Can we keep shifting

Even while playing without a battle map opportunity attacks happen. Some characters are adept at avoiding these however.

If the designers ever create movement abilities that represent mobility around enemies that does not provoke opportunity attacks, they would be wise to keep shifting.

If the do not, every ability will need to state: "this movement does not provoke opportunity stacks". Shifting simplifies this process for both gridded ad TotM combat.

My 5e Homebrew Material

The 5e Swordsage

The Hero: A Modular 5e Class

You can move around in an enemies threatned area as long as you don't leave it without provoking an OA. To leave a threatened area you have to use a withdraw action. But then you can freely move wherever. What particular function is missing that shifting needs to be there for? The famous 5 ft back and spell?
My two copper.
So you are asking for them to reduce the player's mobility by putting in the requirement for shifting.  Personally, I prefer the current rules over those from either 3.x or 4E.

They slow things down less and allow for greater mobility.  What more do you want?

Carl
How does this allow for greater mobility? Stepping out of an enemy's threatened space always requires an action (disengage), meaning that you can't do anything else that turn. That doesn't sound like greater mobility to me. That sounds like severely reduced mobility. Unless you took a specific maneuver or other character option, you have no way of avoiding opportunity attacks.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I'm thinking of the future here, not what we have now.

Examples:

Tumble: make an acrobatics check to shift 1/2 your speed as a move action.

Tide of Iron: as a standard action make a melee attack. If the attack hits you may push the target 5 ft and then shift into the square it left.

Deft strike: as a standard action make a melee attack. You may shift 5 feet before or after the attack.

Etc.

If every ability that gave movement that allowed you to move around one or more enemies required the sentence: "this movement does not provoke opportunity attacks" it would get old fast.
How does this allow for greater mobility? Stepping out of an enemy's threatened space always requires an action (disengage), meaning that you can't do anything else that turn. That doesn't sound like greater mobility to me. That sounds like severely reduced mobility. Unless you took a specific maneuver or other character option, you have no way of avoiding opportunity attacks.



Withdraw action allows you to move 10 feet without provoking

yeah it takes trainging to do this and get an attack (funny enough the fighter gets 2 attacks on a spring attack after 6th level)

I think that is kinda the point though...the only way to do this and get an attack off is to be trained in doing so.

Luckily anyone will be able to pick up that ability via feats.  They have said multiple times you will be able to get maneuvers from feats.
I'm thinking of the future here, not what we have now. Examples: Tumble: make an acrobatics check to shift 1/2 your speed as a move action. Tide of Iron: as a standard action make a melee attack. If the attack hits you may push the target 5 ft and then shift into the square it left. Deft strike: as a standard action make a melee attack. You may shift 5 feet before or after the attack. Etc. If every ability that gave movement that allowed you to move around one or more enemies required the sentence: "this movement does not provoke opportunity attacks" it would get old fast.




I don't think they are going to be handing this ability out nilly willy though.  You will actually have to face a detriment for letting the enemy close to melee when you don't want them there.  You will have to take a turn to get away, and hope somone gets in the way to stop them from making it to you again (yay strategic team work).
Withdraw action allows you to move 10 feet without provoking

Was it actually called Withdraw at any point in Next? Because people keep calling it that, but I don't remember it ever being anything other than Disengage.

yeah it takes trainging to do this and get an attack (funny enough the fighter gets 2 attacks on a spring attack after 6th level)
I think that is kinda the point though...the only way to do this and get an attack off is to be trained in doing so.

That wasn't my question, though. I understand that "that's the point", but my question was how then somebody could claim that this system offered greater mobility.

Luckily anyone will be able to pick up that ability via feats.  They have said multiple times you will be able to get maneuvers from feats.

