Translating 5e Movement Economy to 3.5e

[BlackOnyx]

Curious to hear if anyone has come across or developed their own means of adapting 5e's movement economy to 3.5e without tossing all of 3.5e's special movement types to the wayside (things like charges, full round actions, etc.).


In theory, I really like the idea of allowing players (and monsters) the ability to intersperse actions *throughout* their movement. It seems like an effective way to open up new dimensions of tactical choice while giving combat a much more natural/cinematic feel.


(By extension, does anyone feel that changing the system to this extent would *break* 3.5e in any way? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if so.)

[NigelWalmsley]

I'm not super familiar with the 5e rules, but it sounds like that basically amounts to giving everyone Spring Attack (and the spell equivalent). That seems fine, but I'm not convinced it solves many problems. The reason martials tend to be immobile in 3e is that to do appropriate damage they need to full attack, and if you full attack you can't move.

[Kayblis]

3.5 assumes a more static base for combat, because it's not as narrow as 5e in regards to statistics. A creature in 3.5 can have absurd move speeds even without any buffs, so having to move either before or after an attack is a base assumption of the system. The whole idea of full-attacks are predicated on the idea that, usually, you can expect an enemy to end its turn either adjacent to you or really close by. Without it, you can very very easily end up with 'kiting combats', in which a creature has enormous move speed(or is mounting one that has) and just moves in to hit an enemy then run away to outside the enemy's charging range. I'm not saying this isn't already doable, I'm saying it's hard to do for a reason.

There are feats that let you do that sort of movement though, like Spring Attack and Flyby Attack. They're a tax and have prerequisites, because it's a clear gain when compared to the standard. If they're good feats, bad feats, or somewhere inbetween, it's debatable - but they exist because they bypass the core idea of movement economy. Making them the norm would shift the melee combat flow quite a bit. First, AoOs will be more common and AoO-avoiding effects like Tumble will be used every single combat. Second, almost everyone will want a Reach weapon, because in this meta, if your reach is smaller than your opponent's, you're the sucker for this combat. Third, people will pump Move speed to be able to say "I win the combat by default" when they meet a slower enemy without Reach. This makes any critters without natural Reach(smaller than Large) worse, and natural weapons doubly worse by comparison. You'll often see people running aimlessly in combat to reach positions that are juuuust beyond the enemy's charging distance, which is less cinematic and more videogamey.

[stack]

You would have to reorder the action economy a bit. Full attacks would become standard actions and move actions would just become general 'movement' that can be spent at any time during your turn, even between attacks on a full attack. Anything else that used a move action would have to be shifted to a swift, a standard, or to consume some or all of your movement that turn.

Something like a charge would be a standard action that also lets you move up to your speed in a straight line.

Full-round actions are trickier; they could be a standard that prevents movement, or just make them a standard.

This kind of change would make martials more mobile, though you still have AOOs to deal with. Casters wouldn't notice too much, other than the annoying martials can get in their faces more easily. The value of various ways to move and attack go down (lion totem, travel devotion, some items), but I wouldn't say that is a bad thing.

[Necroticplague]

3.5 assumes a more static base for combat, because it's not as narrow as 5e in regards to statistics. A creature in 3.5 can have absurd move speeds even without any buffs, so having to move either before or after an attack is a base assumption of the system. The whole idea of full-attacks are predicated on the idea that, usually, you can expect an enemy to end its turn either adjacent to you or really close by. Without it, you can very very easily end up with 'kiting combats', in which a creature has enormous move speed(or is mounting one that has) and just moves in to hit an enemy then run away to outside the enemy's charging range. I'm not saying this isn't already doable, I'm saying it's hard to do for a reason.

Exactly. You can have statblocks with things like '300 feet/round' movement, while not having a deep amount of movement-increasing options for standard PCs. Because it's only barely beyond being fluff point once you get past the 60+ range most the time, and only matters within certain ranges under that. If everyone had a spring-attack like ability, those become much more relevant.

[Quertus]

When the Dragon can attack the party with impunity, you become much more Incentivized to play 5D chess.

Naturally, I approve.

[BlackOnyx]

I'm not super familiar with the 5e rules, but it sounds like that basically amounts to giving everyone Spring Attack (and the spell equivalent).

Good call. Representing things in terms of existing 3.5e feats helps keep things simple.


Treating all creatures as if they had Spring Attack and Shot on the Run would probably be easier than trying to explain/develop an entirely new movement system from scratch.

First, AoOs will be more common and AoO-avoiding effects like Tumble will be used every single combat.

