Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Movement rethink

    One thing that aggravates me a lot in 5E is how movement interacts with combat. While I know it doesn't have to be this way, in pre-built dungeons from game modules it really shows up a lot.

    I was reminded of this again in the thread on whether martials are screwed. Since this is off topic for that thread, I'm writing out my thoughts here instead.


    So the primary issue is movement in combat. Or rather, the lack of said movement. You move from Target A to Target B, and then just stand there beating on each other until someone falls over.

    There are rules for moving around, but they tend to be lackluster or of limited usefulness. For example, you can disengage and run away, but doing so merely means that your enemy can just make a normal move to end up next to you and attack again. It's nothing more than a waste of your turn, unless you have a means of dashing as a bonus action (rogue, Eagle Totem barbarian, Expeditious Retreat spell), or you have a higher movement speed than your enemy (not a reliable expectation).

    Imagine the stereotypical "disengage and run away" scenario. On film, the outnumbered fighter glances around, carefully steps away, and then runs. All the opponents chase, but no one catches up. In D&D, he'd run a bit, then stop; his opponent would run, catch up, and hit him; then he'd run again (and possibly take another hit from an opportunity attack if he doesn't disengage again); repeat. There's no parity in movement, because it's incredibly awkward to do so manually.

    Think of another simple scenario: You and your enemy are on opposite sides of a table, and you're trying to keep the table between you two. However, because of action order, the enemy will always be able to reach you and attack you, because you can't adjust your position while he's moving.

    There's also the issue where diagonal movement can entirely bypass obstacles. Suppose you were running up the keypad, 2-5-8. Someone drops an obstacles in space 5. You can simply do 2-6-8, avoiding the obstacle entirely, but not losing any of your movement speed.

    There's a rule that says that two diagonal moves count as three 5' moves, which mostly fixes the problem (so 2-6-8 would count as 3 spaces moved, just like going through difficult terrain in space 5 would). This should always be used.

    I would also suggest that rounding a corner should count as difficult terrain, since it must necessarily take more time than running in a straight line.

    ~~~

    Anyway, with those issues in mind, and the lack of options for what you can do with your movement action, I wanted to come up with actions you could take to help liven things up. This is just brainstorming, and these ideas haven't been tested.

    Some of these are partially stolen from other actions or feats, mostly because those other actions and feats are weak, or only useful in extreme circumstances. I would prefer a certain degree of activity in combat.

    They are all movement actions (replacing normal walking movement) or reactions.


    Dodge:

    On your turn, rather than moving, you may take the Dodge movement action. When you Dodge, the following effects apply:
    1. Creatures have disadvantage when attacking you.
    2. If a creature makes a melee attack against you and misses, you may move 5' in any direction that does not leave you adjacent to the attacker, as long as that space is not occupied. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks from the attacker, but any other creature you move out of reach of may make a normal opportunity attack.
      • Rogues, Monks, and Fighters will have a trait that allows them to ignore the movement direction limitation if they wish. Details to be determined.
    3. Attempting to move into a space that is considered difficult terrain requires a DC 12 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to avoid falling prone.


    A miss caused by some effect other than the Dodge disadvantage (such as hitting a Mirror Image clone) does not allow you to use the movement portion of this ability.


    Retreat:

    If you are not within 5' of a hostile creature, and did not move towards a hostile creature last turn, you may use your reaction to retreat 5' when a hostile creature moves to within reach of you.


    Delay:

    If you move away from an attacker due to a Dodge or Retreat movement, you may use an object interaction (if not already used on your turn) to delay your attacker, causing his or her next movement step to be considered difficult terrain. (Note: I'm not specifying the square that is affected in order to avoid issues of diagonally avoiding it.)

    This may be done by moving or knocking over a sufficiently large object into the space between you and the attacker (which you must be able to reach and move with your strength), or by throwing a distraction in the attacker's face (eg: a mug of ale), or some other non-damaging descriptor that should be able to achieve the desired result. If appropriate obstacles are not within reach, you may not use this action.


    Screen:

    If an ally uses a Retreat or Dodge step on a space that you are adjacent to, and you are not engaged with another creature, you may use a reaction to step into that space, forcing the enemy to face you instead.


    Charge:

    (The Charger feat will be removed.)

    When you take the Charge movement action, you may take your normal movement towards a specific target.

