Help Me Understand Tactical Movement in 3.5

[wayfare]

Hey All:

During a recent fighter fix I made, a few suggestions kept cropping up that I found...troubling. It seems that a few posters would have liked to have seen abilities that allow movement outside of the initiative order. I presume this is to avoid attacks or spells that are located within a particular area.

In my lifetime of playing D&D I have never had this come up in game. Now, its true that my group is RP to the point of including poor stats and asking for enemies when it seems thematically appropriate, but I find it hard to believe that this is common logic at the gaming table.

Am I totally off base here? What classes can perform this kind of maneuver? Whats the purpose of the attack roll/saving throw if you can just say "i get out of the way"?

[Namfuak]

Well, even at 1st level wizards can say "screw you" to initiative and use nerveskitter to give themselves a huge leg up, and then you get celerity and it's variants, as well as abrupt jaunt, that allow a wizard to decide that he doesn't like where the round is going even outside his turn and let him change it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say then that maybe a fighter who makes the save for grease, for example, should still be stuck flat-footed until his next turn, when he has to make the save AGAIN.

[Rallicus]

Sounds like an odd suggestion to me, too.

Maybe players want to be able to jump out of the way when their party's wizard casts fireball? Like, the wizard says: "Watch out, (code word)'s coming!" and the player reacts accordingly?

Well, this is assuming you're correct about it being used to avoid certain attacks and spells that take place in a particular area. Although I can't really see any other uses for it...

I wouldn't use it personally.

[Duke of URL]

My guess is that they were talking about using immediate actions -- you can essentially borrow your swift action from the next round to perform an "interrupt" when your opponent uses a triggering action, as long as you're not flat-footed, but you still only get one immediate action (and cannot use a swift action on your next turn).

Alternately, they may have been talking about attacks of opportunity and abilities that could be used in lieu of taking an actual attack of opportunity (see feats such as Stand Still) or could generate additional provoking actions (see feats such as Karmic Strike or Hold the Line).

[wayfare]

Here, let me post the thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242689

My concerns are with Nonsi and Grod's suggestions near the end of the thread.

[Duke of URL]

Yeah, they're talking immediate actions there. And probably not a bad thing for a Fighter fix to consider -- it makes them more reactive to their environment, and it gets over the whole "we added swift and immediate actions for these new classes, oh, and these spells that are added to the ever-expanding full caster lists, but existing melee classes get screwed... as usual" effect.

Not sure I'd like the idea of unlimited movement immediate actions as suggested, unless you added enough swift action or other immediate action options to make using those movement immediate actions an actual opportunity cost.

[wayfare]

Yeah, they're talking immediate actions there. And probably not a bad thing for a Fighter fix to consider -- it makes them more reactive to their environment, and it gets over the whole "we added swift and immediate actions for these new classes, oh, and these spells that are added to the ever-expanding full caster lists, but existing melee classes get screwed... as usual" effect.

Not sure I'd like the idea of unlimited movement immediate actions as suggested, unless you added enough swift action or other immediate action options to make using those movement immediate actions an actual opportunity cost.

I guess I don't undrestand how it really fits into play. Doesn't the attack/save process indicate your ability to avoid effects. Simply being able to slide out of the way of an attack seems to undermine the whole resolution mechanic.

[Duke of URL]

The once-per-turn limitation of immediate actions keeps it from getting out of control. If you step 5' away from an attack and your opponent still has movement left, it can simply follow you (although you might be able to use that to tactical advantage by forcing it to move past your AoO partner(s) or position it for something in the next round) and attack anyway. Giving the fighter a way to completely avoid a spell effect sounds scary bad, but it does little more than slightly narrow the gulf between melee and casters, especially at the levels being talked about.

As for giving fighters swift and immediate actions, take a look at some of ToB's boosts (swift) and counters (immediate) -- note that a Tiger Claw devotee can leap his full movement speed and still full attack, at the cost of expending a prepared maneuver and a swift action. What does the stock fighter have that's similar? (At best, taking the sudden leap maneuver via Martial Study with a bonus feat, actually.)

ToB is very well balanced on the whole, so using it as a model makes sense. Give fighters more "boosts" and "counters", though without having to deal with maneuver management, they should probably be slightly less powerful (or granted later) than their ToB counterparts.

