RE: move through

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

I like Kris's suggestion of a combination of 1 and 4, but I can't
bring myself to agree with the idea that you could still get more
than one swing/attack in.  Move through is just that, run/fly/ride
along, slash and continue.  A red-tailed hawk only gets one
chance to grab the rabbit (unless the stupid rabbit is actually
running along the same direction of the hawks' flight, that is).

On a side note, except for certain sub-skills, I like the idea of
splitting the dice pool on a successful weapon's skill check.  Just
so the group has my two cents on that one.

Finally, if a combination of 1 and 4 turns out to be too complex for
the system and thus wouldn't pass Dan, I'd back option 1 with the
caveat that monsters would need to purchase skills for their natural
weapons and other appropriate skills would be created for other
valid situations.  I would have sided with option 4, but I feel that at
least some practice would be necessary to actually move 1/4 
speed and not have it affect your action.

Lyle

-----Original Message-----
From:	Kris Ames [SMTP:kris@cioe.com]
Sent:	Friday, August 21, 1998 1:43 PM
To:	Steve Ames; gmlist@ns1.cioe.com
Subject:	Re: move through

I personally like a combination of 4 and 1.

I.E. quid pro can do 4 no cost, but if you want to move more than
1/4 (i.e. up to 1/2) you need the "move through" skill and it works
as stated in 1 but do the dice splitting thing and allow multi
attack if the warrior has the skill for example  If a Joe warrior
wants to move at half my movement rate (I move at 40, so I want to
move 10' to be in range, attach then get out)  I need to roll at
least 2d6 versus my weapon skill.  If I would like an extra attack
as well  then I need to roll a 3d6.  Very few people have weapon
skills so high they could move through and have 3 extra attacks. 
For simplicity, if we are going to allow dice pool splitting lets
allow dice pool splitting.

-Kris

> From: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>
> To: gmlist@ns1.cioe.com
> Subject: move through
> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 1:22 PM
> 
> 
> Got to sum some things up here so we can maybe get a vote in
soon-ish.
> The general consensus seems to indicate that we should have a form
of
> move through attack. There has been some really good discussion
attacking
> the implementation problem from a variety of valid standpoints.
What we
> need now is to come to a consensus on what we believe to be the
_BEST_
> implementation.
> 
> I'll list off the options as I saw them (someone e-mail me if I
missed
> something and I'll repost the options with that addition).
> 
> 1) "move through" weapon subskill (ie is a part of your weapon
skill and
>    you can only "move through" attack with a weapon you have the
skill in:
> 
>    The attacker rolls 2d6 versus his weapon skill. If successfull
he may
>    execute a "move through" attack allowing the attacker to move
1/2 of
>    his movement and a single attack during this movement. Because
of the
>    nature of this attack the subskill "extra attack" is not
applicable.
>    (e.g. Biff the Warrior has a movement rate of 40 (chain mail).
He is
>    10 feet from his arch nemesis Spoof. Since "move through"
allows up
>    to half movement he can move a total of 20 feet ans still get
an attack.
>    Biff makes his "move through" check, steps up to Spoof, smacks
him and
>    moves 10 feet further to be out of retalliation range. Note
that Biff
>    could have started at 20 feet out but would have ended his
attack next
>    to Spoof. He could also have started next to Spoof, whacked him
and
>    backed off 20'... or any other distance combination).
> 
>    STEVE'S OPINION: My personal favorite... but other rulings
encompass
>    some additional questions. Such as moving while casting, etc...
> 
> 2) Rule change. Combat range changed to mean 1/4 movement range
instead
>    of five feet.
> 
>    STEVE'S OPINION: None... I just don't know. Certainly there's
some
>    good argument for different people to be able to exert
different
>    sphere's of influence. Dunno. I do know it doesn't allow for a
"move
>    through" attack near as I can tell.
> 
> 3) Allow an 'attack' to be exchanged for 5' of movement not to
exceed
>    your maximum movement. e.g. roll 3d6 -vs- long sword skill for
extra
>    attack. You have 4 attacks now. Exchange X number of them for
movement.
>    So Use 2 attacks to close in ten feet, take 1 attack, and use
the last
>    attack to back off 5 feet.
> 
>    STEVE'S OPINION: Works for humanoid type warriors. Does not
work for
>    stuff with a much higher movement rate and the desire to start
or end
>    at a distance greater than 20'.
> 
> 4) Rule change. State that moving at 1/4 movement rate does not
really
>    impede adventurers ability to perform an action.
> 
>    STEVE'S OPINION: Does allow movement while spell casting.
Adventurer's
>    have a high end speed of about 60. So quarter is 15. This says
I can
>    move 15 feet while executing an attack (singular) or casting a
spell.
>    This is actually a pretty good way to go. Fast creatures such
as draco
>    or torgons can start and finish their round way outside combat
range.
>    My biggest complaint to this method is that it automatically
applies
>    to everyone (maybe not a bad thing) and has no cost factor
(again, maybe
>    not a bad thing). The guy in plate (move 20) can only move 5'
and get
>    an attack... no big deal. The aerodraco (at 360 or something
insane) can
>    move 90... it can start and end 45' from its target. Move
Through.
> 
> I think thats it. If everyone keeps this email as a referece point
we
> can discuss the relative merits of method 1-4.
> 
> 						-Steve