Troll Lord Games

My PHB (I don't know if this has been changed in other editions) states that an attacking character can move up to half their Movement rate and still attack. Although these terms aren't used, that's a Free Action and a Dice Action.

The rulebook clearly states that they can move half their movement and still attack, but it is not equally explicit on whether they can Attack and then move half their movement rate (Dice Action following a Free Action).

To be clear, I am not talking about withdrawing from combat; I am talking about moving to another battle (or away from the battle area) after your own battle has ended and you are no longer in a threatened space (pardon the use of lingo, but I feel it helps to clarify the question).

Sure, Here's An Example: Our heroes are Fair Fred and the Gray Ratter. They are in a dungeon when they are beset upon by three Goblins. Throughout this example, the only actions all the characters will take is Attack.

After maneuvering for position, 2 goblins have attacked the Gray Ratter, assuming he is a Wizard since he is unarmored and in a black cloak. Only one goblin faces Fair Fred.

Initiative is rolled and the Fair Fred goes first. He's already in melee range with his goblin, having moved up to it in the last round, which was too far for him to attack. So, now in melee range with the goblin, he attacks and hits. The goblin's 3 HP can't take Fair Fred's 9 point attack, so the goblin dies.

Fair Fred did not move at the start of this turn, but the rules state that he could move 30 feet and still attack. Looking around, he sees the Gray Ratter being beset upon by two goblins about 50 feet away.

Can Fair Fred now move the 30 feet to the goblins? He can't travel the whole 50 feet, regardless, because he attacked this turn. But he can get halfway there, meaning on Round 2 he can move the last 20 feet and attack the second goblin at the start of the round.

Otherwise, Fair Fred has to wait until the next round, when he can move his 50 feet, but cannot attack in the same round. He'll have to wait until Round 3 to help the Ratter fight, instead of Round 2.

So, how about it? Can you do your Free Action and Dice Action in any order? Or does a Dice Action end your turn? Move and attack only? Or either way is fine? Please hurry with an answer! The Gray Ratter's life is at stake!

The rules are suggestions to me, not a straight jacket, so if it makes sense to me they can make the move they want to make, I let them move.

I play full move and attack or attack and full move. Just make sense to me.

R-

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: The rulebook clearly states that they can move half their movement and still attack, but it is not equally explicit on whether they can Attack and then move half their movement rate (Dice Action following a Free Action).

The best to answer is to ask yourself: Could someone attack someone for 5 seconds then move for 5 seconds? (a round being 10 seconds) If they could move for 5 seconds then attack for 5 seconds...

Like you say, if there is the possibility of a withdrawal then that rule takes precedence. But in the absence of it it's sensible that you can move. Though it's usually not a good idea to position yourself to draw an attack on the creature's upcoming turn. Still, there are tactical reasons for doing so.

Arduin wrote: The best answer is to ask yourself: Could someone attack someone for 5 seconds then move for 5 seconds? (a round being 10 seconds) If they could move for 5 seconds then attack for 5 seconds...

And this is why I'm asking. Having come straight off a run of the D&D Cyclopedia, where you can't move and attack (except for a single 5 ft move) in a 10 second turn, I'm having to re-imagine battle details in C&C.

C&C rules establish that you can move for half a round and attack for half a round, as long as the movement is only half of your movement. It also establishes that you can do two half-moves in a round (i.e. a full move).

So now we're rapidly moving towards a conclusion: Apparently, you can do two actions in a 10 second turn.

Except: you can't. You can't make two attack actions in a turn (unless you're a mid-level fighter). You can't move and cast a spell. You can't cast a spell and attack with a weapon. You can't attack with a weapon and use an item. You can't move and use an item in most cases (exceptions may apply but are rare). You can't move and use an ability unless movement is part of the ability (i.e. exceptions may apply). And so on.

That makes "move half your rate and attack" sound more like an exception than a rule. It sounds like the Cyclopedia rule of being able to move 5 feet before an attack, but they are giving you a little more than 5 feet.

But I have no idea. I'm pretty new to this game, and am using only what I know of other games to make sense of this one where there are holes in the rules. I presume that most of the people posting here have been playing long enough and are into Troll Lord enough that they have specialized knowledge of this game that the newbie does not have. I've already asked this question (and a few others) on Facebook boards, but I figure who would know better than a dedicated C&C board?

Generally, probably over 90% of the time, AFTER the initial round where they close into melee range. I don't allow a move until after their attack action. Simply because they don't even get to tell me what they are doing, aside from a basic "I am attacking/casting a spell", until its their Initiative turn. However, I do make exceptions when it sounds reasonable enough to me.