Hmm...perhaps not a bad thing? The increased chance of AoOs seems like a decent tradeoff for greater creature mobility. Tumble becoming more important as a result doesn't necessarily strike me as a downside. If a character wants to move about without getting hit, it makes sense that they would have to invest in it.

Second, almost everyone will want a Reach weapon, because in this meta, if your reach is smaller than your opponent's, you're the sucker for this combat.

Valid point. That said...I kind of like the idea of making polearms more relevant. I don't see a lot of players that use them regularly. Actually giving their characters a reason to add them to their arsenal might make things a bit more interesting in some respects.


And while I won't even pretend to be an authority on historical weapon use, I have seen quite a few discussions/articles/videos highlighting polearms as the most effective weapons in real world terms (in a general sense). Whether or not that translates to better gameplay, I kind of like the idea behind it.

You would have to reorder the action economy a bit. Full attacks would become standard actions and move actions would just become general 'movement' that can be spent at any time during your turn, even between attacks on a full attack. Anything else that used a move action would have to be shifted to a swift, a standard, or to consume some or all of your movement that turn.

Something like a charge would be a standard action that also lets you move up to your speed in a straight line.

Full-round actions are trickier; they could be a standard that prevents movement, or just make them a standard.

Hmm...I'm a bit torn. Making existing full-round actions (including charges and full attacks) continue to prevent "regular" movement would probably be the simplest way to reconcile the two systems and give creatures/PCs something of a reason to stand their ground rather than solely "kiting" as others have mentioned...


...that said, for martials in particular, I do still hold fondness for the idea of giving individuals the option to spread their attacks out over a greater distance.


In terms of maintaining ease of use, though, perhaps this is where that compromise needs to be made. Avoiding an entire overhaul of the 3.5e action economy is probably the in the best interests of everyone involved.

Third, people will pump Move speed to be able to say "I win the combat by default" when they meet a slower enemy without Reach. You'll often see people running aimlessly in combat to reach positions that are juuuust beyond the enemy's charging distance, which is less cinematic and more videogamey.

Exactly. You can have statblocks with things like '300 feet/round' movement, while not having a deep amount of movement-increasing options for standard PCs. Because it's only barely beyond being fluff point once you get past the 60+ range most the time, and only matters within certain ranges under that. If everyone had a spring-attack like ability, those become much more relevant.

Thank you. These were the kinds of issues I was hoping to unearth.


Valid points. Base movement speeds in 3.5e do tend to vary more significantly than they do in 5e.


This in mind, perhaps a few generalized rulings that cut down on the range of possible movement speeds might help to minimize some of those issues?


For example:


- Base creature movement speed is limited to 80'. (Any listed speeds higher than that are rounded down.)


- Any boosts to movement beyond a creature's base speed (perhaps racial + inherent class bonuses?) overlap, rather than stack.

When the Dragon can attack the party with impunity, you become much more Incentivized to play 5D chess.

Naturally, I approve.

I do agree; the idea that combat with certain opponents becomes much more dangerous isn't necessarily a bad thing.


One thing I do like about changing up movement like this is that it makes ranged builds, mounted builds, and lighter armor types more attractive options than they might otherwise be. Whether or not that ends up being game breaking, I do like the idea behind it.

[Fitz10019]

A clarification, though...

When using Spring Attack, the character does not provoke AoOs from the target of the spring attack.

In 5e, you can break up your movement around your standard action, but you can still provoke OA's, although in a narrower set of circumstances.

You can 'give all characters 5e movement' without going so far as saying 'all characters get Spring Attack.' In my games, I allow breaking up movement around another move action, such as moving up to a door, opening it, and continuing the rest of the movement speed. The game has not broken over this, although it hasn't come up much in play.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

In terms of implementation, I think the easiest thing to do is just give everyone an extra move action, akin to a swift action in that you can still use it with a full-round action. That, however, still opens you up to all the design issues that others have mentioned.

For Tumble specifically, you might be able to get away with making the DC scale with HD. This also creates an interesting dynamic where you can dodge through waves of mooks without much risk, but trying the same thing on a more significant enemy is likely to see you getting punished; I think this would make for more cinematic combats, but it could break things as well.

[BlackOnyx]

A clarification, though....

When using Spring Attack, the character does not provoke AoOs from the target of the spring attack.

In 5e, you can break up your movement around your standard action, but you can still provoke OA's, although in a narrower set of circumstances.

Thank you. I'd entirely forgotten about that aspect of the feat.


Perhaps simply saying "you can break up your move action and otherwise provoke attacks as normal" would be a more accurate explanation.


