Re: Move through Attacks

[Joel Gunderson <belgarat@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

I'd have to say that a movethrough attack is sort of a necessary evil.  It
allows someone on horseback to have an advantage over someone on foot, as
well as creatures with flying or hawksoar.  I can kind of see Kris' logic,
though.  If something ends it's round at the target, then next round if
the target gets the flip flop it can attack.  Hawksoar, however, states
that you can move and then attack.  If you have 120 feet to fool around
with, i see no reason why you can't move 60, make a swipe at/impale some
fool, and then move the other 60.  The same applies to mounted combat.
The enemy still has a chance to hit you, as well.  They can set to impale,
so that when you approach them you get whacked by said pike or whatever.


Joel

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Steve Ames wrote:

> 
> The question came up during this last weeks game on how (or even if) to
> handle move through attacks.
> 
> Myself and a few others (forget who exactly) thought that there was
> a precedence for it running along the lines of if your moving faster
> than 100 (or maybe 120) then you could move in, take one attack as you
> go by, and end up out of melee range.
> 
> Such attacks are useful for flying creatures, hawksoar, horseback (at
> max speed), etc...
> 
> The GM (Kris) said it was a no go on her watch. Everyone agreed with
> that since we don't want to make precedence ruling anymore. What are
> people's thoughts on this? Can we come to an agreement and an errata
> submission?
> 
> 						-Steve
>