Move Through (take 3)

[Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>]

I'm reposting this because it would appear that some comentators
didn't bother to actually read it :)

I also figured I'd break it down and explain it a little better
for the logic and english impaired. Please read this entire message
carefully, its not that lengthy and it'll let you speak in an
informed manner going forward. I expect to have my ideas and logic
bit apart. So far its been disapointing as people have attacked from
the standpoint of complete ignorance of the actual proposal. Now if
that wasn't cocky enough to challenge you to read this I'm out of
practice.

> 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. 

Everyone clear up to this point? When not onvolved in attacking or
spell casting (and in my mind spell casting and thought triggering
are the same thing as far as movement and concentration) you have a
defined movement rate. I hope so far this is pretty much in agreement.
If you want full movement you can't be: attacking, casting a spell or
thought triggering an item. There may be other things as well, but at
least these, agreed?

> | An adventurer may only move up to 1/5 
> | of this distance if he is attacking, spell casting or involved in a 
> | melee (moving into, out of, or through a melee). 

Here we defined that if a person is doing any of the above things (spell
casting, attacking, thought triggering, moving _through_ a combat, etc...)
they move at 1/5 movement rate. This number is consistent with a later
section in the manual that says concentrating on a spell limits you to
1/5 movement rate. Be consistent.

This sentence should be the crux of one argument as its actually what
changes from the current status-quo. This is alwo where this message
starts getting lengthy. Here are the reasons for introducing this
change:

1) Its a building block. The change itself really doesn't change much
   in game terms. Someone wearing robes has a base movement of 50 so
   they would have a movement of 10 during any of the above activities.
   This is consistent with the sphere of melee range. However the change
   does loosen up the movement mechanics to allow for a lot of future
   building.

2) Increase in realism. This is a definate increase in realism without
   sacrificing any playability. In fact it enhances playability by allowing
   more intuitive options and hence decresing the ruleset learning curve.
   In other words I, as a new player, would expect to be able to move a
   little and still get an attack. When the GM says no I'd have to say
   "that's stupid". 

   And there's the "why can't I catch up with someone" scenario. Even if
   you run 10'/round faster you won't catch someone until you get an
   initiative flip-flop. The above rule does not stop this from occuring
   but it does make it easier to catch someone if you move faster.

3) Decrease in rule complexity. This is not a "newer, more complex" rule.
   This actually decreases the complexity of the game. If players have to
   ask questions than there is either a complexity or unclarity in the
   rules. How many times have I heard the question "can I move and attack".
   I say no and a good player looks for a way to do it anyway, "can I
   sacrifice some attacks from a multi and get some movement?". This rule
   completely clarifies this. 

> | This distance may be
> | modified by your GM according to terrain, obstacles, or circumstances.

Stock disclaimer saying the GM can fuck with you if the circumstances
say he's in the mood to.

> OK. So now you can move 1/5 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 fifth movement.

That last sentence maybe needs some explanation. In my, admittedly
twisted, mind attacking someone isn't about A -vs- B its about melee
range, sphere's of influence. If I am holding a sword ready to kill
you then I have a spere of influence. You cannot just run through this
sphere (ie get within 5 feet of me) without becoming subject to the
fifth movment rule. If you are already beyond your 1/5 movement you 
end your round at the point of my sword.

This is added complexity and as I said it mostly exists in my mind
since the exact wording above doesn't necessitate this implementation.
However it is logical and does lend toward realism.

If this becomes a sticky point, I'll drop the issue in a heart beat.
In fact lets consider "Spheres of Influence" a seperate topic and
move on (now that your confused).

> 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 1/5 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).

More formalized (and a couple of options):

A) The "move through" subskill allows you to extend the distance you
can move and still attack with your chosen weapon. A 2d6 check -vs-
your weapon skill will allow you to move up to half your movement
rate and still get an attack.

B) The "move through" subskill allows you to extend the distance you
can move and still attack with your chosen weapon. For every die
you roll against this skill you may move an additional 1/5 movment
rate, not to exceed your maximum movement rate.

Lets call split dice a seperate topic and not discuss that right now
either.

Why make it a weapon subskill and not a skill in its own right?

1) Eventually I do want to talk about split dice and that will allow
   simultaneous move-through and multi-attack. This couldn't happen if
   it was a seperate skill because you cannot use two skills in one
   round. With split dice you _will_ be able to utilize more than one
   subskill in the same round. Planning ahead.

2) I've no desire to increase the movement rate of 1/5 for mages 
   casting spells, people thought triggering, etc...

> 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.

I still vote it stays. No one has voiced a real objection other than
"thats not the way its been ruled before". Well of course not. Things
change.

> 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).

Didn't even get to work on the 'Times. Busy weekend. My adventure writup
was mostly finished on sunday however and should be completed tonite.
Adventure lasted about 12 hours (thats for you Greg). 

I don't have a whole weekend to argue. But I will absolutely read the
complete text of every message sent to me on this topic.

Thanks for listening.

					-Steve