Moving again (and again (and again...))

[DamonJynx]

At the risk of being a bore...

I must admit that part of my motivation is because of Wayfarer so I've been back looking at the book. What RAW says is

1. A character can move their MOV in round.
2. A character can sprint/charge up to 5*MOV (minus AP)

Under Combat as an action it says that a character can move their full MOV which then leads to the obvious questions:
If a character moves their full MOV on CA 1, can they move again? Fact: No, see 1.
Can a character move and act in the same action? (Book is silent on this front.) Opinion: Only if they don't move their full move and under specific circumstances such as casting a spell where I'm sure it says you can move at 1/2 speed and maintain concentration.
If a character wishes to move more than their MOV what do they do? (There is actually no 'run' Combat Action). Fact: Sprint, see 2, a 'full round' action (to borrow a D&Dism).
If a character wishes to charge a distance more than their normal MOV, how many CAs does it cost? Opinion: Assuming a Sprint/Charge of 31 metres and 3 CA, if you wish to charge further than this distance it would take 6 CA or 2 full rounds see 2.
If you disengage what is to stop the opponent from simply moving their MOV next action and attacking you again? Nothing. Make sure they can't chase you before you disengage.

In the example of combat, Thrace wishes to charge a trollkin having already acted this round. The GM says that it is far enough to require 2 CAs so he hits on his first action next round. This means that the character must be more than his MOV away. This implies that you are allowed to move more than your MOV and act in the same round. Fact: example uses charge, see 2. If the trollkin was further away ie Thraces max MOV while charging, it would take his full allotment of CA's (3?) before the attack hit. edit: this is contradictory to the charge RAW.

For a player coming to the system new it is very hard to derive any kind of intention out of the rules. Most of it is a matter of making the explanation clearer but some of it I think is that movement is currently handled on a "you can move whatever seems reasonable at the time" basis. That's fine until you have people who like to use battlemats. I think the rules really need to be able to work for them too. Agree. Generic fantasy rules should be playable with or without battlemats. And you shouldn't need several threads and hundreds of posts by confused/enlightened fans to sort it out. These rules need to be clarified.

Let me be perfectly clear: a lot (and I mean the majority) of you guys are way more knowledgeable than I on this rule system. I am merely answering with my interpretations of RAW. IMO movement in any game system should be written in 2 sections; combat and non-combat movement. There would conceivably be times where the 2 overlap, a thief sneaking down a corridor looking for traps for example, in which case the GM determines which movement rules should be used as best fits the situation.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I must admit that part of my motivation is because of Wayfarer so I've been back looking at the book. What RAW says is

A character can move their MOV in round.
A character can sprint/charge up to 5*MOV (minus AP)

Under Combat as an action it says that a character can move their full MOV which then leads to the obvious questions:
If a character moves their full MOV on CA 1, can they move again?

A character can move their MOV in round.

I don't see any ambiguity here...

Can a character move and act in the same action? (Book is silent on this front.)

Everything not forbidden is permitted.
Common sense says I can draw a sword out of a scabbard on my belt while walking.

If a character wishes to move more than their MOV what do they do? (There is actually no 'run' Combat Action).

A character can sprint/charge up to 5*MOV (minus AP)

This could be tidied up. From discussion elsewhere in this forum, it seems Pete was assuming that a Combat "CHARGE" was a mounted warrior attacking as he charged past a foe, not a foot warrior charging into combat with a foe blocking his path.

I'd suggest the following rules for charging
1) A charge can only occur if the opponents start further apart than the chargers MOVE, and no further than the chargers RUN
2) A charge takes a full round. A charge started in the second or subsequent CA resolves in the CA before the same action occurs in the next round. The charger is assumed to be moving throughout the round.
(eg I have 3 CA. If I declare my charge in CA1, I resolve it in CA3. If I declare it in CA2, I resolve it in CA1 of the following round).
3) [a]If the Charger is larger than the target, they must continue to move their full RUN distance if possible. If the target is at the limit of their RUN distance they must MOVE at least half their move in their next CA after the charge.
If the target is larger than the charger then the charger must stop when they reach the target unless the target elects to evade, chooses to let them past, or is rendered incapable of responding by the results of the combat
[c]If the target and the charger are similar sizes then the charger must carry on if the target elects to evade. They may carry on if the target chooses to let them past or is rendered incapable of responding by the results of the combat
(If the target chooses to evade and fails, the charger gets a blow in on the way past, however their momentum carrys them forward)
4) If the target chooses to countercharge then the charge is resolved at the point where each has moved an equal proportion of their RUN (so halfway if they move at the same speed)

If a character wishes to charge a distance more than their normal MOV, how many CAs does it cost?

