Who would like more dynamic movement in combat?

One of the things I'm noticing with my playtest sessions is that PCs and monsters don't move around so much when they are in combat.   If they fear AoO, they generally stay put once engaged with an enemy, and then they just trade blows with their opponent.   I think there needs to be a way to encourage more movement and more creativity.  In that way, I liked using the first playtest (no AoO) package better (although there needed to be some rule to prevent or limit "conga line" tactics", and a way to protect comrades).   

Here's one way I'm going to try to encourage more movement and creativity as an option.

If a PC or creature is engaged in combat, it can use part of its "move action" attempt to break away from threat and move unhindered if it succeeds in a skill challenge vs. the opponent.    Both the PC or creature trying to disengage, and the creature trying to keep the other pinned down, can roll an ability check using any of the following:

Strength -- trying to use brute force to break away or keep another from breaking away.
Dexterity -- trying to move quickly using agility to break away or keep another from breaking away.
Intelligence -- trying to predict movements and use logic to break away or keep another from breaking away.
Wisdom -- trying to use intuition and overall feel of the combat to break away or keep another from breaking away.
Charisma -- trying to trick (bluff or intimidate) to break away or keep another from breaking away.

If a creature or PC is threatened by more than one foe, the foe (only one foe should roll not all of them) gains advantage on the contest.

Allowing PCs to decide which ability to use makes it so that all classes can have access to this "disengage move action", and the mechanic in general fits with the improv guidelines in the playtest rules.   It will also limit or eliminate "conga line" and give PCs a chance to protect comrades.  I can see it adding choice and more drama to combats.    

What do you all think, and who would like more dynamic movement in combat?  What are your ideas?     

     

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

That is one of the game features (AOO) that the fighter should get versus everyone else. It would demonstrate they excel in combat, and would exhibit some of the combat stickiness they should have.
This is a damned-if-you-do / damned-if-you-don't problem.

People are moving around indiscrimenently! Nothing is stopping monsters rushing out of flanks and charging the spellcasters!
Okay we'll fix that by adding a core Attack of Opportunity system.

People are standing statically around, afraid to provoke! Combat has no movement.  
Okay... we'll fix that by... um....


The 4e fix for this was cramming movement into as many powers as posible, so you could just move for free with every other attack. Which made the game feel a little boardgamey and really increased reliance on the grid. 
The PF fix for this was more related to the benefits of full attacking versus moving and attacking, and related to the Vital Strike feat chain, where you could get the equivalent of 2[w]+Str attacks.

Generally, fights in 5e are quick enough that the obvious congo line is less obvious and doesn't have the same amount of time to get established. Many multiple opponents also helps. 

Personally, the best fix is finding ways to encourage movement without mandating it. 
Terrain is a handy system neutral fix. If there's a pit or pool of lava or puddle of tar then suddenly the party will look at that and try and hammer the monsters into the terrain.  Giving the fighters and other martial classes an excuse to push and move the enemies encourages movement.
Monsters can keep things mobile by moving themselves. Sacraficing actions to get away. By also trying to use the terrain and environment. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Rhenny, I dig it. I think there are multiple rules which could deter breaking combat than AOO. I think we're both on the side of movement over AOO.
That said, houseruling flanking to have ramifications does encourage some short range coordinated circles. Oh, and spring attack. Spring attack is nice.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
I'm waiting for the "tactical grid-based combat" module to drop to add in spice like this to the fights. If they can make it work, great. If they can't, oh well, I have other options.

I am not sure if I think OAs should be in D&DN-Basic or D&DN-Core.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

What was wrong with the concept of standard, move, minor action?  Shifting and charging wasn't a bad option to rearrange the battlefield.  "Theatre of the mind" folks could handwave all that mess away anyways if it hurt their versimilitudes.
Strength -- trying to use brute force to break away or keep another from breaking away.
Dexterity -- trying to move quickly using agility to break away or keep another from breaking away.
Intelligence -- trying to predict movements and use logic to break away or keep another from breaking away.
Wisdom -- trying to use intuition and overall feel of the combat to break away or keep another from breaking away.
Charisma -- trying to trick (bluff or intimidate) to break away or keep another from breaking away.