That said, I suppose citing Spring Attack could still be useful for explaining the concept to your players. Something to the tune of "it's as if all creatures have spring attack, except that they still provoke AoOs from the defender." (At the very least, the feat provides a familiar precedent.)

You can 'give all characters 5e movement' without going so far as saying 'all characters get Spring Attack.' In my games, I allow breaking up movement around another move action, such as moving up to a door, opening it, and continuing the rest of the movement speed. The game has not broken over this, although it hasn't come up much in play.

This makes me wonder, for those with more experience playing 5e, is "kiting" a significant issue in combat over 3.5e? Does 5e have any specific safeguards in place that keep that style of movement from becoming a significant issue that 3.5e lacks? (Aside from 5e's narrower range of possible movement speeds discussed above.)

In terms of implementation, I think the easiest thing to do is just give everyone an extra move action, akin to a swift action in that you can still use it with a full-round action. That, however, still opens you up to all the design issues that others have mentioned.

For Tumble specifically, you might be able to get away with making the DC scale with HD. This also creates an interesting dynamic where you can dodge through waves of mooks without much risk, but trying the same thing on a more significant enemy is likely to see you getting punished; I think this would make for more cinematic combats, but it could break things as well.

Interesting ideas, though probably on the more complicated side of the spectrum. I imagine they might take a bit more playtesting/refining to implement successfully.

[Drelua]

For a weaker version of this, what if you let characters move 5 feet with every attack? Probably specify main hand attacks so twf doesn't become way more mobile, and put some limit on natural attacks, like 1 per 5 BAB, rounded up.

For the tumble being too easy problem, something like pathfinders CMD might help. Just a DC based on BAB and some other factors.

[Psyren]

To answer this more thoroughly, we need to define the differences between 5e movement/action economy and that in 3.5e/PF1. Once we have that laid out, anything can be translated to 3.5e with the right text.

I'm not a 5e expert, but IIRC some of these differences include:

1) In 5e, "full attacks" don't require a special action or longer action - rather, they are all doable as part of a regular action, but taken by someone who has the "Extra Attacks" feature, which is typically only given to martial classes. Shapeshifting (most commonly wild shape) also gives you all the attacks from the creature you turn into as a single action. This means that most martials in 5e can move and full attack.

2) in 5e, as long as you don't exceed your max movement, you can move any distance between all of your attacks. So if you had Extra Attack (2), you could move 10ft, swing, 15 more ft, swing again, then 5ft again and swing a final time with a 30ft. move. This is less Spring Attack and closer to Paimon's ability.

3) Some extra attacks in 5e however also use your bonus action (which roughly translates to the swift action in 3.P.) These include the offhand attack from two-weapon fighting, as well as flurry of blows and the bonus attack(s) from spending ki.

4) In 5e, standing up from prone does not cost your entire move action, rather it uses half your movement and then you can keep going. This makes some strategies (notably trip/knockdown) far less impactful.

5) In terms of what provokes in 5e, the only thing that does is leaving someone's threatened area. This means there's less need for things like 5-foot steps for casters and ranged.

There's a few more differences (e.g. Dash is just a double-move, whereas Run is 4x-6x) but that gives a baseline to start from.

[BlackOnyx]

For a weaker version of this, what if you let characters move 5 feet with every attack? Probably specify main hand attacks so twf doesn't become way more mobile, and put some limit on natural attacks, like 1 per 5 BAB, rounded up.

Hmm...interesting idea. Allowing iterative attacks (and only iterative attacks) to be broken up within one's movement might be one way to swing things without making *too* big of a wave.

That is, at BAB +1, the most you can do is move, attack, move.

At BAB +6/+1, the most you can do is move, attack, move, attack, move.

Essentially, you'd be making an unmodified full attack (with no additional attacks from class features, natural weapons, etc.) into a standard action that you could break up within your movement.

(That said, I imagine additional attacks that proc as a result of your standard iterative attacks, like Improved Trip, would continue to function as normal.)

Might still need to run a few stress tests on it, but the idea is promising.

For the tumble being too easy problem, something like pathfinders CMD might help. Just a DC based on BAB and some other factors.

Ooh. I'm a fan of this one, too. Maybe even changing the DC to 15 + opposed BAB would be enough.

To answer this more thoroughly, we need to define the differences between 5e movement/action economy and that in 3.5e/PF1. Once we have that laid out, anything can be translated to 3.5e with the right text.