Moving more than your MOV is running which is a full round action, so all of them.

If you disengage what is to stop the opponent from simply moving their MOV next action and attacking you again?

Nothing, unless you can move out of range, or into cover before they act again (or have a longer weapon and can hold them off until they can successfully close range)

In the example of combat, Thrace wishes to charge a trollkin having already acted this round. The GM says that it is far enough to require 2 CAs so he hits on his first action next round. This means that the character must be more than his MOV away. This implies that you are allowed to move more than your MOV and act in the same round.

Well, not necessarily. If the Trollkin was more than 8 but within 16m then he could move (up to) his MOV in his second action of round 1 and (up to) his MOV in the first action of round 2. He hasn't RUN, so can attack normally as part of his first CA (since you can combine MOV with another action). There is no conflict between the RAW and the example, beyond the dodgy use of "charge a trollkin". replace this with "engage" and you are good to go....

movement is currently handled on a "you can move whatever seems reasonable at the time" basis.

This is by far the best way to go! It is only a problem when different participants have (widely) divergent ideas of what is reasonable :wink:

 

[Deleriad]

At the risk of being a bore...

Being finickity about rules requires being boring and pedantic so that's no bad thing. Using rules in play is about doing what makes sense at the time. So it comes down to how can the rules be constructed and explained so that they are simple to grasp and simple to use. The current rules are often highly pedantic down to specifying how many centimetres you can climb after a critical Athletics roll but at the same time very vague.

E.g. If you are sprinting can you defend yourself? (Nowhere in the book does it say that sprinting uses up all your CAs). If you have already acted this round can you start to sprint? How long does it take you to sprint say 1/3 of your sprinting speed. And so on. Is it really the case that if you move your Movement rate on your first action that you cannot move again for the rest of the round. If you can move 1/2 your rate while casting a spell and have 3 CAs does this mean that you can cast 3 spells and move 3/2 your rate.

Some of these can be deduced from the book, some are weird edge cases that happen in all rules and some are fairly central issues that need to be nailed down.

 

[Deleriad]

Well, not necessarily. If the Trollkin was more than 8 but within 16m then he could move (up to) his MOV in his second action of round 1 and (up to) his MOV in the first action of round 2. He hasn't RUN, so can attack normally as part of his first CA (since you can combine MOV with another action). There is no conflict between the RAW and the example, beyond the dodgy use of "charge a trollkin". replace this with "engage" and you are good to go...

Except of course in the example the trollkin was charged and suffered the results of the enhanced damage. The examples I've seen Loz and Pete give have often featured characters running more than their allowance but only spending a single CA.

On the acting and moving front:
According to the book: readying a weapon is a CA. The MOVE action is a CA. That would require doing them both at once in a single CA which is clearly forbidden.1

What the book is probably supposed to say (but doesn't) is something along the lines of:
"A character can combine moving and acting in a single CA within reason. If the character simply wishes to move and take no other action then they can use the Move action. However using the move action doesn't allow them to move further than their normal rating in a round."

That is basically my interpretation of the rules as written but in actual play I just do whatever seems reasonable because I do not want to track the expended movement of every NPC. I suspect that most people who play the game do roughly the same. In which case, if the rules are basically being ignored then at best they're irrelevant and at worse they're actually causing a problem: something that the frequent questions to this board would indicate is the case.


1. The book does IIRC at one point allow a caster to move 1/2 their normal rate while casting a spell (i.e. concentrating). It's not clear if this is meant to be a special case. i.e. does concentrating slow you down or is it an exception which allows you to move and act at the same time.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Going by the book.

The MOVE action is not restricted to once per round.

Exactly. However the total distance moved in a round is.

