Troll Lord Games

Arduin wrote:
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...

Well, I wouldn't re-write the whole text because of one idiot. If this hasn't come up before and doesn't come up again, then the problem is probably with the reader, not the text.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Arduin wrote:
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...

Well, I wouldn't re-write the whole text because of one idiot. If this hasn't come up before and doesn't come up again, then the problem is probably with the reader, not the text.

It has come up a few times in the last couple of years that I've seen. I haven't seen near all threads.

Arduin wrote: It has come up a few times in the last couple of years that I've seen. I haven't seen near all threads.

Well, that makes me feel a little better then, thanks!

And I still have several more stupid questions yet to ask, so there's more coming!

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: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.)

Funny, I don't think looking at a mat is going to change either way how I feel about mixing movement and attacks rather than a one then the other format. For me, the only question on the table is, do I wan to track small slivers of movement spread out over the round. And to be honest, I don't. So at best I would say either move then attack or attack and then move but I would be less open to "move some, attack some, move more, attack more".

Daniel wrote: Funny, I don't think looking at a mat is going to change either way how I feel about mixing movement and attacks rather than a one then the other format. For me, the only question on the table is, do I wan to track small slivers of movement spread out over the round. And to be honest, I don't. So at best I would say either move then attack or attack and then move but I would be less open to "move some, attack some, move more, attack more".

A bit of personal history: Like probably most of us, I've been playing for decades, but for the last few years I've fallen out of the hobby. Gotta new wife, new family, moved away from my home area, etc.

I recently introduced my wife to gaming. My brother and his wife join us about once a month or so, the rest of the time we play with just us and our young son (whom we are just now introducing to gaming).

My brother and I used to play a lot in our younger days, but he's been out of the hobby for many, many years. And his wife knows nothing of it, just like mine.

So when I suggested we try playing RPG's during our get-togethers (we used to watch movies, play video games, play board games, whatever), everyone was interested... but only if I could give them the immediacy and tactical experience of a video game. When I asked what they wanted to play, "a tabletop video game" was the unanimous vote.

So playing with minis is new to me. I used them a little back when I played TSR's Indiana Jones, and a little more with MERP. But for the most part I've always just played it all in the imagination.

So the proper and appropriate use of minis is new to me. My group is clear, though, about wanting it very tactical and board-game like, so that's what we do.

In my old games, yeah, I wouldn't have thought twice about this happening:
"I'm running up to the first Orc and slashing him with my scimitar."
Ok, roll to-hit and damage, you kill it.
"Okay, I still have a second attack, are there any Orcs close enough for me to get to in my turn?"
Sure, there's one trying to sneak up behind you with an iron club, apparently trying to attack you from behind, but you see him out of the corner of your eye.
"Okay, I turn and with a menacing growl advance upon him and attack."

Now, with minis, she can't "turn and advance" unless she has movement points left to do so. One time she moved to an enemy and was literally half a square away (mathematically), and I told her to go ahead and attack... and she looked at me like I had grown a third head. I'm, like, "it's two and half feet. Your weapon can reach him. Your arm can extend. It's fine. Just attack." And she was totally against it, because it wasn't exact and therefore felt like cheating to her.

I tried to get the group to play without minis one time, and everyone just acted like it was the silliest thing they'd ever done. But, after this thread, I am strongly considering trying again.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: A bit of personal history: ....

Makes a lot of sense. Your past experiences influence your present feelings. Like you, my past has impacted my reactions to things. Over the decades I have had the unfortunate privilege to play with a few super character players. Players who somehow are always in the right spot to pick up the treasure/magic items but are in the back of the party when they are attacked. Who somehow seem to teleport to the right spot to be in the spotlight. Who can take over a game when it is only "theater of the mind". I found that by introducing a mat and figures it helped keep them in check and allowed a more realistic level of "action stacking" as I called it. Now their teleportation skills were obvious.

Now saying this, I am not a slave to the grid nor to the rules per say either. I have no issue with a fudge here or there if it contributes to the fun for the group. Most house rules I elect to use are to help drive the adventure and fun. So the example you used about the slash and then look around, I would not mind it unless it became every combat encounter was focused on that character dancing around the field.

I also must say I am under no illusion that my style is "right". It is just what fits me and thus gets used by me. I have seen other GMs do things very different and still had a lot of fun playing in their games.

It feels so weird not being able to "Like" posts. I feel like I'm doing something wrong. :-/

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:
Now, with minis, she can't "turn and advance" unless she has movement points left to do so. One time she moved to an enemy and was literally half a square away (mathematically), and I told her to go ahead and attack... and she looked at me like I had grown a third head. I'm, like, "it's two and half feet. Your weapon can reach him. Your arm can extend. It's fine. Just attack." And she was totally against it, because it wasn't exact and therefore felt like cheating to her.

Just stick to 5' squares (as the move rates divide equally by 5) and don't worry about turning within a square (or hex). It is REALLY simple to do C&C on a grid. Easier for newbies than keeping everything in your head during combats.

Great that you can play with your bro and his wife. What a set up!

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: 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.