Nice.  In the first playtest packet, I actually houseruled something similar to this, but it was only based on Dex (and maybe Guardian Theme could use Str?).

I like that you've opened it up to all ability scores, and there's the potential to drop skill dice on top of the checks where appropriate.

I would maybe give the fighter advantage when contesting someone trying to move away from him/her.  Either that, or make it a feat and/or part of one of the feats in the Protector feat-line.

Rhenny, I dig it. I think there are multiple rules which could deter breaking combat than AOO. I think we're both on the side of movement over AOO. That said, houseruling flanking to have ramifications does encourage some short range coordinated circles. Oh, and spring attack. Spring attack is nice.

While being flanked, maybe checks to break away from one of the opponents (to focus on the other) would occur at a disadvantage.

As to Spring Attack, unfortunately it is currently fighter-only, so while that helps the fighter be more mobile it doesn't help anyone else.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

I find, with the ability to move around in an enemies threatened range, that there's much more movement than before. YMMV. 
My two copper.
Instead of making real opportunity attacks, heroes and monsters can automatically deal damage equal to their Strength modifier if an opportunity attack is triggered.

Find a way to scale that for higher levels, and you have a solution that's a) significant, but not back-breaking, and b) quick to adjudicate.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

Well the big issue is that without flanking or higher ground benefits there's no need for the constant adjustment and short range maneuvers. Most monsters can be put down quickly enough that there's no point in trying to maneuver out of their reach once combat is joined in earnest, and  those that aren't pushovers tend to have reach already so unless you can dance around another large beasty or a big clump of people to keep the first beast off your tail there's just not much point is there.
Good comments everyone.  Keep them coming.   Based on the variety of ideas, ways people want the game to play, it seems that this issue itself is ripe for multiple options in the standard or advanced game.   Like blacksheepcannibal, I'm also looking forward to the "Tactical" rules options.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

The average character moves 10 yards (30 feet). If the tactical game switches to 1-yard squares then there is a bit more granularity, and therefore alot more movement. Combatants would typically take 1-yard steps during a maneuver, especially side-to-side, without disengaging.
Also, I really like the concept of “engagement”. It doesnt matter if a threat is adjacent, what matters is if the threat is “engaged”. A monster must “engage” by means of an attack before doing opp attacks.

It seems possible for a soldier to “engage” a door so as to guard it against anyone who tries to use it.

But generally there are no “threatened squares”. So, there is more freedom of movement.
Also, I really like the concept of “engagement”.

Y helo thar 13th Age. I thing that mechanic works so very, very well for the TotM style combat envisioned for 13th Age. The really great thing is it works just as well in TotM as it does on a grid.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Nothing is stopping monsters rushing out of flanks and charging the spellcasters!



I don't see why that's a problem in terms of game design.

If you perceive an enemy as the bigger threat (the spellcaster in this case) or see in his frailty a quicker way to turn the tables of the combat in your favor... why wouldn't you do that?
That's just strategy. And a good thing to have in the game.

If the fighters want to protect the spellcasters they should seek their own strategies, like barring the passage through a corridor or something like that.
And the less warrior-ish characters like spellcasters should mind their own ways to avoid being caught in the middle of the fight.
Enforcing a system that more or less "punishes" people who don't attack the tougher enemies just because they're closer to them... to me seems random and senseless.

That said, I do like the idea of a rule that gives you a go at an opponent who turns his back and flees in the middle of a fight. After all, that opponent did open his guard if he just turned and fled instead of making a tactical retreat.

But I think that the Attack of Opportunity system as it is, is too encompassing and ends up affecting movement in combat as a whole in a way that feels artificial.
People are moving in and out of an opponent's reach all the time in a real fight. That is a combatant's primary way of avoiding blows.