I'm not a 5e expert, but IIRC some of these differences include:

1) In 5e, "full attacks" don't require a special action or longer action - rather, they are all doable as part of a regular action, but taken by someone who has the "Extra Attacks" feature, which is typically only given to martial classes. Shapeshifting (most commonly wild shape) also gives you all the attacks from the creature you turn into as a single action. This means that most martials in 5e can move and full attack.

Takeaways:

- Martials can move and "full attack" in 5e

- Only martials (and shapeshifters) typically have bonus attacks

Understood.

2) in 5e, as long as you don't exceed your max movement, you can move any distance between all of your attacks. So if you had Extra Attack (2), you could move 10ft, swing, 15 more ft, swing again, then 5ft again and swing a final time with a 30ft. move. This is less Spring Attack and closer to Paimon's ability.

Takeaways:

- Movement can be split up between any number of attacks in 5e

3) Some extra attacks in 5e however also use your bonus action (which roughly translates to the swift action in 3.P.) These include the offhand attack from two-weapon fighting, as well as flurry of blows and the bonus attack(s) from spending ki.

Takeaways:

- 5e characters typically need to expend more of their available actions to gain extra attacks

(Correct me if I'm mistaken)

4) In 5e, standing up from prone does not cost your entire move action, rather it uses half your movement and then you can keep going. This makes some strategies (notably trip/knockdown) far less impactful.

Takeaway:

- Falling prone (a situation one might experience from a failed tumble check in 3.5e) is not as significant an issue for a 5e character

5) In terms of what provokes in 5e, the only thing that does is leaving someone's threatened area. This means there's less need for things like 5-foot steps for casters and ranged.

Takeaway:

- 5e AoOs only occur when a character leaves an enemy's threatened area

(This means they can maneuver *within* the enemy's threatened area without provoking, correct?)



***

These takeaways in mind...the potential concerns that I could see arising from allowing creatures to break up their move action under the 3.5e framework (as opposed to the 5e framework) would be:



- Creature movement ranges in 3.5e vary more greatly than they do in 5e (discussed earlier in the thread)


- 3.5e tumble checks can be made as part of one's movement (rather than expending a discrete bonus action as is the case in 5e, if I'm not mistaken)


- Characters in 3.5e have the potential to accumulate a greater number of additional attacks without expending their available actions


- Only martial builds/natural weapon builds (i.e. shapechange builds) tend to have access to bonus attacks in 5e


(If there's any other significant issues I may have missed, feel free to list them below.)

[Quertus]

Takeaways:

- Martials can move and "full attack" in 5e

This is, IMO, the big one.

So, to translate this to 3e, "'Full Attack' is a Standard Action" and "Attacks from a Full Attack Action may be interspersed with movement". Done (other than wording that last one better)?

Well, not quite. There are similar actions that would need to be accounted for, like Flurry of Blows or Rapid Shot (unless they all simply modify the "Full Attack" action).

And, yes, if you really wanted to emulate 5e, you could make some of those modifiers eat the Swift Action, but meh. Give Martials some love, let them keep their actions.

Things that give a Standard Action become a bit stronger. Dragons still roflstomp. Certain strategies become more popular. 5D chess is all but mandated.

Sounds good to me.

[Arkain]

Rather just a thought, but how about sacrificing say a third of your movement for every iterative attack you decide to use? So if you can move say 60 feet, you use up 40, make your BAB/-5/-10 and still have 20 left. Add bonus attacks like Rapid Shot, TWF and such, but this way you could decide how much you want to play the movement game and hopefully not screw everything over too much, even with high movement rates, which you might also limit so you don't end up with overly absurd kiting scenarios. Maybe also offer some way to use movement speed for defence and/or apply either additional bonuses or penalties if you don't move or move respectively during your attacks, dunno. Might make things a bit less static, but not quite as extreme, as other users have warned about.

[edit] Of course you only realize somebody had a similar idea (Drelua) after posting

[Drelua]

Hmm...interesting idea. Allowing iterative attacks (and only iterative attacks) to be broken up within one's movement might be one way to swing things without making *too* big of a wave.

That is, at BAB +1, the most you can do is move, attack, move.

At BAB +6/+1, the most you can do is move, attack, move, attack, move.

Essentially, you'd be making an unmodified full attack (with no additional attacks from class features, natural weapons, etc.) into a standard action that you could break up within your movement.

(That said, I imagine additional attacks that proc as a result of your standard iterative attacks, like Improved Trip, would continue to function as normal.)

Might still need to run a few stress tests on it, but the idea is promising.