If you have 4CA and a move of 8m then you could move 2m each action.
or move 4m on two actions, and 0m on the other two
or move 3m on the first 2m on the second, 1m on the third and a further 2m on the last

Why would you want to break your movement like this?
Maybe you are advancing under cover - moving from tree to tree in a forest.
Maybe you are advancing to the next corner in a dungeon (or city) and glancing down to check the coast is clear before continuing
Maybe you are advancing in tandem with a partner, covering each other as you move
Maybe you are advancing part way, then waiting for your allies to fire missile weapons or spells on their combat actions

The book does not say whether you can can move and act.

Common sense says you probably can. The fact the rules don't forbid it says you probably can.

If you blow all your movement on your first action then an opponent can stand two metres in front of you and plug you full of arrows while you stand there and try to dodge/parry.

Life's a bitch! If you play a game with Movement rates, discreet rounds and measured movement then these things can happen. Next time you'll only move 6m onyur first action and then hit the archers on your second action

If your movement rate is 8m and you want to, for example, move 12m, how many CAs does that use?

As many or as few as you chose, providing you spend them over at least 2 rounds. Movement rate is not related to Combat Actions. With a movement rate of 8m you must spend 2 rounds to move 12m. If you have 3CA a round you could take 6CA at 2m each, 3CA at 4m each, 2 CA at 6m each or 2CA one at 8m and one at 4, providing you don't move more than 8m in any one round. (Unless you run. If you run you use all your CA's in a single round. If you only have 1 CA it takes you 1 CA to RUN 12m. If you have 4 it takes you 4 CA to cover the same distance. Either way it takes you a round)

On the big capital "FAIL" front, it would be nice if the conversation could remain polite.

The intent behind my ideas is that both MOVE and RUN are considered to be things you are doing for the whole round.

which is why you are failing. MOVE is not a full round action. your stated intent fails as soon as you say

If you wish to MOVE then you spend the round moving fairly cautiously and can continue to use any remaining CAs to defend yourself. You can start MOVEing at any point during the round.

because there is an obvious difference between spending 3 actions attacking, then moving 8m and moving 8m and then not being allowed to attack for 3 actions, which would not be the case if MOVE was something that took the whole round...

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Is it really the case that if you move your Movement rate on your first action that you cannot move again for the rest of the round.

Why is this a question?
If the rules said "A characte can move 2m per CA" would you feel it necessary to ask "I want to move 3m. Do I have to wait until my second CA to finish the move"?

If you can move 1/2 your rate while casting a spell and have 3 CAs does this mean that you can cast 3 spells and move 3/2 your rate.

No.
You can move UP TO your MOV in a round
You can move UP TO half your MOV while casting a (1CA) spell
You can cast as many (1CA) spells as you have CA's
It doesn't matter whether you cast 1, 2, 3 or 26 spells in a round, you can't move more than your MOV while doing so

If you are playing roulette and have $8, and there is a house limit on bets of $4, it doesn't mean you can make 3 x $4 bets

 

[Deleriad]

Again going by the rules as written nowhere does it say that sprinting uses up all your CAs. You can kind of deduce it but, as you say, anything not forbidden is allowed so as written it is perfectly to argue that you can parry or take other actions.

The example combat showing charging does contradict the rules but combat examples are notoriously liable to do that so I wouldn't place too much weight on that.

Going by the number of questions about movement and charging then I think it's a given that the rules are not adequately explained. The deeper question is whether the system as intended (which requires tracking metres of movement over a round) are fit for purpose. I don't know of anyone who tracks metres of movement beyond a "seems reasonable to me" basis. If so the rules really ought to reflect that. (There are issues such as moving past, moving before, incapability of being able to respond to a move by moving that are related to movement as well but really are specific enough to need their own discussion.)

I personally think it may make sense to treat movement as something like a full round activity. To be precise in the terminology then a MOVE can be started at any time but once started occupies the rest of the round. This does mean that you could start moving as your last action and seem to do 'more' than if you started a MOVE as your first action. It's not ideal but CAs are not a measure of time merely the order in which activities happen. Specifying that a RUN is simply a full round activity that uses all CAs is simply spelling out the situation as it stands.

Keeping the system as it stands and spelling it out is clearly an option. However tracking metres of movement over multiple CAs to ensure that you don't break the allowance for the round seems to be awfully time consuming for no great benefit. (Of course you can handwave the movement in which case why not write the rules appropriately?)