That's still not going to help casters.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Withdraw action allows you to move 10 feet without provoking

Was it actually called Withdraw at any point in Next? Because people keep calling it that, but I don't remember it ever being anything other than Disengage.

yeah it takes trainging to do this and get an attack (funny enough the fighter gets 2 attacks on a spring attack after 6th level)
I think that is kinda the point though...the only way to do this and get an attack off is to be trained in doing so.

That wasn't my question, though. I understand that "that's the point", but my question was how then somebody could claim that this system offered greater mobility.

Luckily anyone will be able to pick up that ability via feats.  They have said multiple times you will be able to get maneuvers from feats.

That's still not going to help casters.



sorry your right disengage...my bad

yet again I'm fairly sure that is the point.  your caster will have to be smart and not get closed on...does help that casting doesn't provoke sooo you know find a way to push them on the regular...also if you stay in their reach they get no opportunity attacks sooo that's also cool.
How does this allow for greater mobility? Stepping out of an enemy's threatened space always requires an action (disengage), meaning that you can't do anything else that turn. That doesn't sound like greater mobility to me. That sounds like severely reduced mobility. Unless you took a specific maneuver or other character option, you have no way of avoiding opportunity attacks.



Withdraw action allows you to move 10 feet without provoking

yeah it takes trainging to do this and get an attack (funny enough the fighter gets 2 attacks on a spring attack after 6th level)

I think that is kinda the point though...the only way to do this and get an attack off is to be trained in doing so.

Luckily anyone will be able to pick up that ability via feats.  They have said multiple times you will be able to get maneuvers from feats.




I've actually been allowing Disengage in place of their normal movement. Its a pain that everything that isn't an attack takes up your attack unless it is something rediculously simple. As for whether the concept of disengaging and being able to still attack is difficult enough that only a trained individual can do it. That really isn't the case, it's really not that hard to back up quickly and safely.
yet again I'm fairly sure that is the point.

I feel like you're not understanding the question that I'm asking. I know that's the point. I am not even arguing one way or the other whether it's a good or bad thing. That is not my question. My question is how somebody could claim that this system offered greater mobility. That is all. If you are trying to argue, and it appears that you are, that the system does not offer greater mobility and instead more heavily restricts mobility, then you should be asking the exact same question that I am.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
yet again I'm fairly sure that is the point.

I feel like you're not understanding the question that I'm asking. I know that's the point. I am not even arguing one way or the other whether it's a good or bad thing. That is not my question. My question is how somebody could claim that this system offered greater mobility. That is all. If you are trying to argue, and it appears that you are, that the system does not offer greater mobility and instead more heavily restricts mobility, then you should be asking the exact same question that I am.



I claim that it offers more mobility.  I am not asking for the "shift" maneuver of 4e.  I am asking for shift as a type of movement (just like, fly, swim, teleport, and burrow are forms of movement).  This would allow 5e designers to make movement abilities that would simply require "shift X" instead of "move X, this movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity."
I claim that it offers more mobility. I am not asking for the "shift" maneuver of 4e.

I am confused. How does the current game offer more mobility? Yeah, there's the part about being able to move within threatened range without provoking, but that's not nearly as useful as some people keep seeming to insist that it is. After that, the only way to move out of threatened space is by requiring an action rather than allowing it to be done as part of movement. So how is that more mobility?

I am asking for shift as a type of movement (just like, fly, swim, teleport, and burrow are forms of movement).

That does not sound like a good idea. It implies that it's mutually exclusive with all of those other kinds of movement. Things should still be able to "shift" while flying, swimming, etc.

This would allow 5e designers to make movement abilities that would simply require "shift X" instead of "move X, this movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

That part I'm fine with. It's the rest that seems to make no sense.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
 

I don't think they are going to be handing this ability out nilly willy though.  You will actually have to face a detriment for letting the enemy close to melee when you don't want them there.  You will have to take a turn to get away, and hope somone gets in the way to stop them from making it to you again (yay strategic team work).



They handed out flight pretty will'he nill'he in my opinion...  though the concentration requisite might make that not so true... I wonder if its sufficient.