Yeah, you'd have to figure out how this would relate to five foot steps. Maybe only one of your steps doesn't provoke, but if you can choose which one that might make avoiding AoOs too easy. Could have it be your first step that doesn't provoke, or it only doesn't provoke if you only move 5 feet that turn. Might have to run some tests to see which one would work best.

Ooh. I'm a fan of this one, too. Maybe even changing the DC to 15 + opposed BAB would be enough.

Yeah, in Pathfinder it's 10 + BAB + STR + DEX + size (bonus if bigger than medium, penalty if smaller) + any AC bonus other than armour, shield, or natural armour. Or size, since that's already covered. I probably wouldn't use this exact formula if it was just for the DC to not provoke, since it's a bit weird that, say, a dodge or deflection bonus to AC makes it harder to move past you. making it start with 15 + BAB like you said might be a good way to balance out taking a bunch of bonuses off it, maybe just add DEX or something. Still easy to get a skill bonus high enough to get make it reliably, but you at least have to put some resources into it. Oh, and in Pathfinder it costs double movement, like difficult terrain, to avoid provoking, and the DC goes up by 5 if you're moving through their square instead of their threatened area.

I would be interested in a good way to do this, I have a Pathfinder game with my roommates and 2 of them are used to 5e so they miss being able to move and attack. Not that it makes much difference at level 2, so I've got a few levels before this becomes much of a problem. Maybe I'll test some things next game.

Plus combat gets boring in if you're just standing in front of someone hitting each other for much more than a round. I'd play a simpler system if I didn't want to roll piles of dice, but that doesn't mean I want to spend turn after turn just rolling the same pile of dice. Also, if you want more mobility, it might be worth taking a look at PF's Step Up line of feats. Being able to follow someone when they 5 foot step away from you, and get an attack if you have all 3 feats, is a fun way to have something to do when it's not your turn.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Oh, and in Pathfinder it costs double movement, like difficult terrain, to avoid provoking, and the DC goes up by 5 if you're moving through their square instead of their threatened area.

That's true for 3.5 Tumble as well, except that moving through someone's square increases the DC by 10, and you can take a -10 penalty to move at your full speed.


I don't think adding 5e movement to 3.5 adds much or solves anything. I agree with Kayblis' analysis: many things depend on movement being somewhat restricted. I don't think it's worth redesigning the system over this. You can move the system a little closer to 5e, though, and add some abilities that allow breaking of moves.

For example, you could break a move (once only, as with Flyby Attack) to make an attack with a Jump/Tumble check or an Athletics/Acrobatics check (in PF), or Climb, Ride, Swim, Fly (in PF) as appropriate for the situation. You could break a move while casting with a Concentration check (not in PF, but a CL check might work?). You could associate certain actions with Bluff or Sleight of Hand, too. For all of these, you would be moving at half speed, unless you take the -10 penalty (or a penalty depending on how many feet of movement you want to use?). There could also be skill tricks for breaking moves to do various things, breaking a full attack, and so on. That would actually add mechanics, instead of nullifying a bunch of 3.5 assumptions and limits.

The result would be that your high-Concentration wizard can break a move action to cast a spell, but they might not have the Tumble ranks to attack on the move (as the rogue does). It's a limited system, but by being limited, it sets the different approaches apart a little more. That's one of the things I like about 3.5's move-and-full attack optimization: each way is a little different.

What I'm concerned about is the lack of good Strength-based skills in 3.5. Jump is a bit too limited for what it's intended to do in this system. You may just have to repurpose it and call it Athletics.

[Drelua]

That's true for 3.5 Tumble as well, except that moving through someone's square increases the DC by 10, and you can take a -10 penalty to move at your full speed.

It's been so long since I played 3.5 I forget how it works. Maybe adding 10 to the DC would be better if CMD isn't scaling as much. 15 + BAB, or 25 + BAB if moving through their squares, would still be fairly easy to do with a little effort into upping the skill. Gives monsters with a lot of HD a bit of an advantage, but it's a small enough flaw that I wouldn't worry about it.

I don't think adding 5e movement to 3.5 adds much or solves anything.

I would argue that it adds something. If you play a lot of martial characters but find combat boring when it mostly consists of standing still and full-attacking, this could help make it more interesting. At higher levels full attacks become so important that your main concern is just being able to do them, and options that involve moving tend to be worse because you're only making the one attack. That's why pounce and free/swift action movement are so highly valued. This would somewhat devalue those options, which I would say makes things more balanced, though of course it may imbalance Other things. Still, it's a houserule that helps the weaker classes more than the stronger ones - casters - so that can be a good thing. While one could argue that if what you want doesn't fit with what 3.5 does, you're playing the wrong system, my response to this would be that if you're playing the wrong system, then houserule it into the right one.