 

[Verderer]

The way RAW is written, I think it's futile try to figure how RAW works. The rules on movement and charge are contradictory, so you have to interpret and come up with house rules etc. Which is why this topic keeps popping up. And as Deleriand and others have pointed out, this is one of the most important things that needs to be sorted out for Wayfarer. Really hope Mongoose will put some effort into this. :wink:

Anways, the way I play it atm, is that you CAN take multiple Move CA's or 8 meters in a turn. One reason is that the CA listing for move doesn't limit this CA into one per round, that is given elsewhere. And it just doesn't make sense to me to limit movement in this way, when everything else is so fluid and flexible. Why are the only options just 8 meters or full Sprint? There has to be something in between. You can of course argue that you can take Sprint and not move the maximum allowed, but then what will you do with the rest of time left in the round? As has been pointed out, you can even move a ouple of meters in connection with other CA's (as explained on this forum but not in the rules), so why tie movement down like this?

Besides, it's very likely that you wont' actually do this very often in melee situation anyways, since you tend to become engaged in hand to hand, and then can't use move. And, even if you used multiple Moves you most likely still end up movin less than with sprinting in any case, unless you're heavily armoured.

 

[soltakss]

This is why I don't like Movement as an Action.

Common sense should be used in all movements, combats and pretty much everything.

If the Big Orc Grunt can't move to try and intercept someone moving past to get at the Sorcerer then there is a big problem with the rules and Movement should be thrown out and hand-waved so that it works.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Well, one thing that is now clear is... that the rules are not clear.

Duncan, I think that a ruleset that requires you to apply the "everything that is not forbidden is allowed" principle is a ruleset that is in sore need of a big clarification.

Pete has already provided some useful clarifications about this point, but these are not enough, I am afraid. Pete, could you provide a short, unambiguous re-phrasing of the Movement rules as a "parting gift" to all your fans (not to mention the guy who is gonna edit RQII to make Wayfarer)?

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Again going by the rules as written nowhere does it say that sprinting uses up all your CAs. You can kind of deduce it but, as you say, anything not forbidden is allowed so as written it is perfectly to argue that you can parry or take other actions.

I'd apply common sense - If you are running flat out then you can't parry (If you threw a rock at Usain Bolt as he sprinted for the line, I doubt he'd be in a positon to do anything about it). If you are running past the guard to get out of the castle before the portcullis drops then you are aware of the (possibility of) attack and so can parry.

The example combat showing charging does contradict the rules but combat examples are notoriously liable to do that so I wouldn't place too much weight on that.

Going by the number of questions about movement and charging then I think it's a given that the rules are not adequately explained.

More explanation would be good - especially of Charging. New (and very different) rules are not

The deeper question is whether the system as intended (which requires tracking metres of movement over a round) are fit for purpose. I don't know of anyone who tracks metres of movement beyond a "seems reasonable to me" basis.

As I see it there are two possibilities.
1) You use a battlemat with squares representing 1m or 2m. You can easily track movement because you can count the squares. This is no different from any other game where movement is limited. If it's a real struggle give everyone 8 poker chips/marbles/spare dice and use these to track movement (or turn a d8 from one face to another as you move)
2) You don't use a battlemat. All distances are approximate and on a "seems reasonable" basis - "Can I reach the Orc?" "Not until next round" In which case the rules are fine, and making them more detailed is adding complexity for no benefit.

I personally think it may make sense to treat movement as something like a full round activity.

I don't

To be precise in the terminology then a MOVE can be started at any time but once started occupies the rest of the round. This does mean that you could start moving as your last action and seem to do 'more' than if you started a MOVE as your first action. It's not ideal but CAs are not a measure of time merely the order in which activities happen.

So you can attack then move, but not move then attack, which is definitely wrong (as well as contradicting Pete's in forum ruling)

It leads to oponnents staring at each other a couple of metres apart, because neither wants to move and lose the opportunity to attack.

 

[Antalon]

This is why I don't like Movement as an Action.

Common sense should be used in all movements, combats and pretty much everything.

If the Big Orc Grunt can't move to try and intercept someone moving past to get at the Sorcerer then there is a big problem with the rules and Movement should be thrown out and hand-waved so that it works.