    If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line towards a creature, you may use your action to shove it back by half of your remaining movement (minimum 5'). This ends your movement.

    Alternatively, you may make a running jump as part of your movement. If you can land in the space of a target creature, you may use your action to make a single melee attack that, if it hits, does an additional 5 damage and knocks the creature back 5'. Otherwise you are pushed back 5' in the direction you came from, and must make a DC 12 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to avoid falling prone.


    Feint:

    As a move action, you may use footwork to gain advantage on the first melee weapon attack you make on your turn against a creature. On a hit, damage done is the minimum value that can be rolled on the dice.

    (Gain advantage, but sacrifice damage.)


    Pressure:

    You may take this as your movement action for your turn.

    While active, when you successfully hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can attempt to push the enemy back. Make a contested Intimidation check using the attribute you used to make the weapon attack. If you win the contest, you step 5' towards the creature, and force it to take an equivalent step back.

    If the creature cannot step back (such as being blocked by a wall), you may attempt a grappling check in order to engage the creature in a weapon bind. If successful, both you and the creature are considered Restrained.

    Aside: Restrained creatures cannot cast spells that require somatic components.

    ~~~

    Any thoughts on the ideas and general approach?

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Boston area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Quote Originally Posted by Moxxmix View Post
    Imagine the stereotypical "disengage and run away" scenario. On film, the outnumbered fighter glances around, carefully steps away, and then runs. All the opponents chase, but no one catches up. In D&D, he'd run a bit, then stop; his opponent would run, catch up, and hit him; then he'd run again (and possibly take another hit from an opportunity attack if he doesn't disengage again); repeat. There's no parity in movement, because it's incredibly awkward to do so manually.
    True, D&D's turn-based combat rules don't handle chases very well. Once it's clear that a chase is happening, I'd prefer to end the combat and switch to a skill challenge (or just declare that the faster character wins the chase.) Note also that the 5e DMG has a little to say about making chases work more smoothly on page 252.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moxxmix View Post
    There's also the issue where diagonal movement can entirely bypass obstacles. Suppose you were running up the keypad, 2-5-8. Someone drops an obstacles in space 5. You can simply do 2-6-8, avoiding the obstacle entirely, but not losing any of your movement speed.

    There's a rule that says that two diagonal moves count as three 5' moves, which mostly fixes the problem (so 2-6-8 would count as 3 spaces moved, just like going through difficult terrain in space 5 would). This should always be used.
    This was the standard rule in 3.5e, but it got stripped out as part of the simplification for 5e. I agree, though, that movement on square grids works smoother with this in place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Moxxmix View Post
    I would also suggest that rounding a corner should count as difficult terrain, since it must necessarily take more time than running in a straight line.
    Well... Sure. When running at full speed, I agree. When moving 5 ft per second (30 ft/round) on the balls of your feet, I don't see the need for this penalty. But it wouldn't make a huge difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moxxmix View Post
    Retreat:

    If you are not within 5' of a hostile creature, and did not move towards a hostile creature last turn, you may use your reaction to retreat 5' when a hostile creature moves to within reach of you.
    Now this I like; I'm tempted to adopt it in my own house rules. For simplicity and clarity, I would reduce it to just, "When a hostile creature moves toward you, you may use your reaction to move 5 feet away from that creature." Whether or not you're *currently* threatened just affects whether or not somebody will get an attack of opportunity against you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Moxxmix View Post
    Feint:

    As a move action, you may use footwork to gain advantage on the first melee weapon attack you make on your turn against a creature. On a hit, damage done is the minimum value that can be rolled on the dice.

    (Gain advantage, but sacrifice damage.)
    This one sounds iffy. Without doing any math, my gut impression is that this would be useless for most characters, and overpowered for those with Great Weapon Master. Also, note that 5e doesn't use "move actions," just movement.



    Quote Originally Posted by Moxxmix View Post
    Pressure:

    You may take this as your movement action for your turn.

    While active, when you successfully hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can attempt to push the enemy back. Make a contested Intimidation check using the attribute you used to make the weapon attack. If you win the contest, you step 5' towards the creature, and force it to take an equivalent step back.

