Re: Move Through Take 2

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

I prefer 1/5 move, that way armor comes into play.

Wright
> I think it should be 10' per die, and that it should be a subskill of the
> warrior skills.  It's going to make it that much easier for the GM AND the
> party if only the  warriors are the ones doing move through.  8-12 ppl
> zipping all over the whiteboard sounds like an adjudicators nightmare.
> This would also reflect the fact that warriors have spent some time
> learning how to use this skill effectively.  I know I've been a bit wishy
> washy on this, but ppl keep coming up with good ideas. >:P  Everyone being
> able to do that sounds like too much of a power jump to me.  If we put the
> 1/4 move thing into effect, my powers of prestidigitation forsee a whole
> shload of mutates for increased movement.
> 
> Joel
> 
> P.S.  I like dice pool splitting, too.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Kris Ames wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > The problem is... any interruption undoes the spell casting. 
> > People have
> > > even tried to specify the thought trigger on an effect to be
> > identical to
> > > the thought of casting lightning bolt, and this didn't work.  So
> > it has
> > > nothing to do with the coincidence thought per se, and the
> > decision to
> > > walk, to watch for pot holes, etc would disrupt spell casting.
> > 
> > Several of us do not believe that ANY (AKA ALL) interruption undoes
> > spell casting.  Some of the newer precedents and rules have only
> > been in play for the past couple of years.  Basing the argument on
> > how someone else ruled something is not necessarily a way to
> > convince everyone.  I think several of us are trying to evaluate
> > things from an entire "does this make since and play well
> > perspective" not necessarily from the "the book says this or so and
> > so said no this won't work".  Read up on the post where Wright and
> > subsequently I posted the section on concentrating on a spell and
> > movement.  Concentrating on CHANGING a spell effect in my mind is no
> > more taxing than casting the spell in the first place (in my
> > opinion), But as I said in my previous post we are not discussion
> > mage skills here we are now back to only discussing the move through
> > skill for warriors.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I would like to see the skill just a warrior skill.  This from the
> > fact
> > > that the testing was done by non weapon's masters, just athletes. 
> > I would
> > > view the ability to move and attack like a mod.  Like a skill, not
> > a
> > > function of weapon skill. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm.. I think a lot of discussion has gone on on this and the
> > general consensus was make it a subskill of the weapon skill.  Am I
> > wrong on this everyone?
> > 
> > > 
> > > On another note of my own, if people are going to base this stuff
> > on split
> > > dice, then a lot more arguement is coming up.  
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > I think some people like the split dice idea.  Because it in some
> > respects limits people from taking 6 extra attacks because they
> > could do a lethal attack and take a couple of swings or do a move
> > through and have an extra swing.  It just would provide a lot of
> > flexibility without a lot of complexity or added power.  But once
> > again, this isn't a discussion on dice pooling, it is a discussion
> > on the move through skill.  Dice pooling or a similar mage skill is
> > another discussion.
> > 
> > 
> > Okay everyone,  Orion, Greg, Joel, Joe, John, Lyle, Jamie, and any
> > other list lurkers...You have all been fairly silent on the move
> > through issue over the past couple of days.  What are your current
> > thoughts?
> > 
> > 1.  Should the move through be just get to move 10' per die of move
> > through (no 1/4 movement "freebee")?
> > 2.  Should it be a subskill of the weapon skill?
> > 
> > Only one or two people having a discussion leads to two people
> > coming to an agreement and 20 other people disagreeing.
> > 
> > -Kris
> > 
> 
>