I believe that opportunity actions or engagement zones are unnecessary, given the Delay combat action.

Big Orc grunt is set to guarding the sorceror. If the PC wins initiative - too bad, he's too quick (we are talking about a 5 second(ish) period of time?). If Big Orc wins, then he can Delay - declaring an action as soon as a potential foe comes within range.

I think this add a lot more tactical challenge: if you're stupid enough to stand near combat, not have a good Damage Resistence spell, then be prepared to be attacked. Or, use more Bir Orc grunts (about 15 in a line would probably slow down an attacker?).

Otherwise, I wish the community well in this challenging endeavour

Antalon.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Big Orc grunt is set to guarding the sorceror. If the PC wins initiative - too bad, he's too quick (we are talking about a 5 second(ish) period of time?). If Big Orc wins, then he can Delay - declaring an action as soon as a potential foe comes within range.

This would give an unfair advantage to whoever wins initiative. Do not forget that we are talking about circling around the guard, not something fast like two steps and strike. You need be a total moron to be utterly unable to react while someone is walking past you and killing the target you are trying to protect. We are not talking about failing a parry here, we are talking about standing there and watching while your master is slain because you lost initiative by one point. Also remember that I can be INT 8 DEX 8 and you INT 16 DEX 16. I roll 10, you roll 1. I (slow, dumb brute) kill your master while you (fast, smart guy) stand motionless.

Definitely something I do not want in my game.

 

[Deleriad]

I believe that opportunity actions or engagement zones are unnecessary, given the Delay combat action.

Big Orc grunt is set to guarding the sorceror. If the PC wins initiative - too bad, he's too quick (we are talking about a 5 second(ish) period of time?). If Big Orc wins, then he can Delay - declaring an action as soon as a potential foe comes within range.

I think this add a lot more tactical challenge: if you're stupid enough to stand near combat, not have a good Damage Resistence spell, then be prepared to be attacked. Or, use more Bir Orc grunts (about 15 in a line would probably slow down an attacker?).

Otherwise, I wish the community well in this challenging endeavour

Antalon.

Except that as written, delay doesn't do what you claim it does. Delaying doesn't let you interrupt another person's action it simply lets you wait until later. As RQII has no formal declaration then any interruption is merely a case of GM fiat.

When you add that in with the fact that actions expire at the end of a round you get really odd interactions. For example you have hero SR 15, Orc Guard SR 12 and Wizard SR 10. Orc guard is guarding the wizard who is standing about 2m behind the Guard. The hero has just arrived on the scene and is about 3m in front of the wizard. All 3 of them spend the round eyeing each other. A new round starts. It doesn't really matter how many orc guards there are unless they are physically linking hands and forming a protective circle around the wizard.

SR 15. The hero walks past the orc and hits the wizard.

As it stands there is no way for the orc to prevent that from happening. Even if he had been delaying in the previous round, the delay expires at the end of the round.

Now clearly most reasonable people would allow the Orc to do something. Thing is this is a common enough situation that it really ought to be easily doable in the rules rather than needing to be hand-waved.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

The rules on movement and charge are contradictory, so you have to interpret and come up with house rules etc.

I think one of the problems was that Pete wrote the charge rules to cover the specific instance of mounted chargers attacking as they rode past their targets. But we want to use them for people running (in)to their enemies too.

One reason is that the CA listing for move doesn't limit this CA into one per round, that is given elsewhere. And it just doesn't make sense to me to limit movement in this way, when everything else is so fluid and flexible.

Well it wouldn't make sense to limit movement to one action per round. That's why you can move every time it is your turn to act...

Why are the only options just 8 meters or full Sprint? There has to be something in between. You can of course argue that you can take Sprint and not move the maximum allowed, but then what will you do with the rest of time left in the round?

They aren't.
The options are up to 8m and up to 40m(less armour) .
If you move up to 8m, you can do other things as well (attack, parry, draw weapons etc)
If you move more than 8m then you can't because you are running.
What if you want to move 10m? You can either run, getting there in one round, or spend 2 rounds moving <8m each round.
If you run there is no "time left in the round", because by definition it takes you all round to execute the run manouvere

I don't see why this is any different to saying "You can move 8m per Combat action" "I have 3 CA per round, what if I want to move 25m"

As has been pointed out, you can even move a ouple of meters in connection with other CA's (as explained on this forum but not in the rules), so why tie movement down like this?