    If the creature cannot step back (such as being blocked by a wall), you may attempt a grappling check in order to engage the creature in a weapon bind. If successful, both you and the creature are considered Restrained.
    Contested by what? Strength (Athletics)? Or, because of the intimidation, a Wisdom saving throw?


    I appreciate the effort to make combat more dynamic, but I think a lot of this can be covered with existing rules and the occasional DM judgement call. We already have the "Shove" special attack (PHB 195) to push an enemy backward, so what's the need for "Pressure"? Making a mess is a by-the-book legitimate use of object interaction, in my view. And trying to keep a table between you and an opponent can be handled (kinda) with the Ready action. If combat is feeling very static, I just don't think the rules are the main reason for it.

    ...Anyway, I hope you find some of this constructive.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Quote Originally Posted by Borazine View Post
    True, D&D's turn-based combat rules don't handle chases very well. Once it's clear that a chase is happening, I'd prefer to end the combat and switch to a skill challenge (or just declare that the faster character wins the chase.) Note also that the 5e DMG has a little to say about making chases work more smoothly on page 252.
    Yeah, it was more about the issue of chasing while still in combat, because it's not always so cleanly separated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Borazine View Post
    This was the standard rule in 3.5e, but it got stripped out as part of the simplification for 5e. I agree, though, that movement on square grids works smoother with this in place.
    I was thinking I read something about this in the 5E rules somewhere, but can't find it, so...
    Quote Originally Posted by Borazine View Post
    Well... Sure. When running at full speed, I agree. When moving 5 ft per second (30 ft/round) on the balls of your feet, I don't see the need for this penalty. But it wouldn't make a huge difference.
    This thought came because I was testing a few things out in real life. Moving fast enough to go 30' in 6 seconds is really hard to maintain around corners, especially while also maintaining combat readiness. Even just running around a small table can be clumsy. And that doesn't count the time you're expected to be attacking, as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Borazine View Post
    Now this I like; I'm tempted to adopt it in my own house rules. For simplicity and clarity, I would reduce it to just, "When a hostile creature moves toward you, you may use your reaction to move 5 feet away from that creature." Whether or not you're *currently* threatened just affects whether or not somebody will get an attack of opportunity against you.
    The simplification is likely better, though you probably still need some sort of distance factor to show that the creature is moving towards you, and not just something in your general vicinity (as might be abused).

    Quote Originally Posted by Borazine View Post
    This one sounds iffy. Without doing any math, my gut impression is that this would be useless for most characters, and overpowered for those with Great Weapon Master. Also, note that 5e doesn't use "move actions," just movement.
    Yeah, GWM kinda screws with it. I was trying to find a way to get something useful out of it without it becoming an easy-win button for Sneak Attack.

    I'd still like some sort of Feint mechanism, but this definitely isn't it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Borazine View Post
    Contested by what? Strength (Athletics)? Or, because of the intimidation, a Wisdom saving throw?
    Not quite sure. I had a few ideas, but none that I was certain of. Possibly Intimidation-Intimidation face-off. Possibly a Wisdom check.

    Quote Originally Posted by Borazine View Post
    I appreciate the effort to make combat more dynamic, but I think a lot of this can be covered with existing rules and the occasional DM judgement call. We already have the "Shove" special attack (PHB 195) to push an enemy backward, so what's the need for "Pressure"? Making a mess is a by-the-book legitimate use of object interaction, in my view. And trying to keep a table between you and an opponent can be handled (kinda) with the Ready action. If combat is feeling very static, I just don't think the rules are the main reason for it.
    I'll grant that the last few ideas, I was kinda stretching. I'm trying to think of ways to expressly use movement to do things in combat that go beyond the very limited default rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by Borazine View Post
    ...Anyway, I hope you find some of this constructive.
    Very much so, thank you.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Boston area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Quote Originally Posted by Moxxmix View Post
    I'd still like some sort of Feint mechanism, but this definitely isn't it.
    Maybe something like the following: "As a bonus action, you may attempt to distract your opponent. Make a Dexterity (Deception) check opposed by your opponent's Wisdom (Insight) check. On a success, your next attack against that target this turn has Advantage."

    I think the opportunity cost of a bonus action is a pretty good trade-off. The biggest problems with this design I see are that (a) it might be overused by bonus-action-starved characters, and (b) it's useless to any character who can attack as a bonus action. Hmm...

