Re: Move through

["Kris Ames" <kris@cioe.com>]

Hmm.  Interesting.  If there was such a skill then it would work
like the proposed warrior one.  Wait....idea...why not move mage
spell casting skills (or priestly spell casting skills) under one
skill and have subskills.  I.E. base cost 200 or 300 and allow such
things as 1 handed casting (1d6 check or whatever), verbal casting,
nonverbal casting (yes I know there is a debate about whether mages
can use this one), quicktarget, and movement.  That way mages could
move the 1/5 movement rate no check , but then move the additional
amount using their movement skill.  This would make "mage" fighting
skills similar to the weapon skill of the warrior.  I like it
consistent!

-Kris

----------
From: Preston Wiley <quotha@laf.cioe.com>
To: Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>
Cc: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>; gmlist@ns1.cioe.com
Subject: Re: Move through
Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 2:04 PM

I think that maybe a new skill could be introduced that covers
moving will
casting. We already have Non-verbal, verbal, and one-handed. How
about a
skill that covers this?

						- Preston

> 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
> > 
> 
>