[sreservoir]

The mounted combat mechanics gets non-melee build about half of the way there and are quite attractive to characters that don't run up against the restriction on melee full attacks in general. The poor availability of viable mounts if you're not building for them specifically gets to be a problem at higher levels, but a mule trained for combat riding is impressively cost effective 1st-level "equipment".

[ExLibrisMortis]

I would argue that it adds something. If you play a lot of martial characters but find combat boring when it mostly consists of standing still and full-attacking, this could help make it more interesting. At higher levels full attacks become so important that your main concern is just being able to do them, and options that involve moving tend to be worse because you're only making the one attack. That's why pounce and free/swift action movement are so highly valued. This would somewhat devalue those options, which I would say makes things more balanced, though of course it may imbalance Other things.

If combat consists of standing still and full-attacking, you haven't built your characters well. One of the main drivers of 3.5 melee optimization is delivering your full attack; it isn't trivial, like it is in 5e, and builds will reflect that. Removing the problem (along with a lot of tactical melee combat) stops you from applying interesting solutions to the problem, which makes every melee character feel a lot more similar, all of a sudden.

In short: the only reason you would use 5e-style movement is because you want to remove something from the game. Now, Ao knows there's enough stuff that can be removed--3.5 isn't exactly lightweight. But simplifying 3.5 is like making a supercar comfortable--you can, maybe, but why would you want to?

Still, it's a houserule that helps the weaker classes more than the stronger ones - casters - so that can be a good thing. While one could argue that if what you want doesn't fit with what 3.5 does, you're playing the wrong system, my response to this would be that if you're playing the wrong system, then houserule it into the right one.

I disagree that 5e-style movement helps weaker classes more. First of all, a full attack is still (usually) a full-round action, whereas most spells are standard actions. So your casters get a lot more mobile, especially with their short-range spells (e.g. scorching ray, orb of fire), while martials are still stuck with their 5' steps. And if you do solve that by also importing some 5e action economy rules, you still favour casters, who are now summoning full-attacking mobs on the move (or, in the case of gishes, full attacking themselves). There is nothing you can do to the 3.5 action economy that doesn't ultimately end up making strong classes stronger.

[Psyren]

Takeaways:

- Martials can move and "full attack" in 5e

- Only martials (and shapeshifters) typically have bonus attacks

Correct

- 5e characters typically need to expend more of their available actions to gain extra attacks

(Correct me if I'm mistaken)

Not quite. The key thing here is that most martials get two attacks per (standard) action, i.e. no other actions required.

5e Fighters are special because they can get up to 4 with a single action. Druids get however many are in the animal that they turned into (usually 1-3.) Moon Druids are the only ones you really want using wildshape for combat past low levels however.

Barbarians, Monks, Rangers, and Paladins all max out at 2 attacks per (standard) action. However, all of those classes can get an additional attack via the Bonus (swift) action as well - most commonly via TWF, but Monks of course can get even more than that. A monk can end up with as many attacks as a fighter, but they have to use their bonus to do so (and spend ki, their daily resource.)

- Falling prone (a situation one might experience from a failed tumble check in 3.5e) is not as significant an issue for a 5e character

Correct

- 5e AoOs only occur when a character leaves an enemy's threatened area

(This means they can maneuver *within* the enemy's threatened area without provoking, correct?)

Correct

[Drelua]

If combat consists of standing still and full-attacking, you haven't built your characters well.

Not gonna argue with you there, my players/roommates definitely haven't built their characters well. Even my friends with more system mastery than me don't build their characters to be super optimized. That's not a mistake, though, there's nothing wrong with building a character that's less effective than it could be. I've played with groups in PFS that can steamroll anything the scenario puts in front of them, and groups of 5-6 that struggle where one optimized character could handle everything alone, no sweat. For me, the less optimized but still competent groups, not all the way at the bottom of the optimization range, but closer to the bottom than the top, are more fun. Yes, in an optimized group, nothing short of a full rebuild to the point that you aren't playing 3.5 anymore is going to make casters and martials balanced. But houserules don't need to be balanced in all possible groups, just in the group that will be playing with them. I've lost interest in playing or building super optimized characters, so any houserules I make will be made with that in mind. Something that could break your game might fix mine.

One of the main drivers of 3.5 melee optimization is delivering your full attack; it isn't trivial, like it is in 5e, and builds will reflect that. Removing the problem (along with a lot of tactical melee combat) stops you from applying interesting solutions to the problem, which makes every melee character feel a lot more similar, all of a sudden.

