Re: Move through

[Orion Furmanski <thelaw@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

OK, here's my second defense of moving while casting: Physics 220 Lab.
Using an ultrasonic motion detector, we tried to move forwrd and backward
exact distances at exact rates. It was MADDENING trying to move only 15'
in four seconds. 10' ? AAAAARGH! We're talking serious baby steps. 
	My normal, unencumbered walking gait is 3' per step (I walk fast).
I can cover 15' in about 2-3 seconds; 10'- 2 seconds, easy.  If I then
threw on a parka, a 30-pound pack, and explained the physics behind the
tail rotor of a helicopter to an idiot, going 10' or so in four seconds
would be mentally taxing but still workable. I give myself about a 15
intelligence. AQ mages usually fire on more thrusters than that. I think
that a lot of people have downplayed human movement and multitasking
capabilities in the past, and the debates over sprinting, swimming in
armor, and move-casting are a renaissance of realism in the campaign.

Thank you for your time (wheeze-wheeze-wheeze), 
Orion
 

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Wright Frazier wrote:

> I still highly disagree with any sort of moving, short of hawksoar,
> while spell casting.  We already know that Spell casting takes
> the entire round(as shown by Speed and Quicken not giving
> extra moves/attacks to spell casting).  So that means 4 full sec(or however
> much) of complicated hand and mouth movements, as well as intense
> concentration.  This is shown by the fact that if you get hit while
> casting, you loose the spell.  You need a calm steady platform to
> cast from, or you can't cast.  Also if you get knocked over, then
> you loose your spell, granted that is a more jarring spell than
> moving, but you still are still jostling yourself while trying to
> devote all of your concentration to focus your energies as well as
> get the correct hand and mouth movements.
> 
> Someone suggested that walking and talking about some subject was like
> spell casting.  I disagree.  Spell casting is focusing energies that
> are not inherently available to everyone.  It takes something more to
> bring up these inner reserves, it takes full and complete concentration.
> Kinda like when the martial arts guys take the dramatic pause to summon
> and focus their energies before doing something big.
> 
> It will also complicate issues highly.  Since spell casting takes the
> entire round to complete(spell effects _ALWAYS_ go off at the end of
> the round after everyone has done everything else), do you calculate
> range from their original position? or final one?  Also do you have
> to have line of sight at the beginning of casting or the end to
> zorch someone?
> 
> Wright
> 
> 
> > 
> > Alrighty then. We've kicked this one around a bit and the responses
> > I've seen indicate that a combination of 4 and 1 sounds best. So I'm
> > going to sum that up in a new writeup and we can kick the hell out
> > of that for a week before the next meeting (Sep 5th, 6PM).
> > 
> > Move Through. OK. There's two parts to this. The first part is to
> > modify the general ruleset that handles movement:
> > 
> > I'm picturing this as an errata on section 2.5.1 (movement):
> > 
> > | It is often necessary to maneuver during combat. Each adventurer has
> > | a _movement rate_ that is the distance he may move in a round when
> > | not attacking or spell casting. An adventurer may only move up to 1/4 
> > | of this distance if he is attacking, spell casting or involved in a 
> > | melee (moving into, out of, or through a melee). This distance may be
> > | modified by your GM according to terrain, obstacles, or circumstances.
> > 
> > OK. So now you can move 1/4 movement and still take an attack or
> > cast a spell. The last bit concerning melee is important. You
> > _CANNOT_ run full tilt through a combat area and expect to utilize
> > full DVs. Insane. If your path takes you to within 5' (melee range)
> > of an opponent or ongoing melee than you become subject to the above
> > rule and can only take quarter movement.
> > 
> > This does let a make dive through a window _and_ cast a spell providing
> > they don't intend to use acrobatics or any such skill. 
> > 
> > So that's step one. A simple but far reaching change allowing an
> > aerodraco to move 120 and take an attack.... a torgon only 35' but
> > thats the difference between a rate 38 creature and a rate 200 
> > draco :) The next step is:
> > 
> > Using option 1, we add a weapon subclass where a 2d6 check would
> > let you move up to half your movement rate instead of the normal
> > quarter. I believe this is the way people were thinking. So in the
> > normal case you can always move 1/4 and get one attack (or more if
> > you make your skill check) but with the subclass you can move 1/2
> > and get your one attack (or more if you make a multiattack and we
> > allow split dice).
> > 
> > And that should be that. One rule change involving movement and
> > the introduction of the "move through" weapon subclass (which I
> > would add to combat and missile) and voila... more dynamic combat
> > system that takes many more variables into account.
> > 
> > Someone, I forget who, voiced an objection to mages moving while
> > casting. If we can get a solid argument from them on this topic
> > we can scratch "spell casting" from the movement redefinition
> > also. Otherwise I'd vote it stays. Its part of the fantasy genre
> > for mages to jump under a table while tossing a lightning bolt,
> > or to be running away (or in this case walking away) while 
> > using magic to cover their parties retreat.
> > 
> > Thoughts, criticisms, etc... bring 'em on. Got a weekend coming
> > up so I'll have lots and lots of time to argue :) And (hopefully)
> > bring the Centrali' Times up to current game date (always the
> > goal).
> > 
> > 						-Steve
> > 
> 
>