|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 2:49PM
#1
|
|
|
So I played with a group recently and was surprised by a house rule that the DM was using. It had to do with how opportunity attacks were provoked.
Official Rules: (paraphrased)
Moving Provokes:If enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you make opportunity attack. cannot be a shift, teleport, or forced movement
House Rule:
Moving Provokes:If an enemy moves from an adjacent square to a non-adjacent square, you can make an opportunity attack. Cannot be a shift, teleport, or forced movement.
So for example. A halfling rogue could run up to an enemy, and then continue to run around the enemy and as long as the rogue stays in adjacent squares throughout the move, he would not provoke an opporunity attack. On the other end a goblin skirmisher who has a dwarven fighter adjacent to him could move to anywhere around the fighter he pleases and as long as the goblin stays adjacent to the fighter he is safe from any opportunity attacks.
Now I am all for house rules but this one just seemed to really break the movement system for 4e. Am I the only one who thinks this way? I would love to hear some opinions from the community.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 2:59PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Yeah, that's a pretty bad houserule. Flanking is supposed to be at least somewhat difficult to accomplish. That's one thing it breaks horribly - there are others. I could go on, but yeah, no, I'd reject that houserule as really dumb.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 3:47PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
Now I am all for house rules but this one just seemed to really break the movement system for 4e.
I am completely against all house rules, but this doesn't seem like it would make a huge difference... effectively allowing an extra square of shifting if you stay adjacent. And most players should be able to establish flanking even without this.
Nevermind: I see what you mean now... you could do this at the end of a normal move, allowing you to instantly circle around enemies even though you started far away, or even charge past them a bit. Yeah... that's silly.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 4:23PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
Making house rules has been the time-honored purview of the Dungeon Master since D&D books were the size of TV Guide and came in little boxes. In the end, it doesn't matter what anybody (even the self-proclaimed experts) on these forums says about how good or bad your house rules are. If they work for you, and your players keep coming back game after game then guess what? You win.
With the AD&D 1st Edition campaign I run, I tend to be more liberal with using house rules than I am with the D&D 4th Edition campaign I run because, well, AD&D 1st Edition is vaguely written and, in some cases, internally inconsistent. D&D 4th Edition, however, tends to be a comparatively more mechanically sound game that has come closer to achieving what might be impossible to fully achieve in a tabletop RPG: game balance. As such, I tend to leave the rules alone. In fact, at this time I use only one house rule in my D&D 4th Edition campaign, and it's a pretty minor one.
Since you're actively soliciting opinions on this house rule, I'll say that I'm not a fan of it. I think there is a sensible rule already in place to accomplish moving around a combatant without being attacked: shifting. It should be difficult to move around someone who is actively trying to kill you. You should have to be on your guard against getting your melon knocked in, hence being only able to move one square.
But as I said above, if it's working for you guys then bravo. I'm a much bigger fan of having fun playing the game than I am of slavishly adhering to a set of rules that is governing make-believe.
=====================================================
"Your life is an occasion. Rise to it." -Mr. Magorium
=====================================================
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 4:30PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
But as I said above, if it's working for you guys then bravo. I'm a much bigger fan of having fun playing the game than I am of slavishly adhering to a set of rules that is governing make-believe.
The OP is posting here because it's not working for him.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 4:59PM
#6
|
|
|
Yes, as Mand12 stated I am asking for the opinions of the D&D community (whose experience far exceeds mine) because this rule really doesn't work with me, but seems to work with the DM who made it, and I was at a loss of what to do. I don't really see the point of the rule, but the DM argues that this houserule makes moving less time-consuming. He states that with the official rule in place, his combat encounters would slow to a crawl and make the gaming session go on for 1.5+ hours longer than when he used the houserule stated above, and I just don't see how this is possible. I don't find the official rules to be limiting or slow paced in any way.
This is why I come to you, my experience with the D&D world is very limited compared to his, so I wanted opinions from a similiarly experienced crowd, that is all. :D
Thank you for the comments and opinions so far!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:01PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
4e combat can tend to run on the slow side, that's true. But gutting tactical movement isn't something that should be done lightly. The game is designed with those restrictions on movement in mind, and extreme care should be taken when adjusting things that are that core to the mechanics.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:28PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
He states that with the official rule in place, his combat encounters would slow to a crawl and make the gaming session go on for 1.5+ hours longer than when he used the houserule stated above, and I just don't see how this is possible.
Yeah, that seems like a pretty incredible claim to me as well. It feels counterintuitive that a change like that could shave an hour and a half off of combat. But obviously I can't speak intelligently to that because I haven't witnessed his game sessions.
=====================================================
"Your life is an occasion. Rise to it." -Mr. Magorium
=====================================================
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:35PM
#9
|
|
|
He states that with the official rule in place, his combat encounters would slow to a crawl and make the gaming session go on for 1.5+ hours longer than when he used the houserule stated above, and I just don't see how this is possible.
That must be massive exageration, there is no way you could take up an extra 1.5 hours/session with opportunity attacks. If you add up every Opportunity Attack I have seen taken since 4e came out I don't even think it would add up to 1.5 hours, and I have been playing in 2 bi-weekly games since 4e came out.
EDIT: Unless he's claming that changing that rule gives the players superior tactical options that end encounters way faster. I'm still incredulous.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 6:17PM
#10
|
|
|
I think my DM is refering to how it 'opens' up the flow of combat so you can pretty much move wherever you want, thus less thinking on where you move tactically? This is just my interpetation though. However, even with all those things considered, I still can't see it speeding up combat by very much, if at all. :/ I am glad to not be the only one who believes this is an odd houserule. Your comments have helped me to better understand the situation, and I am thankful for that.
|
|
|