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    sandmote's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Mostly agree with Borazine, but I'll focus on a buff for disengaging that doesn't require a rule change.

    Disengaging is less of a problem if you (or whoever's DMing) regularly include various types of rough terrain. I specify "regularly," because if the party can count on it being there the'll start using characters with ways to ignore rough terrain. If you can ignore rough terrain but your enemy can't, you can disengage without them being able to catch up. Also, it buffs rangers and land druids a bit.

    This isn't to say disengaging is always useful, but it does rather require that you aren't fighting in empty, featureless rooms to be of any worth. Basically, if "two blocks of hit points go up and wack each other," isn't doing it or you, allow your party to reliably get in more movement than their enemies. Or if you're playing a PC, maybe get immunity to the most common rough terrain and keep asking your DM if there's a chance to use it, making it clear this is something you would like.

    Usual Reasons to Disengage, by the RAW rules:
    • Getting into a choke point so melee enemies can't surround you.
    • Running back behind the meat shield
    • To use your climb speed or ability to ignore the local rough terrain to get out of melee reach.


    If you purely want to run away, well, that's what the dash action is for; so they get in an opportunity attack instead of their multiattack. Or you could try to shove them to knock your opponent prone, forcing their OA to have disadvantage and wasting half their movement before they can give chase; this is more useful if you have Extra Attack, as it improves your chances to success and allows you to get an attack in if it goes well.



    Delay shouldn't be a rule as written. Instead, environments should have enough stuff in them that you could use surrounding objects like this if you position yourself smartly and/or are clever about it.

    If you want to model someone casing the other person around the table, I'd say the one running away is readying their action to go in the opposite direction of the one chasing, and count it as one reaction.

    Dodging allowing you to slide when you're missed I like.

    I don't think a feint should work under the same rules as movement. Probably better to make it work like a Shove, but to give yourself advantage on your next attack before the end of your next turn (including opportunity attacks). You could then maybe let higher level fighters apply a feint to multiple attacks.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Boston area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Inspired by this discussion, I have appended the following to my list of house rules:

    "You can use your reaction to move 5 feet in response to another creature's movement. On your next turn, your speed is reduced by 5 feet."

    Nice and simple. We'll see how often it gets used.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Yakk's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Don't bring back "move action", please.

    ---

    The dash action could require a Strength(Athletics) check, and your movement would increase by the result of your roll.

    ---

    A "tumble" action that uses Dexterity(Acrobatics) would also be interesting. Even "move your speed, and opportunity attacks have to beat your Dexterity(Acrobatics) roll to hit you" would work. A kind of "high dex disengage+dash".

    And maybe you can take a 5 point penalty to your check to avoid 5 feet of difficult terrain.

    ---

    A "give ground" mechanic makes sense.

    By expending a reaction when hit by a melee attack, you can give ground and move 5' away from your attacker. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

    Creatures at the edge of their movement with multiple attacks lose some. Otherwise, they can follow you -- but if they are flanked, they make provoke OAs by doing so. So they might turn on other creatures instead.

    In the event of a chase with identical speeds, you give ground, then double-move. They double-move and don't quite catch up. (The above "athletics check on a dash" makes identical speeds unlikely, but this rule does give a slight edge to the person fleeing)

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Quote Originally Posted by sandmote View Post
    Disengaging is less of a problem if you (or whoever's DMing) regularly include various types of rough terrain. I specify "regularly," because if the party can count on it being there the'll start using characters with ways to ignore rough terrain.
    This is definitely an issue I've had with published modules that I've seen: rough terrain is nonexistent (unless the rough terrain is itself an obstacle to be overcome), and variable terrain (down to things like furniture) is sparse, at best.

    Games where I have seen it are generally homebrew, and more than likely modern-day (so not applying to D&D). Getting the DM to regularly include such details is itself a challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandmote View Post
    This isn't to say disengaging is always useful, but it does rather require that you aren't fighting in empty, featureless rooms to be of any worth.
    Definitely. Part of the underhanded aspect of things like how I wrote the Delay rule is to suggest that such details should exist, as a default.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandmote View Post
    Basically, if "two blocks of hit points go up and wack each other," isn't doing it or you, allow your party to reliably get in more movement than their enemies. Or if you're playing a PC, maybe get immunity to the most common rough terrain and keep asking your DM if there's a chance to use it, making it clear this is something you would like.
    Getting more movement than the enemies is fine, but even that's not needed. Giving the NPCs more options for movement improves things as well, as long as there's more to a fight than "roll your attack dice a half dozen times".