4e handed out short range battle field teleport a bit like candy.  
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

You guys know you can move after a disengage right? Disengage is your action and then you can do a full move after that. A shift takes your movement for the turn, even in 3e when it wasn't a move action you still could not move afterward. That is how it offers greater mobility. 

1) You can move around in an enemies threatened area without provoking.

2) You can full move after disengage.

Those two offer MUCH more mobility than the 5 ft step. 
My two copper.
You guys know you can move after a disengage right? Disengage is your action and then you can do a full move after that.

I don't see how that's relevant?

A shift takes your movement for the turn, even in 3e when it wasn't a move action you still could not move afterward.

Uh, if you wanted to move more after taking a 5-foot-step, why wouldn't you use the Withdraw action instead?

1) You can move around in an enemies threatened area without provoking.
2) You can full move after disengage.
Those two offer MUCH more mobility than the 5 ft step. 

No way, the old Withdraw action took care of 2 perfectly, so only 1 is left as a benefit, which is still not nearly as big a deal as people keep trying to make it out to be. All the while, disengage is now an action, meaning you can't actually take any other real actions on the same turn. That is clearly less mobility.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
You guys know you can move after a disengage right? Disengage is your action and then you can do a full move after that.

I don't see how that's relevant?

A shift takes your movement for the turn, even in 3e when it wasn't a move action you still could not move afterward.

Uh, if you wanted to move more after taking a 5-foot-step, why wouldn't you use the Withdraw action instead?

1) You can move around in an enemies threatened area without provoking.
2) You can full move after disengage.
Those two offer MUCH more mobility than the 5 ft step. 

No way, the old Withdraw action took care of 2 perfectly, so only 1 is left as a benefit, which is still not nearly as big a deal as people keep trying to make it out to be. All the while, disengage is now an action, meaning you can't actually take any other real actions on the same turn. That is clearly less mobility.


Because the thread is about keeping the 5 ft step, not the withdraw action.
My two copper.
Because the thread is about keeping the 5 ft step, not the withdraw action.

This thread isn't about keeping either of those things. This thread is about keeping "shifting" as part of the terminology as a short hand for movement that doesn't provoke opportunity attacks. Shift, withdraw, and 5-foot-step are three completely different things.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
yet again I'm fairly sure that is the point.

I feel like you're not understanding the question that I'm asking. I know that's the point. I am not even arguing one way or the other whether it's a good or bad thing. That is not my question. My question is how somebody could claim that this system offered greater mobility. That is all. If you are trying to argue, and it appears that you are, that the system does not offer greater mobility and instead more heavily restricts mobility, then you should be asking the exact same question that I am.



I claim that it offers more mobility.  I am not asking for the "shift" maneuver of 4e.  I am asking for shift as a type of movement (just like, fly, swim, teleport, and burrow are forms of movement).  This would allow 5e designers to make movement abilities that would simply require "shift X" instead of "move X, this movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity."



  That's why the current one offers more mobility because I can disengage and then move my full speed.  if shift was a type of movement it really wouldn't be all that helpful it would get you 10 feet back but then things could close with you next turn.  basically the disengage allows for more mobility because it actually increases your move speed by 10, allows you to disengage and get so far away that many things could not close with you now after 1 disengage you can tactically move around the board staying out of the creatures reach hitting it with arrows, spells, rocks, whatever it is you have for a ranged attack. heck as a fighter you can get a maneuver and hit the thing as you leave...Twice, after you hit sixth level (or two targets during the disengage).  the only way it could be better is if they upped the distance. 
No, we should get rid of shifting and come up with a 2-3 sentence description for every time a character wants to slip past an enemy without provoking an OA...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
How does this allow for greater mobility? Stepping out of an enemy's threatened space always requires an action (disengage), meaning that you can't do anything else that turn. That doesn't sound like greater mobility to me. That sounds like severely reduced mobility. Unless you took a specific maneuver or other character option, you have no way of avoiding opportunity attacks.