If you perceive an enemy as the bigger threat (the spellcaster in this case) or see in his frailty a quicker way to turn the tables of the combat in your favor... why wouldn't you do that?
That's just strategy. And a good thing to have in the game.

If the fighters want to protect the spellcasters they should seek their own strategies, like barring the passage through a corridor or something like that.
And the less warrior-ish characters like spellcasters should mind their own ways to avoid being caught in the middle of the fight.
Enforcing a system that more or less "punishes" people who don't attack the tougher enemies just because they're closer to them... to me seems random and senseless.

If you ignore roles altogether, you start to move a whole ton and a half closer towards "my job is to reduce the enemy's hp to zero" as the only real point in combat. It turns into "who is dealing the most damage - I attack that person" as a strategy. Not exactly interesting or dynamic.

As is, with the idea of roles, you have battlefield strategy and choices. These choices are meaningful, and have consequences in either direction. It's not "do I do the singular most sound and logical thing that I would be dumb not to do"; it's "I could do this, or this. These are the repercussions, and both have their advantages and drawbacks".

If your group doesn't want strategy like that, as mechanics built into the game, that is understandable, but you can't really have one without the other, unless you're going completely ad-hoc (which for reasons obvious, the rules really don't cover).

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Nothing is stopping monsters rushing out of flanks and charging the spellcasters!



I don't see why that's a problem in terms of game design.

If you perceive an enemy as the bigger threat (the spellcaster in this case) or see in his frailty a quicker way to turn the tables of the combat in your favor... why wouldn't you do that?
That's just strategy. And a good thing to have in the game.

If the fighters want to protect the spellcasters they should seek their own strategies, like barring the passage through a corridor or something like that.
And the less warrior-ish characters like spellcasters should mind their own ways to avoid being caught in the middle of the fight.
Enforcing a system that more or less "punishes" people who don't attack the tougher enemies just because they're closer to them... to me seems random and senseless.

That said, I do like the idea of a rule that gives you a go at an opponent who turns his back and flees in the middle of a fight. After all, that opponent did open his guard if he just turned and fled instead of making a tactical retreat.

But I think that the Attack of Opportunity system as it is, is too encompassing and ends up affecting movement in combat as a whole in a way that feels artificial.
People are moving in and out of an opponent's reach all the time in a real fight. That is a combatant's primary way of avoiding blows.




I see your point, in fact, Protector Maneuver, and Shield Bash are both effective ways to defend the spellcaster if the fighter or cleric that has those maneuvers/feats positions themselves adjacent to the spellcaster. 

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

What was wrong with the concept of standard, move, minor action?


They distract people. It feels like you have to use all three, so people pause each turn looking for ways if using each. Or it feels like an action is "wasted".

Shifting and charging wasn't a bad option to rearrange the battlefield.  "Theatre of the mind" folks could handwave all that mess away anyways if it hurt their versimilitudes.

Shifting isn't interesting in TotM. 5 feet doesn't mean much. Exact position means less. Either you're adjacent or you're not. 
Charging is less an issue with TotM and more to do with not wanting to mix moving and acting too much. It's too easy to always charge, moving twice and attacking. Plus, granting advantage for charging woud be too much and other attacking bonuses are being discouraged.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I agree with Jenks.

Given that you can literally run circles around your opponent without provoking OAs, I find that combat is much much more fluid than in previous editions. Toss in some interesting terrain, and classes using maneuvers are fully incentivized to shove away, bull rush, and apply all sorts of interesting effects as combat organically becomes more varied and interesting.

Danny

What was wrong with the concept of standard, move, minor action?


They distract people. It feels like you have to use all three, so people pause each turn looking for ways if using each. Or it feels like an action is "wasted".

Shifting and charging wasn't a bad option to rearrange the battlefield.  "Theatre of the mind" folks could handwave all that mess away anyways if it hurt their versimilitudes.


