consists of using one element to attack (the "sword") and another to defend (the "board") is also totally wrong; Google "I33 manuscript" - the sword and shield are used together to attack. Forget the hollywood garbage with "guy 1 swings while guy 2 blocks, then gut 2 swings while guy 1 blocks" - any fighter following that rubric would be dead inside three seconds. You try to strike your enemy as he closes to try to strike you - while simultaneously moving to avoid his attack and controlling either his weapon or his shield with your shield.Finally (for now), the idea that movement and attack are interchangable is misconceived. Moving - and some actions like drawing weapons, opening (unlocked) doors and rising from prone if no enemy is threatening - are things that the actor has autonomous control over. If I decide to walk to the window,  I just do it, I don't have to wait for an opening or manoeuvre to create an opportunity to act. Attacking an opponent in a hand-to-hand combat is not like that - nor is dodging past them or getting to your feet when they are trying to kill you. These actions require that you wait for an opportunity - you must match your actions to what your opponent does, not simply go ahead and do what you want to do without regard to them.That division is actually not a bad basis for the "Action"/"Move" split in 5e. If "Move" let you take any action that could be done freely and without regard to synchronising your timing with another, and "Actions" let you take an action synchronised with an enemy or even firend or combinations of these (think of acrobats or stuntmen synchronising their actions to perform "stunts"), that could work...</blockquote>

Verification