    Quote Originally Posted by sandmote View Post
    Usual Reasons to Disengage, by the RAW rules:
    • Getting into a choke point so melee enemies can't surround you.
    • Running back behind the meat shield
    • To use your climb speed or ability to ignore the local rough terrain to get out of melee reach.
    "Disengage", by RAW, generally means, "I don't want to be in this fight anymore." It's much harder to use it to change the dynamics of the fight, even though the inverse is not true: if you're trying to change the dynamics of the fight, you likely expect to use Disengage as part of that, since few of the other combat action options really lend themselves to that (other than maybe Hide, for rogues).

    The problem is not so much perhaps that disengaging is not doing what it's intended for, it's that players don't have any other explicit options to allow them to perform the way they imagine.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandmote View Post
    If you purely want to run away, well, that's what the dash action is for; so they get in an opportunity attack instead of their multiattack. Or you could try to shove them to knock your opponent prone, forcing their OA to have disadvantage and wasting half their movement before they can give chase; this is more useful if you have Extra Attack, as it improves your chances to success and allows you to get an attack in if it goes well.
    Though these certainly work well too.

    I think it helps to remember (as I forgot) that your basic object interaction isn't limited to something as minor as just drawing your sword. Shoving someone prone, backing up a step, knocking over a food cart, and backing up a couple more steps would mean the opponent would have to use half his movement to stand up, and go through difficult terrain over the food cart to approach you again. Overall that would only be 2 squares of movement, unless the opponent Dashes. Of course, once the Dash comes into play, all that work is wasted unless you Dashed as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandmote View Post
    Delay shouldn't be a rule as written. Instead, environments should have enough stuff in them that you could use surrounding objects like this if you position yourself smartly and/or are clever about it.
    As a general idea, I think you're right, but the point of Delay was to be able to use that environmental interaction as part of those reactionary movements from Dodge or Retreat. I suppose it might be simpler to just say that you can use an object interaction as part of those other actions, rather than create an entirely new action for it. Point.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandmote View Post
    I don't think a feint should work under the same rules as movement. Probably better to make it work like a Shove, but to give yourself advantage on your next attack before the end of your next turn (including opportunity attacks). You could then maybe let higher level fighters apply a feint to multiple attacks.
    I do like that approach. It still has the mechanical issue that making two normal attacks is better than a single attack at advantage (similar to True Strike), but it has flavor that 'feels' right.

    Feint probably needs time being worked on as its own thing. I'll leave it for another discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Borazine View Post
    Inspired by this discussion, I have appended the following to my list of house rules:

    "You can use your reaction to move 5 feet in response to another creature's movement. On your next turn, your speed is reduced by 5 feet."

    Nice and simple. We'll see how often it gets used.
    Yeah, that's better. Gets rid of the extraneous stuff that likely hinders it as a general action, and gives people a simple reaction they can use as they see fit. Probably more interesting things that can be done with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    Don't bring back "move action", please.
    I'll try to back off of that idea. The more I consider it, the more I agree. I still want more things you can do with movement, but even with the things I presented already, a "move action" generally isn't necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    A "give ground" mechanic makes sense.

    By expending a reaction when hit by a melee attack, you can give ground and move 5' away from your attacker. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
    Yes, I like that. It simplifies the core purpose of the Dodge action. Though by using a reaction you're also giving up your own chance to make an opportunity attack. I would probably still make it only work when you're missed, though, not when you're hit. Or maybe just when you're attacked in general?

    The main problem is that it doesn't work once fights devolve to sitting there and hitting each other, because the opportunity cost of moving back into position to keep hitting you is negligible. There need to be other things in combat that make it tactically useful to use this type of movement.

    As mentioned above, you should be able to use an object interaction while doing this. And I could see class abilities interacting with this. For example, the classic ninja smoke bomb would be a perfect fit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    Creatures at the edge of their movement with multiple attacks lose some. Otherwise, they can follow you -- but if they are flanked, they make provoke OAs by doing so. So they might turn on other creatures instead.
    A good time to use it. Needs some thought into how many different ways it can interact with other abilities, such as giving disadvantage to an enemy that attacks someone other than you (though that's often limited to within 5').