Shifting isn't interesting in TotM. 5 feet doesn't mean much. Exact position means less. Either you're adjacent or you're not. 
Charging is less an issue with TotM and more to do with not wanting to mix moving and acting too much. It's too easy to always charge, moving twice and attacking. Plus, granting advantage for charging woud be too much and other attacking bonuses are being discouraged.


Exactly so those who don't like a full complement of actions and fudge/handwave anything the presence of the extra action is no problem. But I like more actions. Decision making is why I play games.
 Decision making is why I play games.


I like that.. very quotable.
  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."

 

When the 1st packet came out, I was very happy at the new Movement mechanic and the loss of AOO. The new movement rules were very clear and sped up confusion in combat. I never really liked AOO, as they often just slowed the game down, and everyone is always terrified of triggering one.

I didn't like the idea of the monsters being able to ignore the front line and eat the wizard. As the DM, I had the monster act accordingly (attacking direct threats based on Int), but the PCs could do as they please. When they started ignoring brute monsters to attack ranged threats, I knew there was a problem.

I would like to see a system that incorperates the new movement mechanics, rather than use AOO. If you move while adjacent to an enemy, you must spend an extra 5' for every 5' movement. If that enemy has made a melee attack against you since your last turn, the extra cost is increased to 10' for every 5' of movement. If that enemy hit you with a melee attack since your last turn, the extra cost is increased to 15' for every 5' of movement. Some classes/monsters could gain a benefit to increase the extra cost by another 5'. This way, it's hard to escape someone who is holding you down, but you can make an escape (especially if you use the Hustle Action).

Summary:
Adjacent: 10'/5' moved
Melee Attack: 15'/5' moved
Melee Hit: 20'/5' moved
"Sticky" Enemy: +5'/5' moved
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I would like to see a system that incorperates the new movement mechanics, rather than use AOO. If you move while adjacent to an enemy, you must spend an extra 5' for every 5' movement. If that enemy has made a melee attack against you since your last turn, the extra cost is increased to 10' for every 5' of movement. If that enemy hit you with a melee attack since your last turn, the extra cost is increased to 15' for every 5' of movement. Some classes/monsters could gain a benefit to increase the extra cost by another 5'. This way, it's hard to escape someone who is holding you down, but you can make an escape (especially if you use the Hustle Action).

Summary:
Adjacent: 10'/5' moved
Melee Attack: 15'/5' moved
Melee Hit: 20'/5' moved
"Sticky" Enemy: +5'/5' moved

This is easier than "if you move out of a threatened square, the monster gets to make a melee basic on you"? Especially considering 9 times out of 10 (admittedly in my experience) it's "I shift away", and that 10th time, you make an attack roll (roll the damage dice at the same time) and then maybe add the dice up?

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

I prefer the way savage worlds does movement to 5e. It is very similar except there is no limit to OAs but a shaken (dazed) opponent can't take reactions. You can daze opponents by performing acrobatics or intelligence tricks, hitting a for with a weapon, taunting or intimidating, and a number of other ways. It makes movement in combat much more decision oriented. It also helps promote teamwork and tactical play in a way that 5e does not.
I agree with Jenks.

Given that you can literally run circles around your opponent without provoking OAs, I find that combat is much much more fluid than in previous editions. Toss in some interesting terrain, and classes using maneuvers are fully incentivized to shove away, bull rush, and apply all sorts of interesting effects as combat organically becomes more varied and interesting.