Based on the rules as I understand them, I would not have any issue with attack then move if the situation seemed logical to me.

Although I do wonder how often I would really want to attack and then move half my move. Most combats seem like they would be closer than that to the other action. Of course I could be wrong there.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Arduin wrote: The best answer is to ask yourself: Could someone attack someone for 5 seconds then move for 5 seconds? (a round being 10 seconds) If they could move for 5 seconds then attack for 5 seconds...

And this is why I'm asking. Having come straight off a run of the D&D Cyclopedia,

My point is, if it makes sense, do it. It's up to the CK to run the game so it is fun and makes sense.

Arduin wrote:

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: The rulebook clearly states that they can move half their movement and still attack, but it is not equally explicit on whether they can Attack and then move half their movement rate (Dice Action following a Free Action).

The best to answer is to ask yourself: Could someone attack someone for 5 seconds then move for 5 seconds? (a round being 10 seconds) If they could move for 5 seconds then attack for 5 seconds...

Looking at it that way, I should think the attack would only take 1-2 seconds and logically, movement would take longer ~ 7-8 seconds.

But, I'm of the opinion that one can move and attack or attack and move!

Hmmm, how about move, attack and move? One half of your half movement ~7.5 ft, attack and then move again 7.5 feet.

Rhuvein wrote:Hmmm, how about move, attack and move? One half of your half movement ~7.5 ft, attack and then move again 7.5 feet.

I don't think I'd allow that.

R-

Rhuvein wrote:Hmmm, how about move, attack and move? One half of your half movement ~7.5 ft, attack and then move again 7.5 feet.

Good spotting, Rhuvein. That's similar to something I'd thought of... If I can move 1/2 my move and still attack in any order, then can't I move 1/3 of my half move, attack, and then move the other 2/3?

My character can move 30 feet per round. On a half move he can move 15 feet. If we're using a battle map, then he could move 1 (or 2) squares, then attack, and, presuming he incapacitates his opponent, then move the remaining 2 (or 1) squares.

As unwieldy as this seems, the numbers are small enough to make it rarely useful. I can't imagine what a mess it would be if I was trying to split movement with all 30 feet, for example.

I know this sounds like I've got my mind made up, but I haven't. Actually, my plan is to throw it up to a vote to the group (there's four of us, so we could end up tied). But I like hearing both sides and throwing out more questions so that I can get more answers.

The things I ask are the things my group will ask, I can guarantee it. Your answers will be the answers I'll give them.

Rigon wrote:

Rhuvein wrote:Hmmm, how about move, attack and move? One half of your half movement ~7.5 ft, attack and then move again 7.5 feet.

I don't think I'd allow that.

R-

Actually, I'm now wondering if we have been allowing this in our games in the past.

Haven't we seen . . say a rogue behind a pillar or some other cover step out, shoot his crossbow and then step back??

Hmmm . . . mind fuzzing or going haywire, not sure!!

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:I know this sounds like I've got my mind made up, but I haven't. Actually, my plan is to throw it up to a vote to the group (there's four of us, so we could end up tied). But I like hearing both sides and throwing out more questions so that I can get more answers.

The things I ask are the things my group will ask, I can guarantee it. Your answers will be the answers I'll give them.

I use a battlemap and minis sometimes for combat and my players and I like it. We don't get too technical or precise with regard to movement and placement.

But I know that many players, based on their D&D gaming backgrounds like to have the battles layed out in good detail on the map.

And so, it seems that presenting these options to your group is a great idea.

Let us know how it goes!

If I can catch one of the Trolls when they're not busy, I'll try to ask if the rule allows for movement afterwards.

As long as the character they were attacking is no longer in the equation for whatever reason. Otherwise, the disengage rule probably comes into play.


In such situations, I allow an attack at any point along the permitted movement distance. I just don't see a good reason to lock it down to (or disallow) before, after, or during. I don't really consider them as necessarily separate and distinct actions (Nor does the rules apparently, because this movement is listed as part of the attack action). I don't like the idea of "a movement action" and "an attack action". Since viewing it that way doesn't really make sense to me. The entire thing is an abstraction anyway. As someone trained in combat, your movement (either leading up to an attack, or following an attack) is almost always part and parcel of that attack, either to set up the attack or to set up the withdrawal). It's not like a turn is divided up into pieces that are movement and pieces that are attack that you can "spend". I like getting to attack on your turn and getting some movement on your turn, probably as part of the same action. Hopefully that doesn't just confuse things further.

mbeacom wrote: I don't really consider them as necessarily separate and distinct actions (Nor does the rules apparently, because this movement is listed as part of the attack action). I don't like the idea of "a movement action" and "an attack action". Since viewing it that way doesn't really make sense to me. The entire thing is an abstraction anyway. As someone trained in combat, your movement (either leading up to an attack, or following an attack) is almost always part and parcel of that attack, either to set up the attack or to set up the withdrawal). It's not like a turn is divided up into pieces that are movement and pieces that are attack that you can "spend". I like getting to attack on your turn and getting some movement on your turn, probably as part of the same action. Hopefully that doesn't just confuse things further.