Withdraw action allows you to move 10 feet without provoking

yeah it takes trainging to do this and get an attack (funny enough the fighter gets 2 attacks on a spring attack after 6th level)

I think that is kinda the point though...the only way to do this and get an attack off is to be trained in doing so.

Luckily anyone will be able to pick up that ability via feats.  They have said multiple times you will be able to get maneuvers from feats.




I've actually been allowing Disengage in place of their normal movement. Its a pain that everything that isn't an attack takes up your attack unless it is something rediculously simple. As for whether the concept of disengaging and being able to still attack is difficult enough that only a trained individual can do it. That really isn't the case, it's really not that hard to back up quickly and safely.


It's not hard to back up quickly; but doing so safely, in melee, is not so simple. The other combatant could be trained to take advantage of such an action. Although...such an action could be a feint as well.
How does this allow for greater mobility? Stepping out of an enemy's threatened space always requires an action (disengage), meaning that you can't do anything else that turn. That doesn't sound like greater mobility to me. That sounds like severely reduced mobility. Unless you took a specific maneuver or other character option, you have no way of avoiding opportunity attacks.



Withdraw action allows you to move 10 feet without provoking

yeah it takes trainging to do this and get an attack (funny enough the fighter gets 2 attacks on a spring attack after 6th level)

I think that is kinda the point though...the only way to do this and get an attack off is to be trained in doing so.

Luckily anyone will be able to pick up that ability via feats.  They have said multiple times you will be able to get maneuvers from feats.




I've actually been allowing Disengage in place of their normal movement. Its a pain that everything that isn't an attack takes up your attack unless it is something rediculously simple. As for whether the concept of disengaging and being able to still attack is difficult enough that only a trained individual can do it. That really isn't the case, it's really not that hard to back up quickly and safely.


It's not hard to back up quickly; but doing so safely, in melee, is not so simple. The other combatant could be trained to take advantage of such an action. Although...such an action could be a feint as well.

Being moderately well trained in just over half a dozen weapons, I'd have to say in my experience backing up quickly and safely is easier than moving forward quickly and safely.
All the while, disengage is now an action, meaning you can't actually take any other real actions on the same turn. That is clearly less mobility.


Martial/melee classes (the ones given to date) can all use Spring Attack, which allows an attack in combination with Disengage.

These are the only classes that should be able to attack and disengage at the same time; either because melee is their profession or, in the rogue's case, avoidance/deception/trickery allows the combination.
That's why the current one offers more mobility because I can disengage and then move my full speed.  if shift was a type of movement it really wouldn't be all that helpful it would get you 10 feet back but then things could close with you next turn.

What? No. If you could "disengage/shift" as your movement, then if you actually wanted to get further away than that, then you could just use your action to Hustle. The only difference would become that now characters could "disengage/shift" and take an action in the same turn if they wanted to. Having "disengage/shift" be an action rather than a form of movement unquestionably makes characters less mobile, not more.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
How does this allow for greater mobility? Stepping out of an enemy's threatened space always requires an action (disengage), meaning that you can't do anything else that turn. That doesn't sound like greater mobility to me. That sounds like severely reduced mobility. Unless you took a specific maneuver or other character option, you have no way of avoiding opportunity attacks.



Withdraw action allows you to move 10 feet without provoking

yeah it takes trainging to do this and get an attack (funny enough the fighter gets 2 attacks on a spring attack after 6th level)

I think that is kinda the point though...the only way to do this and get an attack off is to be trained in doing so.

Luckily anyone will be able to pick up that ability via feats.  They have said multiple times you will be able to get maneuvers from feats.




I've actually been allowing Disengage in place of their normal movement. Its a pain that everything that isn't an attack takes up your attack unless it is something rediculously simple. As for whether the concept of disengaging and being able to still attack is difficult enough that only a trained individual can do it. That really isn't the case, it's really not that hard to back up quickly and safely.