[Roguenewb]

Judging from the little bits of spoilers that have leaked out from 5E, it appears that one of the ideas behind future fighter development is that they get more free action attacks and immediates and such. I would think about giving fighters the option to let them use an Immediate Action and one of their AoOs to make an attack against someone. Then, combat reflexes becomes much better, and the fighter becomes a slightly quicker, more nimble fighter than the Knight and Barbarian who sit at the higher end of the spectrum.

[NichG]

The problem is more that things like Abrupt Jaunt are really no-brainers, and the immediate action dodge abilities don't really interfere with the ways that casters are overpowered, they actually more interfere with the ways of suboptimal casters.

Abrupt Jaunt and equivalent mean that any sort of battlefield instantaneous AoE becomes even more pointless than it already was due to Evasion and the wounded kobold issue (that they tend to partially kill a lot of enemies, leaving the enemies with the same number of actions, rather than shutting down one). On the other hand, battlefield control, summoning, and buffs remain very strong options.

So I'm not sure adding more creep to the action economy problems is really a way to solve that imbalance.

On the other hand, you could fix that with a house rule: whenever someone uses an out-of-turn ability to avoid an attack regardless of the nature of the ability (Abrupt Jaunt, 5ft step immediate, Wings of Cover, whatever), they must make a Reflex save against the DC/To-Hit of the attack in order to react in time.

If you do that, then extra movement with immediate actions just becomes a kind of neat thing that some classes can do, and not D&D's version of the Perfect Defense.

[wayfare]

Would hitting Immediate Actions with the Ban-Hammer be at all unfair/unbalancing?

My group really only works out of core, and my fixes tend to be centered around my group houserukes (which are being codified into a campaign setting/rules supplement!)

[Urpriest]

Would hitting Immediate Actions with the Ban-Hammer be at all unfair/unbalancing?

My group really only works out of core, and my fixes tend to be centered around my group houserukes (which are being codified into a campaign setting/rules supplement!)

If you ban immediate actions and use Core (and errata) then Feather Fall ceases working.

[wayfare]

If you ban immediate actions and use Core (and errata) then Feather Fall ceases working.

I am ok with that. It would also nullify true strike, no?

[Telonius]

No, True Strike is a standard action to cast.

EDIT: Looking through the SRD, it looks like Psionics would be affected a lot more than standard PHB classes. I'm finding Feather Fall and not much else, for PHB.

Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192978) a thread listing a bunch of Swift and Immediate Action spells.

[Urpriest]

I am ok with that. It would also nullify true strike, no?

Another thing to consider is whether you want to allow free actions out of turn, like talking.

[Namfuak]

Another thing to consider is whether you want to allow free actions out of turn, like talking.

BBEG: "You know not the power I hold, tremble as I -
Wizard: Casts mage armor on self
Rogue: Moves closer to BBEG
Cleric: Casts shield of faith on Fighter
Fighter: Moves closer to BBEG
BBEG: "show you my true power!"

[JKTrickster]

Would hitting Immediate Actions with the Ban-Hammer be at all unfair/unbalancing?

My group really only works out of core, and my fixes tend to be centered around my group houserukes (which are being codified into a campaign setting/rules supplement!)

Meh. Immediate actions add more tactical versatility to the game. Instead of passive defenses, you have active defenses. So instead of waiting for someone to miss your AC, maybe you cast a spell/use a maneuver/do whatever and get out of the way.

Is it fair? Assuming it is a limited resource that uses up your Immediate action - yes.

Is it much more complicated? Of course. Instead of just deciding what you do on your turn, you have to pay attention and figure out when you want to spring that Immediate action button.

But it isn't for everyone and in Core I don't think it affects characters that much (if at all).

[wayfare]

Another thing to consider is whether you want to allow free actions out of turn, like talking.

Talking is not an action, its exposition! :smallsmile:

Our position on the combat round is that it is a dramatic space -- attack rolls do not represent the total number of attacks you make, they simply indicate the truly telling strikes. (in 4th edition, or position is reversed. But we don't play with a battle mat in 3.5)

[Philistine]

Out-of-turn movement might make Fighters a little more interesting. Not for the ability to step out of the blast of a fireball or whatnot, but for the ability to get and stay between their allies and the enemy. Or for denying low-level casters the ability to shut down any and all AoO threats with a simple 5'-step.

It's not enough, not by a long shot - but it's a nudge in the right direction.