I did basically say that. Yes, builds will reflect that need to get your full attacks. To me, this narrows the range of builds that I see, which takes away from the fun. When every well built martial sinks resources into getting pounce and free action movement, you see less variety. It's not interesting solutions to the problem when every martial has the same solutions to the same problem.

In short: the only reason you would use 5e-style movement is because you want to remove something from the game. Now, Ao knows there's enough stuff that can be removed--3.5 isn't exactly lightweight. But simplifying 3.5 is like making a supercar comfortable--you can, maybe, but why would you want to?

I've gotta disagree with the assertion that the only reason to add this is to remove something. I'd be interested in adding mobility to martial characters because I think it would add fun, believablity, and variety to combat. Fun because rolling the same pile of dice turn after turn gets boring. Believable because a dramatic fight with a dragon should consist of more than walking up to the dragon and hacking at its toes until it falls over. Variety because when all you're trying to do is get a full attack, that's all you end up doing. Just a series of full attacks punctuated by actions that get you a full attack. But if I were to agree that I just wanted to remove something, it would be the monotony.

I disagree that 5e-style movement helps weaker classes more. First of all, a full attack is still (usually) a full-round action, whereas most spells are standard actions. So your casters get a lot more mobile, especially with their short-range spells (e.g. scorching ray, orb of fire), while martials are still stuck with their 5' steps. And if you do solve that by also importing some 5e action economy rules, you still favour casters, who are now summoning full-attacking mobs on the move (or, in the case of gishes, full attacking themselves). There is nothing you can do to the 3.5 action economy that doesn't ultimately end up making strong classes stronger.

You're absolutely right. There's no way to balance 3.5 so martials and casters are equal. If you look at the optimization ceiling, that is. In a group that doesn't have the knowledge to follow half of this conversation - nothing wrong with that - casters don't seem quite as overpowered. It's the same in a group that chooses not to put the effort into building their characters. I have an inquisitor that took two levels of cavalier because I wanted him to be better at wild empathy. He might be the party's most effective character in combat, and 2 of the other 4 players know more about Pathfinder than I do. What you're saying is 100% true in the sort of games these forums tend to assume people are playing. In the sort of games I play, casters aren't that great. A druid is still going to be terrifying, you have to be trying to screw them up, but it's still far from the point where the other characters feel useless. What a houserule like this will do in a low-op environment is very different from what it will do in high-op. A caster has more resources that could take advantage of a rule like this, but if you know your group lacks the will or the knowledge to do that, then it won't imbalance your game.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I've lost interest in playing or building super optimized characters, so any houserules I make will be made with that in mind. Something that could break your game might fix mine.

Fair enough. If you don't actually see move + full attack optimization in game, I suppose there's no point trying to preserve any fun/interest that might be found there .

[Drelua]

Fair enough. If you don't actually see move + full attack optimization in game, I suppose there's no point trying to preserve any fun/interest that might be found there .

Yeah, there's countless ways to play D&D, very few of them wrong.

Plus I mainly play PF, with 3.5 stuff brought in whenever there's nothing similar. There's a lot less ways to get pounce in PF - the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are natural attack only - and swift action movement is a lot less common.

[Endarire]

Polearms are still quite valuable. Hood.

[BlackOnyx]

Thank you for all the input. Some good discussion here on all sides.

When every well built martial sinks resources into getting pounce and free action movement, you see less variety. It's not interesting solutions to the problem when every martial has the same solutions to the same problem.

What a houserule like this will do in a low-op environment is very different from what it will do in high-op. A caster has more resources that could take advantage of a rule like this, but if you know your group lacks the will or the knowledge to do that, then it won't imbalance your game.

Although I didn't mention it in my initial post, my main interest in developing a more free-form movement system for 3.5e is centered on its implementation at lower levels of play (namely within a very "round-down" E6 environment).


While heavy optimization can still make a difference with a 6th level character, I'd like to think that the playing field at this stage is at least *somewhat* more even than it would be for characters 10th level+. From what I've seen in E6, my players have been able to select traditionally "lower-op" character options without worrying too much about falling behind the rest of the pack. (That is to say, breadth becomes a lot more important/valuable.)


The idea of allowing characters to be a bit more creative in how they approach tactical play (particularly movement) without having to invest in a very specific subset of classes/spells/feat lines really appeals to me. I like to see the unconventional things players decide to do when their "baselines" are already covered.


***


Again, good thoughts all around.