It's not hard to back up quickly; but doing so safely, in melee, is not so simple. The other combatant could be trained to take advantage of such an action. Although...such an action could be a feint as well.

Being moderately well trained in just over half a dozen weapons, I'd have to say in my experience backing up quickly and safely is easier than moving forward quickly and safely.




so you admit that with training it is easy...you've been trained to fight...your opinion on ease of maneuver comes from someone trained to do it.  Someone untrained may not think it easy.  I mean you have basic footwork down I'm guessing so that alone makes all movement on the field easier.
How does this allow for greater mobility? Stepping out of an enemy's threatened space always requires an action (disengage), meaning that you can't do anything else that turn. That doesn't sound like greater mobility to me. That sounds like severely reduced mobility. Unless you took a specific maneuver or other character option, you have no way of avoiding opportunity attacks.



Withdraw action allows you to move 10 feet without provoking

yeah it takes trainging to do this and get an attack (funny enough the fighter gets 2 attacks on a spring attack after 6th level)

I think that is kinda the point though...the only way to do this and get an attack off is to be trained in doing so.

Luckily anyone will be able to pick up that ability via feats.  They have said multiple times you will be able to get maneuvers from feats.




I've actually been allowing Disengage in place of their normal movement. Its a pain that everything that isn't an attack takes up your attack unless it is something rediculously simple. As for whether the concept of disengaging and being able to still attack is difficult enough that only a trained individual can do it. That really isn't the case, it's really not that hard to back up quickly and safely.


It's not hard to back up quickly; but doing so safely, in melee, is not so simple. The other combatant could be trained to take advantage of such an action. Although...such an action could be a feint as well.

Being moderately well trained in just over half a dozen weapons, I'd have to say in my experience backing up quickly and safely is easier than moving forward quickly and safely.


I'll give you no argument there.

But to allow a wizard to disengage from a fighter in melee, without penalty, is stretching it; and that is already allowed. But, to allow it across-the-board with an attack; that's just not feasable for non-melee types. 
That's why the current one offers more mobility because I can disengage and then move my full speed.  if shift was a type of movement it really wouldn't be all that helpful it would get you 10 feet back but then things could close with you next turn.

What? No. If you could "disengage/shift" as your movement, then if you actually wanted to get further away than that, then you could just use your action to Hustle. The only difference would become that now characters could "disengage/shift" and take an action in the same turn if they wanted to. Having "disengage/shift" be an action rather than a form of movement unquestionably makes characters less mobile, not more.




your way is no different for amount of mobility there is they can move the same amount...your option gives them greater chance to act.  not greater ability to move.  I like it as an action it keeps things quick.  Also I'm not too worried about this one.  They seem to be making nothing that is used in place of a movement.  Movement is always just a consistant part of any turn. Its distance is shortened by some things (standing from prone costs 5 feet is the only actual rule coming to mind).  However there is no issolated "move action" as part of the turn movement is just part of your action.  So I think this is likely to not change as much...I may be wrong but so far they really have nothing that is done in place of a "move action"...because ther is no "move action".  There is just the movement available to your character.

I mean there are different types of movement so maybe this could be one... 
I see your counterpoint.  While I feel it didn't take much training with foil, that is hardly a melee weapon or a Wizard weapon, and fencing is big on footwork.  Point made.
With the new OA rules, shifting isn't necessary.  And I'm not sorry to see it go, now that there's something better.  Why?

The shift-charge is stupid.  Stupid stupid stupid.  It's singlehandedly the most degenerate tactical maneuver in all of 4e, and it does very little other than just jack over people whose entire purpose is zone control.  The fact that both sides can do it doesn't mean that it's not imbalanced - it's imbalanced relative to other tactics you could use.  It doesn't cause tactical depth, it removes it.  The only positive thing it does is enable the full-charger builds to function adequately, and to be honest I wouldn't miss them if they went too (despite playing one myself).