Actually, that's a very clear reply. Among my friends, we have been standing up in front of each other walking a few steps and swinging foam swords trying to imagine how this all works.

I have to say, I wouldn't find this the slightest bit confusing if it were just the famous "5 foot step." I can see easily see that as just a part of combat. A 15-foot step, however, just doesn't work in my mind as well. (I should mention that I've never played D&D 3e; I know the terms but not the game, so I'm not just complaining that this game isn't 3e -- the fact that it isn't 3e is why I like it).

This is something I've said on another board (and possibly this one, also, although I'm too lazy to look at my previous replies at the moment): This half-move seems more like an exception rather than a rule, since it's not allowed during any other combat action but attack. It makes me think it's their version of the 5-foot step.

And I'm fine with that, until one creature in the game can only move 20 feet per round and therefore only gets a 10-foot half move. In a well-designed combat encounter, that 5-feet he lacks per round could affect the entire encounter negatively. I hate punishing the whole group because this guy has short legs.

But I digress. The point was that "seeing it all as just one action" and not as a "free action/dice action" combination makes a lot of sense and, from a rules perspective, removes the ambiguity. As you suggested, with your view of it, a fighter with two attacks per round could potentially attack, move, and attack again (presuming the first foe is incapacitated and the second foe is within 15 feet of the fighter). My task would just be trying to imagine how all that actually looks in the Real World when it's played out on a battle map: when played abstractly, that movement doesn't matter. When played on a board, the fighter is now 15 feet further from the altar than she was 10 seconds ago, so that movement did happen.

Rhuvein wrote:

Rigon wrote:

Rhuvein wrote:Hmmm, how about move, attack and move? One half of your half movement ~7.5 ft, attack and then move again 7.5 feet.

I don't think I'd allow that.

R-

Actually, I'm now wondering if we have been allowing this in our games in the past.

Haven't we seen . . say a rogue behind a pillar or some other cover step out, shoot his crossbow and then step back??

Hmmm . . . mind fuzzing or going haywire, not sure!!

Now that you mention it, I think you might be right. I'll have to stop allowing that. Move either before or after your attack not both. Thanks Rhu.

R-

Rhuvein wrote:
Looking at it that way, I should think the attack would only take 1-2 seconds and logically, movement would take longer ~ 7-8 seconds.

Logically HALF of 10 seconds worth of movement would take 7-8 seconds? You want to check those logic circuits Slim?

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: Good spotting, Rhuvein. That's similar to something I'd thought of... If I can move 1/2 my move and still attack in any order, then can't I move 1/3 of my half move, attack, and then move the other 2/3?

No. If a chance for a successful attack requires 5 seconds of contiguous melee then you only have 5 seconds worth of movement possible. There is only 10 seconds in a round. Even trolls can do math that simple.

Arduin wrote:

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: Good spotting, Rhuvein. That's similar to something I'd thought of... If I can move 1/2 my move and still attack in any order, then can't I move 1/3 of my half move, attack, and then move the other 2/3?

No. If a chance for a successful attack requires 5 seconds of contiguous melee then you only have 5 seconds worth of movement possible. There is only 10 seconds in a round. Even trolls can do math that simple.

Who you calling a troll, Arduin. Lol.

Seriously, though, the operative word in your reply is "contiguous." If we see it as Rhuvein sees it, not as 5 seconds of this and 5 seconds of that, but as 10 seconds of a mish-mosh of both, then it's entirely logical that you could move some in front and some in the middle, don'tchathink?

Fair Fred steps up, wails on the goblin, kills it in one mighty smash, and turns towards the next one all in one 10 second space of time.

Or perhaps Fair Fred is 10+ level and gets 2 attacks. He steps up, slaughters the first gobby with one swing, then turns and approaches a second gobby that was moving up to him (it was planning to move and attack in the next round), but Fair Fred then swings around, steps forward again and kills the second.

As long as the total movement doesn't exceed the listed amount (for balance and fairness), then does it matter if it's before, during or after? Why not move/attack/move (if unthreatened)? And if so, as long as the amount moved is equal or less than the maximum allowed, couldn't it be any amount at each movement?

