Who uses the movement rules as written?

MithrilKnight · Post by **MithrilKnight** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:42 pm

I've played D&D 3.x for so long, I've essentially forgotten how movement used to be done. I'm used to full moves and attacks or double moves and no attacks -- so the 1/2 move and attack seems foreign.

Does anyone use the C&C movement system as written? If so, how does it work (and compare with 3.x)? Basically, is there a good reason to keep it over house ruling the thing?

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:31 am

No problem, sir. Believe me, I had the same issue (I think I told you that already in another thread, so I'll spare you ).

Since there's no multiple attacks (for the most part), there is not "Stand still and full attack," but there is this: an attacker can move 1/2 his movement in attack in the same round. When charging, you can move your full movement and attack (with the penalties and bonuses associated with it). If I recall, this does not apply to casting spells nor does it apply to moving 1/2 your rate and making multiple attacks (for monks and fighters) - only one attacks can be made if you move up to half your movement.

Hope that helps!

MithrilKnight · Post by **MithrilKnight** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:40 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
No problem, sir. Believe me, I had the same issue (I think I told you that already in another thread, so I'll spare you ).

Since there's no multiple attacks (for the most part), there is not "Stand still and full attack," but there is this: an attacker can move 1/2 his movement in attack in the same round. When charging, you can move your full movement and attack (with the penalties and bonuses associated with it). If I recall, this does not apply to casting spells nor does it apply to moving 1/2 your rate and making multiple attacks (for monks and fighters) - only one attacks can be made if you move up to half your movement.

Hope that helps!

Forgive me if I'm repeating myself with my questions. I'm just trying to make sure I've got a handle on everything before my first game. I sort of feel a bit of pressure to make sure my players enjoy the new system (and making sure I know the rules is a key start).

Some of my players are really skeptical about C&C. They're so attached to 3.5e and I'm dragging them along because I've had enough with DMing 3.5e and all the prep work and rules to remember.

I should probably just play all the rules as written and make modifications based on the group's desires later. But it's so tempting to tweak a few things now in the hopes of "converting" all my players willingly and happily. I wish I could just be a player once and see how someone else runs it, but alas, I'm leading the crusade among the players and DMs in my gaming group.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:49 am

I do it more like 3E, full move and attack. Only moving 15 and attacking bugs me.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:00 am

MithrilKnight wrote:
I've played D&D 3.x for so long, I've essentially forgotten how movement used to be done. I'm used to full moves and attacks or double moves and no attacks -- so the 1/2 move and attack seems foreign.

Does anyone use the C&C movement system as written? If so, how does it work (and compare with 3.x)? Basically, is there a good reason to keep it over house ruling the thing?

As I understand it, C&C uses the "move/countermove" method. AD&D tends towards "written orders" [i.e. actions are declared before the commencement of the round and resolved more or less simultaneously]. The former is definitely easier to run, but the latter should hopefully result in a more dynamic combat round where interceptions are possible without special actions to interrupt enemy actions.

Resolving combat with regard to movement, attacks, spells, and other actions can be one of the trickier elements of round resolution, and is often more an acquired skill than anything else. I would use the C&C system to begin with, and then consider alternatives and whether they will suit you better.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:07 am

MithrilKnight wrote:
Forgive me if I'm repeating myself with my questions. I'm just trying to make sure I've got a handle on everything before my first game. I sort of feel a bit of pressure to make sure my players enjoy the new system (and making sure I know the rules is a key start).

Some of my players are really skeptical about C&C. They're so attached to 3.5e and I'm dragging them along because I've had enough with DMing 3.5e and all the prep work and rules to remember.

I should probably just play all the rules as written and make modifications based on the group's desires later. But it's so tempting to tweak a few things now in the hopes of "converting" all my players willingly and happily. I wish I could just be a player once and see how someone else runs it, but alas, I'm leading the crusade among the players and DMs in my gaming group.

You haven't asked this question before, I was commenting on the you having to unlearn 3.5 part...no worries!
And I can sympathize with you on the new and skeptical players part, too. One particular player really liked the +1 attribute/ability score increase every four levels. I thought about it for a few minutes, figured it wouldn't be a problem to add it in, and went ahead and added it to my list of house rules. Easy as pie.