In fact, I'd go further and say that I like the idea of advantage on OAs.  Make them hurt, and tactical combat will revolve around getting into and out of melee range.  Escape spells for the wizard, tricks for the rogue, elusive maneuvers for the ranger, these are the things that make your character feel like it's supposed to.

And please don't bring realism into this, it's not relevant to the design. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Because the thread is about keeping the 5 ft step, not the withdraw action.

This thread isn't about keeping either of those things. This thread is about keeping "shifting" as part of the terminology as a short hand for movement that doesn't provoke opportunity attacks. Shift, withdraw, and 5-foot-step are three completely different things.


I hope it's not about something so pointlessly semantic, and actually addresses the game design, which is what the OP actually talks about.

Shift and 5-foot-step are functionally extremely similar.  The difference being that in 4e, the shift didn't prevent you from your full set of attacks for the round.  Beyond that, they're very similar.

Withdraw, on the other hand, is effectively a shift-move.  It takes your turn, you move away safely.  It's different, yes, but it's also very similar.

Don't be so dismissive of the parallels between them, it serves no one.

Oh, and as far as the "shift" shorthand for "This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks" - it's irrelvant what they call it.  Yes yes yes, I know, the choice of what to call it proves that they hate edition X and really are designing it for edition Y.  Irrelevant, the effect is the same, and it always has been.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I wouldn't mind advantage on OAs as long as it doesn't force the game to become stale with no one moving around. Plenty of 3e/PF fights where the melee engages a target, and no one moves for the rest of the fight.
My two copper.
I wouldn't mind advantage on OAs as long as it doesn't force the game to become stale with no one moving around. Plenty of 3e/PF fights where the melee engages a target, and no one moves for the rest of the fight.


Oh they'll be moving around - that's the best part.  You can run around the dragon safely.  Movement within threatened area is much less restricted than it was, while movement away from threatened areas is more so. 

The argument whether the current rules are mobility-enhancing versus mobility-restricting is somewhat pointless, since it's both.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I see your counterpoint.  While I feel it didn't take much training with foil, that is hardly a melee weapon or a Wizard weapon, and fencing is big on footwork.  Point made.




Dude on foil retreating is like one of the most important aspects...If you had any skill in fencing it was based on footwork (or so I have seen it to be)...you'd in fact be a guy trained in spring attack because fencing is all about step in hit step out.  Move in disengage out spring attack on the way out finish moving.  So basically move in 10 feet make an attack or two then move out 30 feet and all without provoking.  That sounds like the mythical fencer to me.  It is why I often try not to apply my own experiences of fighting capability with the untrained...because I have been trained in martial arts.  I'm no pro but I got some training.  However my ability to throw a punch is not everyones ability to throw a punch.
I see your counterpoint.  While I feel it didn't take much training with foil, that is hardly a melee weapon or a Wizard weapon, and fencing is big on footwork.  Point made.




Dude on foil retreating is like one of the most important aspects...


And the only reason why you can't retreat forever, whenever you want to, easily without any threat of your opponent poking you is that they also get credit for a touch when you run off the back end of the strip.

If retreating weren't easy, then that rule wouldn't need to exist.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I see your counterpoint.  While I feel it didn't take much training with foil, that is hardly a melee weapon or a Wizard weapon, and fencing is big on footwork.  Point made.




Dude on foil retreating is like one of the most important aspects...If you had any skill in fencing it was based on footwork (or so I have seen it to be)...you'd in fact be a guy trained in spring attack because fencing is all about step in hit step out.  Move in disengage out spring attack on the way out finish moving.  So basically move in 10 feet make an attack or two then move out 30 feet and all without provoking.  That sounds like the mythical fencer to me.  It is why I often try not to apply my own experiences of fighting capability with the untrained...because I have been trained in martial arts.  I'm no pro but I got some training.  However my ability to throw a punch is not everyones ability to throw a punch.

