Re: Move Through Take 2

[Greg Mowczko <mooch@ns1.cioe.com>]

Ha I get to spew. If you forgot the reason the whole move through subject
came up ( as well as the move and fight based on skill ) is if they can
do it we should be able to do it, also if someone takes a swing at me I
want my chance to hit back ). It is all to compansate for two 4 second
segments of time merging into 1 round.

How many times has a GM had a torgon or draco whip through the party and
hit you but kept moving? This violated the tenet that you cannot move and
attack. So we are trying to come up with a way to allow this type of
action. And also let you do it back as a consequence. i

Remember in 1 round you get 4 seconds of action and so does the otherside. 
These 4 seconds appear to go sequentially but are in fact simultaneous. 
With the end of a round being merged actions. Problems with this model exist 
in movement is teleportational in reference to the other side. If you hit 
warrior 1 with a MINIBOLT and he was 30 feet away your spell hits him at 
the end of the round ( your part ). During his 4 seconds he approaches 
you to attack.  Obviously while you were casting he technically was getting 
closer and your spell hits him the moment before he gets to you ( hence a 
combat round is 4 seconds and not 4/4 = 8 )but for simplicity since you got 
initiative he is still 30 feet away then poof in your face. I'm spewing now 
if you couldn't tell. :)

> From: Kris Ames <kris@cioe.com>
> Subject: Move Through Take 2
>
> Hmm... I guess some of us don't believe in the entire premise of not
> being able to do anything while casting.  I agree with the "can not
> thought trigger an item while casting because keeping two
> simultaneous thoughts in your head at once is effectively impossible

Hey what if the result is in Frech?

> (try to sing something you have memorized and add numbers in your
> head at the EXACT same time)".  I view doing a reflex (or almost
> reflex) action and doing a mental exercise at the same time as
> possible.  But lets get back to the original move thorough proposal.

Me too. I can think alot while doing other things.

> Since you (and now Wright) object to the "something for nothing"
> scenario why don't we go back to option 4.  Either 2d6 to move up to
> 1/2 movement or 1d6 versus skill to move '10 feet (my favorite). 
> This is for a subskill which goes under the weapon skill only!  Any
> discussion of mages will wait another time (though I do like the
> spell casting skill concept where all the one handed this, quick
> target that, and nonverbal cast, and a move option fall under so
> that the mage skills which help them do their combat stuff works
> like the warrior weapon skill stuff).
>
> FYI the initial scenario was not a something for nothing, it was
> just a way to quantify what already existed (i.e. can move around in
> a 5 foot diameter circle affectionately known a melee range 60/5
> equals 12 feet so 6 feet beginning round 6 feet end of round, also
> fit nicely with the magic rule which states that mages while
> concentrating on altering a spell can only move at 1/5 movement). 
> Many people including Wright evidence public support for this idea,
> but we all change our minds :)

It isn't something for nothing. You have to lose something ( in this
case 4/5s of your movement ) It was/is kind of silly to not be allowed
to hit someone 10 feet away when you have the capability of moving
60 feet and if you were at him and are able to whip out 5 attacks
sacrifice a few of those to let you move more.

> On another note, lets see if we all agree that local rules will be
> voted on that have been on the table for less than 3 weeks.  This
> gives time for paper copies of any discussion to be handed out to
> non Internet type GMs who should have a voice as well as us geeks on
> the net perpetually.  That way no one has to feel that they didn't
> have the opportunity to put in input and make an informed vote.
>
> -Kris

Yes everyone should be subjected to our rants and spews.

> From: Jevan Furmanski <furmansj@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
>
> Doh! I don't agree with a great deal of the movement skill.
> 1.  People aren't even allowed to _thought trigger_  an item when casting.
> Movement while casting is out of the question.

As up above this ruling is crap IMHO.

> 2.  While I think that a form of move through would help to smooth some of
> the hopelessly general faults in AQ, like the scenario with 2 people
> running and the chaser can't attack him without a flip flop which is a
> statistical aberration with no significance.  Beyond this, I see it as
> something for nothing.  

There is a lose of some movement and attacks

> If the "move through" skill was a way to loose less mods on a move
> through, like a way to use partial mods on an impale, I would be game.
> Otherwise, it is just a change in the basic mechanics of the game, and I
> am just fine with its previous broken state.
>
> Jevan

In a way that is one of the things it hopes to accomplish.

						Greg