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    In the event of a chase with identical speeds, you give ground, then double-move. They double-move and don't quite catch up. (The above "athletics check on a dash" makes identical speeds unlikely, but this rule does give a slight edge to the person fleeing)
    Yes, perfect.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Based on critiques, I rewrote some options, removed a couple, and added other ideas.



    Wary: You can use your reaction to move 5 feet in response to another [hostile?] creature's movement.

    Give Ground: After a creature makes an attack against you, you may use your reaction to move 5' away from that creature. This does not provoke opportunity attacks from that creature. If you are Dodging, you may Give Ground any time an attack misses you, without using a reaction. When Giving Ground as a reaction, you may make an object interaction with the environment.

    Screen: If you are adjacent to an ally who Gives Ground to a melee attack, you may use your reaction to move into the space the ally occupied, preventing the creature the ally moved away from from moving forward.

    Pivot: While Dodging, after a creature misses you with a melee attack, you may use your reaction to reposition the creature by 5' to an unoccupied space within 5' of you. You may not Give Ground if you Pivot.

    Charge: If you move at least 10' in a straight line towards a creature and Shove it, you may push that creature back a distance equal to half your remaining movement (minimum 5'). Your movement then ends.

    Jump Strike: If you make a running jump towards a creature that you are attacking, then your first hit does an additional 1d4 bludgeoning damage per 5' jumped, and you knock the opponent back 5' after all of your attacks are made (as long as at least one hits). If all of your attacks miss, you are knocked prone.


    Notes:

    When moving due to one of the above reactions, attempting to move into a space that is considered difficult terrain requires a DC 12 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to avoid falling prone.





    Considerations:

    Should these off-turn movements take away from your base movement? I'm inclined to say no. They're mostly limited to reactions, and thus you only get an extra 5', and the one that gets more (Dodge) already gave up a standard action to get that advantage.

    Wary is perhaps a little too broad. You don't have to move away from the creature, and in fact the creature doesn't even have to be moving towards you. On the other hand, maybe that's appropriate? If the guards rush the wizard, the paladin may move to protect him, even if it wasn't anticipated (ie: not using Ready when there are too many things that 'might' happen for that to be useful).

    Should Give Ground only apply to melee attacks? I can only really see it being appropriate against ranged attacks while Dodging. What about magic?

    Should there be some consequence for using Give Ground? It opens up lots of opportunities for making combat more dynamic, but it's also basically a free Disengage, while makes it really hard to use opportunity attacks. On the other hand, the enemy can just close the distance again (assuming it started next to you), preventing the free disengage. It also makes it easy for the enemy to turn towards another target without worrying about an opportunity attack from you. Overall, I don't think there needs to be a penalty.

    "Use an Object" is a bit broad for the object interaction that can be allowed. For example, it would allow the use of a healing kit (commonly used when Thieves get to use Use an Object as a bonus action), when that's clearly not desired. Or using a wand. Or healing potion. But you should be able to knock over a table, or close a door, or throw a mug of ale. Throwing a smoke grenade might be a specialist ability?




    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk
    The dash action could require a Strength(Athletics) check, and your movement would increase by the result of your roll.
    I've thought about this sort of thing before, especially in conjunction with reducing base movement. I've kinda decided that WotC basically did exactly that, but then also assumed that everyone was going to make their athletics checks all the time, and that it would be nothing but extra delay. Thus we end up with standard movement and no rolls.

    I would probably change the rules for jumps so that, if you have proficiency in athletics, you get that value added to your jump distance. But that's separate from the movement speed issue.
    Last edited by Moxxmix; 2020-07-02 at 10:00 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    sandmote's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    First, I think the second draft is really good. My only concern is that you should probably compare your concept to 4e's movement system, both to avoid its pitfalls and as a system some players might be used to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moxxmix View Post
    "Disengage", by RAW, generally means, "I don't want to be in this fight anymore." It's much harder to use it to change the dynamics of the fight, even though the inverse is not true: if you're trying to change the dynamics of the fight, you likely expect to use Disengage as part of that, since few of the other combat action options really lend themselves to that (other than maybe Hide, for rogues).