As far as the movement rules, they're pretty easy, I think. It takes the middle road between old (you can move, but not attack) and new (you can move and attack) with a solid middle-ground (you can move half your movement and attack). If worse came to worse and you really wanted to, you could fall back onto the 3.5 rules.

That being said, you may want to follow your own advice and play the game a few times, by the book. I'm sure no one has to tell you, but this isn't 3.5 - it'll have different rules that will take a very little while getting use to. Get use to them, before deciding whether you want to change them or not - you may find that they play better as written. Then of course if you want to change, the rules lend themselves very well to adaptation.

And don't worry about your players - I think once they brave the game table without the rigid structure, the illusion of freedom, that existed with 3.5, they will find a much more open and enjoyable playing experience.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:06 am

We play it exactly BTB. I think this allows for more movement in combat vesus 3.5. This makes it more tactical, because you can't attack after moving more then 50% of your allowence. Movement seems important in C&C combat vesus other editions.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:49 am

I do not use movement rules at all. I find it tedious and needless.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Jackal · Post by **Jackal** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:41 pm

I run them by the book. The only thing that bugs me at all is the "do not attack doughnut." This is created by being able to move 1/2 distance and attack or charge (minimum full move) to attack. So a medium sized character can either move 15 feet and attack or run head long into battle 30+ feet and attack. At a range of 16 to 29 feet he can only move or attack.

Even that isn't a real big deal most of the time as I like situations where a character just doesn't have the distance for a full on charge but also can't reach his opponent in time to do anything meaningful (and often should just stand his ground, find cover, etc).

I'm not sure if this is covered by the NDA or not (if so, feel free to edit my post) but it's important to note that the move 1/2 and attack was more of a compromise put in place for some of us here. Originally it was move OR attack, end of line. Same goes with declare actions at the start of the round and then act vs state and act on initiative count.

That's why spellcasting, declaring actions, etc all have several options in the PHB. All of which is my way of saying the way you move, declare actions, etc in a combat round doesn't have much to do with the flow of your game. As long as the same rules apply to both sides and you stick with them, one movement/attack system doesn't have much over another than your own style. So go with what works for you and your group.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:19 pm

Jackal wrote:
I run them by the book. The only thing that bugs me at all is the "do not attack doughnut." This is created by being able to move 1/2 distance and attack or charge (minimum full move) to attack. So a medium sized character can either move 15 feet and attack or run head long into battle 30+ feet and attack. At a range of 16 to 29 feet he can only move or attack.

Even that isn't a real big deal most of the time as I like situations where a character just doesn't have the distance for a full on charge but also can't reach his opponent in time to do anything meaningful (and often should just stand his ground, find cover, etc).

I'm not sure if this is covered by the NDA or not (if so, feel free to edit my post) but it's important to note that the move 1/2 and attack was more of a compromise put in place for some of us here. Originally it was move OR attack, end of line. Same goes with declare actions at the start of the round and then act vs state and act on initiative count.

That's why spellcasting, declaring actions, etc all have several options in the PHB. All of which is my way of saying the way you move, declare actions, etc in a combat round doesn't have much to do with the flow of your game. As long as the same rules apply to both sides and you stick with them, one movement/attack system doesn't have much over another than your own style. So go with what works for you and your group.

Maybe it's me, but I don't see a problem with the whole move, attack, or move half and attack options. If I were to take issue with it, it would be the fact that I can stand in one spot and take one attack or I can move (half my move) and make one attack. The charge actually makes sense to me - I personally don't think anything is wrong with the charge. It hasn't come up in any games yet, but why not allow charging rules apply to 16-29 feet?

What you would have is:

A regular move, up to your character's speed.

A move and attack, up to half your character's speed.

A charge, which (I don't have my books in front of me) would allow a character to move up to double his speed and attack at the bonuses and penalties listed in the PHB. So anywhere from 16 to 60 feet could be covered by a charge. I can't recall the letter of the rule, but I don't see how this would be a problem.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:25 pm

serleran wrote:
I do not use movement rules at all. I find it tedious and needless.

I'm pretty much with Serleran here. While we use minis and paper people to represent basic set-up we dont actually count squares or anything. Basically if you can run up to a guy , you can (and swing as well).
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:23 pm

You know, with the amount of questions I have seen on issues like this, I'm beginning to think a good expansion on the game would be a tactical combat book. I'm not saying something that brings d20 combat to C&C but a book for those that want a more tactical bend to their games could be a nice addition.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:47 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
You know, with the amount of questions I have seen on issues like this, I'm beginning to think a good expansion on the game would be a tactical combat book. I'm not saying something that brings d20 combat to C&C but a book for those that want a more tactical bend to their games could be a nice addition.

I believe Casey is working on a mass combat rule book, so things like this will likely be suggested in that.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:12 am

I had forgot about that. I am hoping that things like this make it into the game. I may not use them but there has been a fair amount of people asking about things like this.

Speaking of Casey, am I the only one that noticed he has been rather silent lately?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:37 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
I had forgot about that. I am hoping that things like this make it into the game. I may not use them but there has been a fair amount of people asking about things like this.

Speaking of Casey, am I the only one that noticed he has been rather silent lately?

He's a school teacher, you know how they are.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:35 am

Ahh that explains it.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:06 am

Actually, I would think a game of mass combat, or a resource that focuses on war and the siege would have very little to do or say regarding personal conflict such as the trivial nature of man-to-man that is the standard fare of C&C... but, I could be proven wrong.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Ulik Mibut · Post by **Ulik Mibut** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:43 am

I certainly dont use them RAW from the C&C PHB. I allow full moves and combat in the same round per 3.5e D&D (which is where I came to C&C from in the first place).

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:41 am

Ulik Mibut wrote:
I certainly dont use them RAW from the C&C PHB. I allow full moves and combat in the same round per 3.5e D&D (which is where I came to C&C from in the first place).

Yep, this is how the people I game with do it too. Rigon, nwelte, Lord Seurek, Slimy, etc...
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:17 pm

Given the abstract nature of melee I try not to "zoom in" on details like 'half-attack + half-move = full round'.

But I do playseveral games that are more "simulationist" and can see the allure.

Way back when Steve Jackson put out a book called "Man to Man". It was basically just the melee rules crunch of a larger game. I could see something like this on a "Engineering Dungeons" scale.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

artikid · Post by **artikid** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:51 pm

Hi,

I use them almost as written, in that I allow players to charge even if the enemy is under twice the movement rate as long as the movement is all in a straight line.

Also I use minis with a home-mad battlemat.

It works very nicely and I never had problems, personally I feel no need to borrow combat or movement rules from 3.x but Your Mileage May Vary.

Best regards

Artikid

artikid · Post by **artikid** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:52 pm

sorry double post

Artikid

artikid · Post by **artikid** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:52 pm

damn, triple post.

Sorry must be the browser

Artikid

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:46 pm

The battlemat, even though not really needed for C&C does come in handy. Though using a battlemat prolongs combat to a certain degree, it does tend to eliminate arguments about position on the field of battle. We stuck to the v3.5 5' per square rules, and though this doesn;t mesh exactly with C&C movement, it works well enough. We decided for the purposes of movement to simply round to the nearest 5' when calculating how far one can move.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:57 pm

Omote wrote:
The battlemat, even though not really needed for C&C does come in handy. Though using a battlemat prolongs combat to a certain degree, it does tend to eliminate arguments about position on the field of battle. We stuck to the v3.5 5' per square rules, and though this doesn;t mesh exactly with C&C movement, it works well enough. We decided for the purposes of movement to simply round to the nearest 5' when calculating how far one can move.

-O

Oh, at home I not only use battle maps, but FD games terrain stuff. Not because of tactics, but because the visual aids are just cool.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:26 pm

I don't really use battle mats for outdoor stuff but I will use tiles for dungeon combat. Thanks to FDG I have enough to use for a long while.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:34 am

+1 on the use of battlemat. I don't use it anymore on a constant basis, but it sure does come in handy for battles.

To those who use the move and attack method (ala 3.5) - does it have any negative side-effects or cons over using the C&C btb method?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

phadeout · Post by **phadeout** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:25 am

If you want it simpler, but don't want to ignore movement, try this:

You can move your movement rate, and have all your attacks in one round.

If you want to move more than your movement rate, and attack, then you need to charge. You can then move up to twice your movement rate (who cares about straight lines, the CK can make the call on if it makes sense that you can or can't charge - yes you can "charge" over the flaming pit of fire if you make a dexterity roll etc).

If you don't attack, then you can do something else while you move, or move double your movement.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

Who uses the movement rules as written?

Who uses the movement rules as written?

Re: Who uses the movement rules as written?