|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 2:52AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 10, 2011
|
One thing I think would be an interesting resource in D&D next would be the ability for characters to have the option to substitute their movement for some other sort of bonus. I love the power of movement in this game. It is necessary (especially for ranged characters) to be able to fire into combat w/o disadvantage, and for melee to keep healers and casters safe. there were times when I was playing however, that I didn't need to move. Maybe the fighter didn't need to repostion himself or the mage was simply casting from the same location. In these situations, perhaps one could expend their move action in a simple way to make that element not feel wasted. I was thinking of mages, clerics and rangers being able to really draw a bead on a target, or a fighter really cranking back his axe to swing at a badguy. Possibly, if one sacrificed their movement, they could recieve a +1 or +2 bonus on attack rolls and/or a +1/lvl bonus on damage rolls. It would make the melee combatants tend to 'stick' together more, I'd think. I'm not sure if this would work rules-wise, but I would love a broad reaching and simple way to make extra use of the movement action without having to make a time consuming decision. The more I think of this as an option, the more I like it. 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 3:01AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2011
|
There are two camps on this...
a) If you dont move there should be a replacement so you dont feel like your wasting a resource
b) A move action is part of your turn and is purely for movement, you dont substitute for any other bonuses
I'm in the second camp because lots of players see the bonus and think way too long and hard about positioning rather than the game, 4e became hell for certain players trying to squeeze out every tactical advantage in ways that distorted the intentions of the game. Movement should be an integral part of the game, people shoulnt be lured into the temptation of standing still and hitting constantly on a grid. I love how streamlined a lot of D&DN is, ideally I would love to keep as much like this out.
As a side note, +1 to attack and damage equates to a lot more in this iteration from what we see so far too so its not so much the rules but the math that may end up wrong.
But at the same time I get where your coming from, your freeing up some of your focus not having to move around.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 3:04AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2011
|
Lots of possible ways that can idea can be used, in fact it could be spent in units of five feet.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 3:09AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Really not a good idea.
One of the big issues of pre-4E melee combat was the idea of the full-round action and particularly the full attack action, that to get the most out of fighting you had to stand still. This leads to a lot of static turns of just standing there pounding on the enemy without actually wanting to move around much. Rewarding standing still is the same as punishing movement, which does a lot to make the game feel more boring.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 3:22AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
Depends a lot how you structure action usage, in the homebrew system the group Iplay with use characters get 2 Standard Actions per round plus an 'incidental action'. Standard Actions can include Attacking, Defending, Moving etc, incidental actions cover 5ft Steps, switching targets etc.
In practice this means that you can Move+Attack, Attack+Defend, Move+Defend, Attack+Attack (Full Attack), Defend+Defend (Full Defence). Because we use a level / skill linked AC which assumes that you need to actively defend to get it, this means that while a Full Attack action gets you more damage, your AC drops to a minimal level, leaving you vulnerable to a counter attack.
It also adds a bit of tactical choice (do you close on an enemy while defnending to attack next round, or risk it and move then attack). However the free incidental action turns out to be really important to allow limited movement around the battlefield to change targets etc.
That said without the slightly expanded positioning rules we use (basically attacking or being attacked by multiple targets is really bad) this would easily degenerate into a Attack+Defend static slugfest. So its not just a question about giving movement, but making sure that your positioning really matters.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 3:23AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 10, 2011
|
ya, I'm actually gonna agree that it probably wouldn't be a good idea.
It would probably lead to characters just sitting around and lobbing rocks at one another, or the boring life fighters had full-rounding in 3rd ed.
it only frustrates me slightly to think of a hero running 30 whole feet through combat and all the concentration which goes with that being squandered to no positive effect. :P
I was thinking of certain game and class effects requiring the sacrifice of movement (either you'd be slowed for that turn or not move at all)
for isntance, a very powerful spell a wizard might cast may require channelling in order to root it. A fighter may have a 2 or 3/day attack which requires a steady footing. the list goes on, but I do agree that making it a static bonus wouldn't be good for anything in the long run.
what do you think of class specific X/day substitutions for movement? (might add flavor)
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 3:41AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
How about designing some Feats that require you to use your Move Action as part of them?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 3:53AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
It thoroughly depends.
I've previously outlined the way I want Next to look, which isn't going to happen, as an expansion of Tome of Battle's maneuvers system to encompass all classes. While most of the maneuvers in that book are standard, swift, or immediate actions with some move actions, there are a few techniques that are full-round actions. This is acceptable because maneuvers, by design, cannot be a thing you do every round, because the full-round action typically offers some internal form of movement or allows the attack to be done at range (most Desert Wind full-round action maneuvers, charges, Tornado Throw), and for those that don't (Time Stands Still might be the only candidate) it's still possible to move as a swift action using other maneuvers (Quicksilver Motion is all but explicitly designed to be used for this exact purpose, and Sudden Leap also qualifies).
If abilities which require a full-round action in some way enable movement as part of their use or can only be used infrequently, then they're acceptable, but for the sake of keeping fights from becoming tedious it's important that yes, that movement will normally go to waste if you don't use it.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 4:23AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
I can see a DM granting advantage to a fighter if the charachter doesn't move. Instead of moving around, you focus on the perfect hit.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 5:48AM
#10
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I agree that we should not reward standing still. Granting advantage for sacrificing movement will guarantee that combats become static affairs. Rogues will go from the sneaky guy who hides to the brash guy who stands in an open field and sneak attacks you to your face. I've already seem that sort of combat. no thank you.
What I could get behind is allowing people to spend some move to do things move related, like opening doors, grabbing dropped items as they pass by, etc. Let them spend move to make that move more effective.
|
|
|