    The problem is not so much perhaps that disengaging is not doing what it's intended for, it's that players don't have any other explicit options to allow them to perform the way they imagine.
    Mmm, depending on you character's build and the enemy, dodging and dashing can outshine disengage for that principle. By RAW, I'd put disengage closer to "I want to get over there unharmed."

    A full on retreat should be hard both to discourage leeroy jenkins style play and for all the reasons it as been hard IRL.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Yakk's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Quote Originally Posted by Moxxmix View Post
    Based on critiques, I rewrote some options, removed a couple, and added other ideas.

    Wary: You can use your reaction to move 5 feet in response to another [hostile?] creature's movement.

    Give Ground: After a creature makes an attack against you, you may use your reaction to move 5' away from that creature. This does not provoke opportunity attacks from that creature. If you are Dodging, you may Give Ground any time an attack misses you, without using a reaction. When Giving Ground as a reaction, you may make an object interaction with the environment.
    These both sort of serve the same purpose.

    I'm leery about Give Ground because of the danger it nulllifies multiattack. This is why I made it "on a hit" trigger; you cannot nullify every attack they make.

    Screen: If you are adjacent to an ally who Gives Ground to a melee attack, you may use your reaction to move into the space the ally occupied, preventing the creature the ally moved away from from moving forward.
    Sure.

    Or we could say "You can expend a reaction to move into a square your ally leaves adjacent to you. This movement provokes opportunity attacks as normal."

    Pivot: While Dodging, after a creature misses you with a melee attack, you may use your reaction to reposition the creature by 5' to an unoccupied space within 5' of you. You may not Give Ground if you Pivot.
    You only have 1 reaction so the last sentence is noise.

    I'm not sure if this is worth the additional rules.
    Charge: If you move at least 10' in a straight line towards a creature and Shove it, you may push that creature back a distance equal to half your remaining movement (minimum 5'). Your movement then ends.
    "For every 2' of remaining movement, you can push that creature back 1' (min 5') as part of the Shove. You may choose to follow the creature during the shove as far as you want. After you shove, you cannot move this turn."
    Jump Strike: If you make a running jump towards a creature that you are attacking, then your first hit does an additional 1d4 bludgeoning damage per 5' jumped, and you knock the opponent back 5' after all of your attacks are made (as long as at least one hits). If all of your attacks miss, you are knocked prone.
    Meh.

    Should there be some consequence for using Give Ground? It opens up lots of opportunities for making combat more dynamic, but it's also basically a free Disengage, while makes it really hard to use opportunity attacks. On the other hand, the enemy can just close the distance again (assuming it started next to you), preventing the free disengage. It also akes it easy for the enemy to turn towards another target without worrying about an opportunity attack from you. Overall, I don't think there needs to be a penalty.
    This is why I restricted it to "when hit" among other things.

    Another suggestion is these flanking rules:

    Surrounded: If you end your turn surrounded by enemies on opposite sides, you become Flanked until you are no longer Surrounded. While Flanked, all attacks on you have advantage. Creatures who are themselves Flanked don't count for surrounding other creatures.

    This encourages dynamic combat. You want to threaten a surround, forcing an enemy to move (and possibly provoke OAs). If you are threatened with being Surrounded, you want to get out of there before you are destroyed.

    Note that the Flanked condition applies to all attack rolls, not just the creatures surrounding you.

    The "no flanking while flanked" rule removes the possibility of static flanking congo-lines. Flanked creatures don't flank.
    Last edited by Yakk; 2020-07-03 at 08:09 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    Quote Originally Posted by sandmote View Post
    First, I think the second draft is really good. My only concern is that you should probably compare your concept to 4e's movement system, both to avoid its pitfalls and as a system some players might be used to.
    I went and reviewed 4E's movement rules, and didn't see much that would have any impact. I'm sure there's a lot more once you factor in the various powers that affect movement in some way, but that's a bit harder to research.

    If there are particular issues or problem examples you'd like to point to, please do so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    These both sort of serve the same purpose.
    Sort of. And in fact all three reaction moves are similar enough that you could probably combine them into a single rule block. Keeping them separate may make them easier to examine and criticize.

    But, a possible rewrite:

    [Shift]: You may use a reaction to move 5'. Events that may enable this reaction include: a hostile creature's movement; being hit by a melee attack; or an adjacent ally using Shift (in which case you can shift into the space they vacated).