Agreed on the fencing, and while I try not to think that my training has made me that much better than the average person, point made on the hazards of skill projection.

your way is no different for amount of mobility there is they can move the same amount...your option gives them greater chance to act.  not greater ability to move.

more movement distance =/= better mobility
Those are not the same thing. My way gives more flexible options for how movement is done, and that is a form of better mobility, a very important form.

They seem to be making nothing that is used in place of a movement.  Movement is always just a consistant part of any turn. Its distance is shortened by some things (standing from prone costs 5 feet is the only actual rule coming to mind).  However there is no issolated "move action" as part of the turn movement is just part of your action.  So I think this is likely to not change as much...I may be wrong but so far they really have nothing that is done in place of a "move action"...because ther is no "move action".  There is just the movement available to your character.

I mean there are different types of movement so maybe this could be one... 

I have no idea what you're talking about. What's wrong with "Disengage" taking up 20 feet of movement in the same way that "Stand Up" takes up 5 feet of movement?

I hope it's not about something so pointlessly semantic...

I wouldn't say it quite like that, but yeah, it is.

Shift and 5-foot-step are functionally extremely similar.

No, they're very, very different. Shifting is not limited by distance. It's just a tag on movement that means it doesn't provoke opportunity attack. A 5-foot-step is limited, there's very little to enhance it, and it's an actual action of its own as opposed to a description of a general motion. I think that you're getting confused because characters in 4E could also shift 1 square as a move action, but that's not all that this is about.

The difference being that in 4e, the shift didn't prevent you from your full set of attacks for the round.  Beyond that, they're very similar.

Actually, 5-foot-steps didn't prevent you from taking a full attack.

As for your other complaint, the answer to that seems to me to be "Fix Shift-Charging". Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, etc.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Shift and 5-foot-step are functionally extremely similar.

No, they're very, very different. Shifting is not limited by distance.


Only if you insist on waging the pointlessly semantic argument.

Whether you call it "shifting" or "movement that does not provoke OA" does not change the actual question of design:  whether we should have an option for your movement for a turn that moves you five feet without provoking.  The Shift Action and the 5-foot step are functionally very similar, and insisting that we're really talking about shift the movement type and not shift the move action is, as I said, pointlessly semantic, since the game entity, "movement that does not provoke," exists no matter what we call it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Only if you insist on waging the pointlessly semantic argument.

Well, considering that is the exact point of the thread...

The Shift Action and the 5-foot step are functionally very similar

Here's the confusion again, though. The "shift action" is not the end of shifting. That is not all that shifting is. There is a heck of a lot more to shifting than the "shift action". The same cannot be said for the 5-foot-step. The question here presented by the OP is one completely apart from the "shift action" or 5-foot-step, just about

and insisting that we're really talking about shift the movement type and not shift the move action is, as I said, pointlessly semantic

That is not just semantics. That is a huge difference. They are entirely different design concepts.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
The Shift Action and the 5-foot step are functionally very similar

Here's the confusion again, though. The "shift action" is not the end of shifting. That is not all that shifting is.


I'm not sure how you can claim confusion, when I explain that both of them exist in the very post you quoted.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
and insisting that we're really talking about shift the movement type and not shift the move action is, as I said, pointlessly semantic

That is not just semantics. That is a huge difference. They are entirely different design concepts.


Yes, there is a huge difference.  But talking about "shift the movement type" as opposed to "this movement does not provoke" is just semantics.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Yes, there is a huge difference. But talking about "shift the movement type" as opposed to "this movement does not provoke" is just semantics.

Yes, but then talking about "shift the movement type" as opposed to "the 5-foot-step action" is not. That is a mistaken comparison.



I don't know, at this point this thread feels like such a pit of nobody knowing what anybody else or even themselves is talking about that maybe I'm just the one who's crazy.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!