Physics.
How far can you move in 5 seconds, without running, and still allowing you to do other things (swing a sword, fire a bow etc)? That is your MOVE

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Duncan, I think that a ruleset that requires you to apply the "everything that is not forbidden is allowed" principle is a ruleset that is in sore need of a big clarification.

Really? I thought that it was the default position for a RPG as opposed to the "Everything that is not explixitly allowed is forbidden" approach of boardgames. You can't possibly hope to write rules to cover every single situation that might arise in a RPG, and the answer to the question "Can I do <plausible thing> should never be "Sorry, It's not in the rules".

 

[RosenMcStern]

Not for a thing that is very likely to happen in a game, like "I go past the grunt and kill the magician". Likely occurrences are supposed to be covered by the rules, not left to handwaving.

 

[Verderer]

Yes, I thought it would be obvious I meant maximum of either 8 meters or 40 meters, but I guess it wasnt? But the inflexible thing remains, if your base move is 8 for example, and you want to walk 10 meters and the hit someone, you can't? Or, you can't run that 10 meters and then execute an attack? But you can walk 8 meters and execute about 2 to 3 attacks in addition or at the same time. And you can bloody well run all over the place, ie. 40 meters or so. Doesn't seem very flexible or realistic to me.

What I meant about limiting the movement to one action of 8 meters in a around obviously refers to RAW. There is no mention of moving just a couple of meters in connection of another CA anywhere, is there? Move CA says you can move your max move rate using that single CA. Apparently this actually also includes Sprint which isn't a CA at all and refers to max move rate in a way that includes both the base move (8 meters etc) and sprint move (5x base move). Or maybe not, easy to get confused.

I think it might actually clarify things if you just removed the whole Sprint thingy, and used multiple move CA's to cover the whole movement/charge mechanism? Which is kinda what my intention is. Either apply the armour penalty to base move (or not)?

 

[Da Boss]

I think one of the problems was that Pete wrote the charge rules to cover the specific instance of mounted chargers attacking as they rode past their targets. But we want to use them for people running (in)to their enemies too.

Truth - the other issue is this is not made clear that it is only intended for one narrow circumstance.

It presently also does not cover two cavalry mounted oppenents at each other and then engaging in melee etc etc.

Personally its all way too complicated as I use maps but allow people to move within reason as they consider accurate so don't use the move stat

 

[Antalon]

[/quote]

Except that as written, delay doesn't do what you claim it does. Delaying doesn't let you interrupt another person's action it simply lets you wait until later. As RQII has no formal declaration then any interruption is merely a case of GM fiat.

When you add that in with the fact that actions expire at the end of a round you get really odd interactions. For example you have hero SR 15, Orc Guard SR 12 and Wizard SR 10. Orc guard is guarding the wizard who is standing about 2m behind the Guard. The hero has just arrived on the scene and is about 3m in front of the wizard. All 3 of them spend the round eyeing each other. A new round starts. It doesn't really matter how many orc guards there are unless they are physically linking hands and forming a protective circle around the wizard.

SR 15. The hero walks past the orc and hits the wizard.

As it stands there is no way for the orc to prevent that from happening. Even if he had been delaying in the previous round, the delay expires at the end of the round.

Now clearly most reasonable people would allow the Orc to do something. Thing is this is a common enough situation that it really ought to be easily doable in the rules rather than needing to be hand-waved.[/quote]

Yes, I suspected Delay worked like that. I wonder, however, if I can 'arrived on the scene and is about 3m in front of the wizard', without anyone (presumably) being aware of me beforehand (using stealth?), then why shouldn't I act? But, if I have to close across 20m of battlefield, is that different?

Fair enough, a charge, may allow me to run past the Orc guard and no 'reaction' is possible. So this appears to be a problem, although I am cautious about 'over-ruling' what is otherwise an intuitive and GM-driven system.

Perhaps a point to note: are there in fact engagement zones based on weapon length? If I have to move directly past someone with M or greater size weapon, should I be considered engaged, and need to 'change distance' in order to get past them?

I'll leave you guys to it, thinking in the abstract about rules makes my head hurt too much!!!!

Antalon.