I agree with Jenks and mrpopstar.  I like how you can Break a Move, and move freely into enemies's reach  and think it makes combat more fluid. Coupled wiith Disengage, Shift etc..as alternative methods of moving away without provoking opportunity attacks makes a good middle ground by offering enought mobility options while preserving a sense of risk if moving recklessly.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I like some of the ideas of increased movement costs for disengaging, perhaps it could be used in conjunction with OA's where you can disengage at full speed but doing so provokes an opportunity attack. I also like the idea above of disengaging from an enemy who attacked or hit you with mellee costing more. This allows for sticky combat while also allowing player to move freely without provoking OA's. It would mean a mellee character could keep the ranged players in the back and act as an obstacle, but an opponent could still attemot to run by and go after the ranged if that is their tactic. This could also work with the re-implementation of threatened squares to allow players to move around in melee but not be able to instantly get to any side of an enemy. When mixed with flanking this would give a lot of tactics to gameplay, do you go for the enemy that could flank you to keep him from doing so, or do you go for the weaker enemy and hope you kill him. Multi-person melee attacks would become very useful as it would allow you to slow more enemies. Positioning around the enemy becomes important as you want to make it hard for them to move from one player to another without provoking OA's.
I agree with Jenks.

Given that you can literally run circles around your opponent without provoking OAs, I find that combat is much much more fluid than in previous editions. Toss in some interesting terrain, and classes using maneuvers are fully incentivized to shove away, bull rush, and apply all sorts of interesting effects as combat organically becomes more varied and interesting.


I agree with Jenks and mrpopstar.  I like how you can Break a Move, and move freely into enemies's reach  and think it makes combat more fluid. Coupled wiith Disengage, Shift etc..as alternative methods of moving away without provoking opportunity attacks makes a good middle ground by offering enought mobility options while preserving a sense of risk if moving recklessly.

Yeah I think so too. Attacks of opportunity are fun the first time you realise they're there and after that they just stifle anyone from doing anything. I much prefer if movement is just carved up however and people focus on attack-like actions rather then whether they can get somewhere.

So completely deny any sort of tactical process in movement, and allow people to just walk aorund wepaon wielders to get at the squishies?
So completely deny any sort of tactical process in movement, and allow people to just walk aorund wepaon wielders to get at the squishies?



You can “engage” a person that you are bodyguarding. Then if anyone attacks that person, you get a free opp attack to deny the attacker an engagement.
With only one reaction a round decent size group of monsters pretty much can walk right by melee anyway.  If they have a heavy hitter engaged to force defensive reactions like fighters to parry their movement is nearly unhindered in any situation other then narrow tunnel fighting.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

You could see it that way, or you could see it as an opportunity for the battle mat to display an environment that presents obstacles you can use to create chokepoints and such.


I prefer to make my players engage in their environment in game than have them rely on mechanics in the metagame.

If natural chokepoints have to exist then its as much metagame as mechanics to create chockpoints through character abilities. Whats worst moving is even more restricted because you are being bogged down to single points on a map.

The characters and the monsters are part of the environment for which the players engage. You can prefer one aspect over the other, but its all mechanics in the metagame.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I would like to see a system that incorperates the new movement mechanics, rather than use AOO. If you move while adjacent to an enemy, you must spend an extra 5' for every 5' movement. If that enemy has made a melee attack against you since your last turn, the extra cost is increased to 10' for every 5' of movement. If that enemy hit you with a melee attack since your last turn, the extra cost is increased to 15' for every 5' of movement. Some classes/monsters could gain a benefit to increase the extra cost by another 5'. This way, it's hard to escape someone who is holding you down, but you can make an escape (especially if you use the Hustle Action).

Summary:
Adjacent: 10'/5' moved
Melee Attack: 15'/5' moved
Melee Hit: 20'/5' moved
"Sticky" Enemy: +5'/5' moved

This is easier than "if you move out of a threatened square, the monster gets to make a melee basic on you"? Especially considering 9 times out of 10 (admittedly in my experience) it's "I shift away", and that 10th time, you make an attack roll (roll the damage dice at the same time) and then maybe add the dice up?


I didn't say this was easier, I said it's what I would want to see =)
I already commented on why I don't like AOO, and "easier" isn't the reason. As of now, there is no Shift, other than with a Feat or Maneuver, so this would give other characters the ability to escape as well (without using an Action).
I like the idea of decreased movement when adjacent to a enemy, it is similar to the ebb and flow of a river where the current gets stuck on structures, and is slowed down until it gets around it. It is also very simple. I like it better thant having to decide to step away, full move, or run in comparison to 4E. If everyone is able to make opportunity attacks, then it should only come into play when players or monsters run away at full speed, because at that point they are not concerned about defense.