Just an aside: Rules Cyclopedia contradicts itself on this point. You can't run and make an attack, but you can move your encounter speed (1/3 base) and still attack (p. 103). In any case, if you are using the phased initiative movement comes before hand-to-hand, so movement is not possible after an attack.

Aergraith wrote:
Just an aside: Rules Cyclopedia contradicts itself on this point. You can't run and make an attack, but you can move your encounter speed (1/3 base) and still attack (p. 103). In any case, if you are using the phased initiative movement comes before hand-to-hand, so movement is not possible after an attack.

Urgh. You are correct, good Sir. >.<

Page 102: A character cannot do two things in a single round, such as run 20 feet and then attack. He would have to run 20 feet in one round, then attack in the next round. [...] ...[A] character can move up to 5 feet while he is fighting. Maneuvering in this way does not count as an action during the round.

Page 103: Encounter Speed: A character or monster may move his full encounter speed movement (1/3 normal movement in one round) and still make his attacks this round.

>.<

That's all I have to say to that. Just >.<

Everyone gets to move and attack or attack and move.. some half moves some full moves... but why are spell casters not permitted to move at all in the round they spell cast per PH p 172?

Captain_K wrote:Everyone gets to move and attack or attack and move.. some half moves some full moves... but why are spell casters not permitted to move at all in the round they spell cast per PH p 172?

They can't move while they are casting because they are casting instead of moving... it's hard to answer that one without a tautology.

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 explicitly allow this for elves making ranged attacks, since they had split move attacks in Chainmail and OD&D. Though really if you allow that you should also allow pass-through fire halfway through the move for everyone else with a bow.

Aergraith, By that logic you cannot move and attack because you cannot move because you're attacking. I think the issue is really the envision of someone with a sword being able to run in 20' and attack the opponent 20' away. Yet when it comes to magic, we do not envision a fleet footed wizard running 20' back behind some cover while shooting magic missiles on the run.. Its a mythical/magical game, we could allow dynamic motions while spell casting, but it seems the majority of players and CKs, and thus the PH for that matter, want the spell casting to be static, not active.

My question is why? If we assume spell casting to be no different than the fighter's attack, both are attacks in the same round, one magical one mundane, then why not have unified rules for movement around the PC action of attacking? Would it destroy the game? Why have the difference? Not sure allowing a wizard to move (or 1/2 move) and cast or a Cleric the same.

Captain_K wrote: I think the issue is really the envision of someone with a sword being able to run in 20' and attack the opponent 20' away. Yet when it comes to magic, we do not envision a fleet footed wizard running 20' back behind some cover while shooting magic missiles on the run..

No, I asked on of the trolls a few years ago. They made the rule since most spells take a full combat round to cast and a melee attack can be made in about half that time.

Arduin wrote:

Captain_K wrote: I think the issue is really the envision of someone with a sword being able to run in 20' and attack the opponent 20' away. Yet when it comes to magic, we do not envision a fleet footed wizard running 20' back behind some cover while shooting magic missiles on the run..

No, I asked on of the trolls a few years ago. They made the rule since most spells take a full combat round to cast and a melee attack can be made in about half that time.

Makes sense to me. While we are not tied to exact time, the time needed to cast would be longer.

I have no doubt the rules are clear, no action while spell casting, period. I've lately been asked to and see value in a more active Cleric or wizard able to cast spells in the heat of battle to save lives or reap them with verbal prayers and holy signs aloft independent of the battering they take or a wizard so skilled and so fast his casting with a flick of a finger and a word are faster than any drawn sword.. again, NOT per the book, but an interesting way to play.

For me, we struggle to keep players interested in casters... so allowing a more dynamic caster is not that big a deal for me. Heck, its still a d4 HD, no armor mage.. he is still NOT going to be in toe to toe combat regularly... this is many for the times to save his butt with a spell.

Again, just a thought...

Yeah, like with all of these questions, I usually answer with what the rules say (though it's a bit redundant; it's already in the book!) but of course how it's done at the table is often a different story.

And I find very few things of this nature break the game if tweaked, at least at the lower levels.

I always struggle with players who pick one class and really want to play another. If you want to play a front line fighter, then select one. Don't select a wizard then be shocked you can't treat them like front line fighters.

If you elect to play a wizard then you are heavy artillery in the training. Yes at first level you might seem weak, but give it a few levels and see what happens.

Do I think a single tweak will cause issues over time, not really. But dozens of tweaks over time do. So I reserve my tweaks for things that really feel they need to be tweaked. And not moving and casting just doesn't feel like one to me.

[Daniel gets off his soap box]

The proceeding was an unsolicited opinion and can be treated as such.

Daniel wrote:I always struggle with players who pick one class and really want to play another. If you want to play a front line fighter, then select one. Don't select a wizard then be shocked you can't treat them like front line fighters.

It is odd. But, under prodding I usually find a wanna be munchkin who wants an Uber PC. (not counting newbies who are just learning.)

Arduin wrote:

Daniel wrote:I always struggle with players who pick one class and really want to play another. If you want to play a front line fighter, then select one. Don't select a wizard then be shocked you can't treat them like front line fighters.

It is odd. But, under prodding I usually find a wanna be munchkin who wants an Uber PC. (not counting newbies who are just learning.)

Yep, my experience as well.