Actually, the examples in the last post, with Fair Fred moving, attacking, turning, stepping forward, and attacking again, for example, aren't anything I would bat an eye at if we weren't playing on a mat. :-/ If we were just all playing "in-head" I don't think I'd have any problem with that at all. It only seems to matter when it's all laid out and the goblins are clearly further away than the game states the character can move.

Hmm. Move and attack in any combination as long as it's not more than the max allowed is looking more and more logical. It's moving on a game board that's looking illogical. That won't make my players happy! (They like their tactical a lot.)

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: Seriously, though, the operative word in your reply is "contiguous." If we see it as Rhuvein sees it, not as 5 seconds of this and 5 seconds of that, but as 10 seconds of a mish-mosh of both,

I'm just going by the rules. According to the rules it is 1/2 movement out of a 10 second round if one wants to also attack in that 10 seconds. By definition that would have to be 5 seconds worth. Unless you can think of a way of doing 5 secs on move in less time.

Arduin wrote:

Rhuvein wrote:
Looking at it that way, I should think the attack would only take 1-2 seconds and logically, movement would take longer ~ 7-8 seconds.

Logically HALF of 10 seconds worth of movement would take 7-8 seconds? You want to check those logic circuits Slim?

Stop trolling, slim. Your logic circuits need to learn some manners!

Your statement is an opinion and we all know opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

"It's important to remember that each round is an abstract measurement The actions and activities that occur in a round are NOT meant to take place during specific seconds or segments."

Under Combat Round in the PH.

Arduin wrote:

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: Seriously, though, the operative word in your reply is "contiguous." If we see it as Rhuvein sees it, not as 5 seconds of this and 5 seconds of that, but as 10 seconds of a mish-mosh of both,

I'm just going by the rules. According to the rules it is 1/2 movement out of a 10 second round if one wants to also attack in that 10 seconds. By definition that would have to be 5 seconds worth. Unless you can think of a way of doing 5 secs on move in less time.

"It's important to remember that each round is an abstract measurement The actions and activities that occur in a round are NOT meant to take place during specific seconds or segments."

Under Combat Round in the PH

Arduin wrote: I'm just going by the rules. According to the rules it is 1/2 movement out of a 10 second round if one wants to also attack in that 10 seconds. By definition that would have to be 5 seconds worth. Unless you can think of a way of doing 5 secs on move in less time.

Everything you say is true.

I'd like to note, however, that my edition of the game (and later editions may not have this exact text), also says this:

"It is important to remember that each round is an abstract measurement. The actions and activities that occur in a round are not meant to take place during specific seconds or segments. It should be viewed as a short range of time during which many things happen. Although each character or monster must wait their turn to act as determined by initiative, they do not necessarily act in that same order in a narrative sense. The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the initiative roll. Abstract consideration of the combat round allows for more fluid and expansive narrative."

And, well, this is embarrassing: I just re-read the Attack section under Combat Actions:

"An attack allows a character or monster to move up to one-half their movement rate. Moving farther than one-half movement rate negates the ability to make an attack."

I'm just now seeing that the book itself does NOT explicitly state that the movement comes in any particular place in the line. Maybe I confused it with another game? Anyway, the book itself cleared up my mis-readings.

In the immortal words of Emily Litella: "Nevermind."

Rhuvein wrote: "It's important to remember that each round is an abstract measurement The actions and activities that occur in a round are NOT meant to take place during specific seconds or segments."

Under Combat Round in the PH

Yeah, I just saw that. Sorry, guys. Thanks for all your input.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Arduin wrote: I'm just going by the rules. According to the rules it is 1/2 movement out of a 10 second round if one wants to also attack in that 10 seconds. By definition that would have to be 5 seconds worth. Unless you can think of a way of doing 5 secs on move in less time.

Everything you say is true.

I'd like to note, however, that my edition of the game (and later editions may not have this exact text), also says this:

"It is important to remember that each round is an abstract measurement. The actions and activities that occur in a round are not meant to take place during specific seconds or segments. It should be viewed as a short range of time during which many things happen. Although each character or monster must wait their turn to act as determined by initiative, they do not necessarily act in that same order in a narrative sense. The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the initiative roll. Abstract consideration of the combat round allows for more fluid and expansive narrative."

And, well, this is embarrassing: I just re-read the Attack section under Combat Actions:

"An attack allows a character or monster to move up to one-half their movement rate. Moving farther than one-half movement rate negates the ability to make an attack."

I'm just now seeing that the book itself does NOT explicitly state that the movement comes in any particular place in the line. Maybe I confused it with another game? Anyway, the book itself cleared up my mis-readings.

In the immortal words of Emily Litella: "Nevermind."

Well, it only took a handful of us to winnow it down. Probably calls for a more concise combat section write up in the PHB...