If natural chokepoints have to exist then its as much metagame as mechanics to create chockpoints through character abilities. Whats worst moving is even more restricted because you are being bogged down to single points on a map.

The characters and the monsters are part of the environment for which the players engage. You can prefer one aspect over the other, but its all mechanics in the metagame.

Couldn't disagree more. Using the your player's surroundings and descriptions of environments to your tactical advantage is in no way a metagame at all. Quite the opposite; you're being told things in role, you're making interpretations of that information in role and you're acting in role when you take advantage of it.

Moving on the basis of whether you trigger an attack of opportunity is almost by definition not in role, based on information that is not in front of your character and is not described to your character in role.


Whether you're bogged down has a lot to do with the specific terrain in question and whatever's around your character, but actually that's exactly how fighting works if you've got one team vs another team unless you're fighting in some kind of boxing ring.


I have no problem at all with character abilities that enable movement or bypass terrain, but their use should be motivated by the environment getting in your character's way, not some construct that dictates an attack of opportunity because you move in a certain way.

 

Moving on the basis of whether you trigger an attack of opportunity is almost by definition not in role, based on information that is not in front of your character and is not described to your character in role. 



You seem to presume a load of ignorance on the part of characters... 
  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."

 

 

Moving on the basis of whether you trigger an attack of opportunity is almost by definition not in role, based on information that is not in front of your character and is not described to your character in role. 



You seem to presume a load of ignorance on the part of characters... 

So your characters go around thinking in terms of whether they can move on the basis of triggering an opportunity attack, even if they never turn their back on their opponent and even if there's no actual barriers or hindrances to movement?

I presume that a character will look to their own defense and use what they've got to hand. I don't presume they are thinking in terms of game mechanics. I don't think that attacks of opportunity are totally baseless, I just think that they shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether a character decides to move when properly portrayed in role. You don't want to give your opponents any more opportunities than is absolutely necessary so the assumption is that they don't.


Based on that assumption that nobody will ever drop their guard unless there's some overriding reason or your opponent fakes you out, that means that attacks of opportunity that are triggered purely on the basis of moving from A to B are baseless. Either you get one 'cause you do something to get the better of your opponent or there's some other environmental factor that's hindering the mover in some way.


 

Moving on the basis of whether you trigger an attack of opportunity is almost by definition not in role, based on information that is not in front of your character and is not described to your character in role. 



You seem to presume a load of ignorance on the part of characters... 

So your characters go around thinking in terms of whether they can move on the basis of triggering an opportunity attack, even if they never turn their back on their opponent and even if there's no actual barriers or hindrances to movement? 


Yes my characters think about whether moving a certain way will give the enemy an opportunity to attack them... 
  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."

 

 
Yes my characters think about whether moving a certain way will give the enemy an opportunity to attack them... 

If you're not gonna bother reading what I'm writing then I don't really see why I should take anything you're saying seriously. If I didn't know any better I'd think this comment came out from under a bridge somewhere.

 
Yes my characters think about whether moving a certain way will give the enemy an opportunity to attack them... 

If you're not gonna bother reading what I'm writing 



I have no idea what nonsense you are talking about...  you claim the decisions I make for where my character decides to move should ignore whether it creates opportunities for the enemy to attack (ie opportunity attacks) or be out of character?

 The fact that this move can and does increase the likelihood of me taking an attack is part of that decision making.
  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."

 

OK Garth, just for you -


Based on that assumption that nobody will ever drop their guard unless there's some overriding reason or your opponent fakes you out, that means that attacks of opportunity that are triggered purely on the basis of moving from A to B are baseless. Either you get one 'cause you do something to get the better of your opponent or there's some other environmental factor that's hindering the mover in some way.


Now tell me exactly what your problem is now that I've taken the trouble to do your work for you.