    Alternate version:

    [Shift]: You may use a reaction to move 5'. Events that may enable this reaction include: a hostile creature's movement (if you have not yet moved during this combat); being hit by a melee attack; or an adjacent ally using Shift (in which case you can shift into the space they vacated).

    This is to prevent the movement-reaction shift from happening all the time. The more I consider it, the more that that feels like a reaction that should only be allowed at the start of a battle, when events take an abrupt turn, and Readying an Action isn't appropriate or feasible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    I'm leery about Give Ground because of the danger it nulllifies multiattack. This is why I made it "on a hit" trigger; you cannot nullify every attack they make.
    Well, there are two forms: The normal one that uses a reaction (and I wasn't sure among hit, miss, or attack), and the Dodge version that doesn't use a reaction (that only works on a miss).

    Whether it nullifies multiattack depends on if the enemy has any movement left. If the enemy can still move, no attacks are nullified; you just repositioned where the fight is taking place. The only way it nullifies multiattack is if the enemy had reached the end of its movement before attacking you, and couldn't follow you as you moved.

    On the other hand, if the enemy couldn't move any further after you gave ground, that implies you could have used Wary and moved out of its reach entirely, before it ever got to attack you the first time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    Sure.

    Or we could say "You can expend a reaction to move into a square your ally leaves adjacent to you. This movement provokes opportunity attacks as normal."
    This is a bit tricky. Part of the point is that, as written, screening allows for something that 5E generally doesn't allow for: blocking movement.

    By standard 5E rules, you could step into the vacated space, and the enemy could completely ignore you, walking around you without even losing any movement speed. (The "2 diagonals = 3 squares of movement" rule would at least make it so that your movement had some impact on the enemy.)

    The DMG has rules for Overrun (Athletics check to shove past a creature to move through that square) and Tumble (Acrobatics check for the same purpose). Either can be used as a bonus action. However grid movement means that unless you're occupying a chokepoint, there's no reason to even try such an action; you can just walk around the enemy while they stare dumbly into the distance.

    Thinking about it, rules for screening likely get complex really fast, which is probably why the 5E design team didn't include them. At the same time, it's such a basic component of movement that it gets frustrating trying to work without it.

    I think the way that I'd approach it is to say that if you move diagonally such that you pass through part of an enemy-occupied square, and you did not use Overrun or Tumble to bypass that enemy, the enemy may make an opportunity attack against you. You are not prevented from crossing the space (such as would be if there were a wall there), but by entering the enemy's controlled area, you are opening yourself up for attack.

    So (using keypad notation again), if you are on spot 8, and your enemy is on spot 5, if you move 8-9-6 there's no opportunity attack, but if you simply move 8-6 there is an opportunity attack (unless you used Overrun or Tumble, which allow you to pass through the enemy's square this turn).

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    You only have 1 reaction so the last sentence is noise.
    That was put there to deal with Dodge allowing you to give ground on a miss without using a reaction. The rules for the interactions need to be clearer, though, I'll agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    "For every 2' of remaining movement, you can push that creature back 1' (min 5') as part of the Shove. You may choose to follow the creature during the shove as far as you want. After you shove, you cannot move this turn."
    I was wondering about whether to allow following or not. Might as well make it a choosable option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    Another suggestion is these flanking rules:

    Surrounded: If you end your turn surrounded by enemies on opposite sides, you become Flanked until you are no longer Surrounded. While Flanked, all attacks on you have advantage. Creatures who are themselves Flanked don't count for surrounding other creatures.
    This is part of the existing DMG rules, though, right? I'm not sure I need to add this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    This encourages dynamic combat. You want to threaten a surround, forcing an enemy to move (and possibly provoke OAs). If you are threatened with being Surrounded, you want to get out of there before you are destroyed.

    Note that the Flanked condition applies to all attack rolls, not just the creatures surrounding you.
    Ah, flanking giving advantage to everyone is different. I'm a little iffy on it, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    The "no flanking while flanked" rule removes the possibility of static flanking congo-lines. Flanked creatures don't flank.
    Yep.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Yakk's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: Movement rethink

    The core difference Surround has is that it doesn't activate until the END of a creature's turn.

    So moving into flanking position doesn't start a flank. The creature failing to get out does.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •