Hi,
I have a question about movement and spellcasting. In the "Combat Actions" section of the PHB (p 129), it states:
A character may not move any distance and cast a spell in the same round unless the spell description says otherwise.
But then on the next page, in the "Movement in the Combat Round" section it says:
The Castle Keeper should always allow a character to move at least 5 feet in a combat round, unless the character is restrained or otherwise unable to move.
So my question is: does spellcasting make a character "unable to move", or can the caster (to use the D&D 3.x term) "take a 5-foot step" before casting? I know there are no attacks of opportunity in C&C, so maybe it doesn't make as much of a difference. How does this work?
Eh, I don't know the official answer. I would allow the 5 ft step and casting. I don't see how that's going to be a game breaker. Really I don't see the harm in moving half movement and still casting. A round is 10 seconds long so assuming it took you 5 seconds to go your half speed movement you'd still have 5 seconds left to cast.
Counting 1 Mississippi...2 Mississippi..3...etc... to 5 takes longer that saying it seems. I'd at least allow the 5 foot movement.
I think maybe the intent of allowing at least 5' of movement is so a slow-moving, encumbered character isn't completely locked up under difficult terrain; if all of the penalties to movement added together (but don't outright call for immobilization), you can still move at least 5'. I don't think it's meant to emulate the "5-foot step" that came as a result of Attacks of Opportunity.
The "may not move any distance" is the more restrictive, and for that reason alone I might keep it, but I actually allow the 5' in my game. As you say, it doesn't really buy them anything, maybe you can move in just enough for a touch spell.
I would rule that spellcasting would qualify as "unable to move" since the rule of casting does indeed state that a caster cannot move. I once had an issue with these two statements until I realized one thing - these two statements are not contradictory! One statement quantifies the rule (the character can move at least 5' if they haven't done anything that renders them unable to move) and the other statement provides the condition (the caster cannot move since he casted a spell). At least that's my interpretation.
Lord Dynel wrote:I would rule that spellcasting would qualify as "unable to move" since the rule of casting does indeed state that a caster cannot move. I once had an issue with these two statements until I realized one thing - these two statements are not contradictory! One statement quantifies the rule (the character can move at least 5' if they haven't done anything that renders them unable to move) and the other statement provides the condition (the caster cannot move since he casted a spell). At least that's my interpretation.
That's kind-of what I was thinking, but my mind is so steeped in v3.5 that I wasn't sure... It's been a long time since I have been able to find anyone to play this game, and when we did play, it was substantially house-ruled with 3.5isms. I am hoping to eventually run a game where we play by the RAW. Movement (or lack thereof) and actions in a round is one big difference between C&C and 3.x.
Lord Dynel wrote:I would rule that spellcasting would qualify as "unable to move" since the rule of casting does indeed state that a caster cannot move. I once had an issue with these two statements until I realized one thing - these two statements are not contradictory! One statement quantifies the rule (the character can move at least 5' if they haven't done anything that renders them unable to move) and the other statement provides the condition (the caster cannot move since he casted a spell). At least that's my interpretation.
That's kind-of what I was thinking, but my mind is so steeped in v3.5 that I wasn't sure... It's been a long time since I have been able to find anyone to play this game, and when we did play, it was substantially house-ruled with 3.5isms. I am hoping to eventually run a game where we play by the RAW. Movement (or lack thereof) and actions in a round is one big difference between C&C and 3.x.
Hehe...dude, I completely understand. I flooded C&C early with a lot of 3.5-inspired house rules. They're almost all gone now. In fact, sitting here, I can't remember if I have any left...but it is late and I don't have my house rules in front of me. I think the biggest thing is that you must "unlearn what you have learned." I found that while thinking, "gee, I think C&C could use [random 3.5-inspired rule as a house rule]" C&C usually has a different way of handling that situation...and if it doesn't, it probably don't need a rule for it. Just use some CK arbitration. That was probably the toughest thing for me to do - stop pulling too much from 3.5/d20 and let the system run on its own merits. I found that it did, quite nicely.
I would rule that spellcasting would qualify as "unable to move" since the rule of casting does indeed state that a caster cannot move. These two statements are not contradictory! One statement quantifies the rule (the character can move at least 5' if they haven't done anything that renders them unable to move) and the other statement provides the condition (the caster cannot move since he casted a spell).
~Lord Dynel
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@ VAE VICTUS! >> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<
I found that while thinking, "gee, I think C&C could use [random 3.5-inspired rule as a house rule]" C&C usually has a different way of handling that situation...and if it doesn't, it probably don't need a rule for it. Just use some CK arbitration. That was probably the toughest thing for me to do - stop pulling too much from 3.5/d20 and let the system run on its own merits. I found that it did, quite nicely. 
I think it was past my bed time when I wrote that.