I'll probably look into things a bit further, but for now, some of the options/talking points I'll be taking under consideration are:


- House ruling a smaller available range of creature base movements

- House ruling that movement bonuses don't stack

- Allowing movement to be broken up around actions (full-round actions would still restrict movement unless otherwise specified)

- Possibly turning full attacks into standard actions (and/or some BAB based variant of allowing these attacks to be split up over movement)

- Possibly increasing the DC of tumble checks to 15+BAB

- Possibly requiring skill checks to attack, cast, etc. when breaking up movement around actions


Ease of use is probably the biggest thing I'm looking for at the end of the day. I like a lot about how combat works in 3.5e (as do my players), and I'd like to avoid *completely* throwing what it has to offer out the door.


That said, it might be a while before I have the chance to try anything in person (life and all), but here's looking forward to when that time comes.

[Drelua]

- Possibly turning full attacks into standard actions (and/or some BAB based variant of allowing these attacks to be split up over movement)

One thing to keep in mind here is that making a full attack a standard action doesn't just mean you can move, it means you can take any kind of move action. Not necessarily a bid thing, but it's worth asking if you want characters to be able to draw a weapon, or stand from prone, or take any other sort of move action in addition to full attacking, or if you just want them to be able to move their speed in addition to a full attack. If the latter, then making a full attack a full round action that includes a certain amount of movement, rather than just a standard, would make a difference. Also, if it's just a standard, that doesn't help characters move before and after an action, as is the problem with the example of walking up to a door, opening it, and continuing to move.

That said, it might be a while before I have the chance to try anything in person (life and all), but here's looking forward to when that time comes.

Hopefully I'll have a game with my roommates sometime in the next week or so, I'll see if I can fit some tests into that. The players are only level 2 though, so they only have 1 attack per round, except maybe the barbarian, so I'm not sure how much it'll come up but I'll try it.

[BlackOnyx]

One thing to keep in mind here is that making a full attack a standard action doesn't just mean you can move, it means you can take any kind of move action. Not necessarily a bid thing, but it's worth asking if you want characters to be able to draw a weapon, or stand from prone, or take any other sort of move action in addition to full attacking, or if you just want them to be able to move their speed in addition to a full attack. If the latter, then making a full attack a full round action that includes a certain amount of movement, rather than just a standard, would make a difference. Also, if it's just a standard, that doesn't help characters move before and after an action, as is the problem with the example of walking up to a door, opening it, and continuing to move.

You know, I almost wonder if it wouldn't be easier to leave full attack alone and just adjust the definition of a standard attack.

That is—under a ruleset where the move action can be broken up around other discrete actions and all else functions the same otherwise—something to the tune of:


"Standard Action (Attack):

You can strike/shoot/throw (etc.) at any opponent within range once per each iterative attack allowed by BAB. For characters granted more than one strike/shot/throw from BAB, these strikes/shots/throws can be broken up amid one's movement."


Traditional full attacks (those that would incorporate any bonus attacks/damage/effects specific to full attacks from feats, spells, and class features) would still restrict movement.

Any spells, feats, or class features that specifically replace/modify a standard attack would completely replace all available "strikes/shots/throws" the standard attack would typically allow, regardless of how many strikes/shots/throws a creature's BAB grants them. (Again, looking more toward lower levels of play where most creatures/characters would be maxing out at two "strikes" per standard attack.)

Traditional methods of getting move + full attack would still give martials an edge, but this could make their old standby, the standard attack, a more attractive choice (in regards to allowing movement) from time to time. It would be a bit of a compromise from what you see in 5e, but it might help to avoid reworking too much of the balance inherent to full round actions in 3.5e.



If something like that still proves too finicky...perhaps it'd be best not to change how attacking works at all and solely change the rules behind the move action itself.

Even just being able to run up to an enemy, make a vanilla 3.5e standard attack, and race off toward the next target sounds like it could open up some new lines of tactical approach.

Hopefully I'll have a game with my roommates sometime in the next week or so, I'll see if I can fit some tests into that. The players are only level 2 though, so they only have 1 attack per round, except maybe the barbarian, so I'm not sure how much it'll come up but I'll try it.

Would very much like to hear how it works out.

[noob]

Basically give the cleric dip for travel devotion to all the martial characters?

[Fitz10019]

Takeaway:

- Falling prone (a situation one might experience from a failed tumble check in 3.5e)

Failing a Tumble check results in an AoO from the foe you tumble past. Falling prone is not associated with Tumble, normally.

I think Tumble DC 15 + BAB is too high. I suggest 15 + (My foe's BAB - My BAB). It's usually medium BAB characters that Tumble, so I think that would keep it interesting over many levels.