D&D 4E [4e] Readied Slow vs. Double Move

[Quidam]

For what it's worth, I'm Mistwell's DM in this game, so I'll be making the final call unless we get something firm from WotC.

Looking at what's been presented so far, I'm inclined to rule that a double move only exists as such after the second move action is declared.

If you end your first move action in an occupied or difficult square, you get shunted back to the last viable square unless you declare your next action at that time to be another move action of the same type.

This seems to go along with the requirement that a double move be two actions while still allowing movement through occupied or difficult squares.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Please resolve this contradiction:

Or are you going to say that a character who fails to declare a double move before taking his first move action to walk is now forbidden from downgrading his standard to a move and walking again because he didn't make that prior declaration.

That's how it reads to me, yeah.

In practical terms, if the second move action you declare is the same as the first move action you declare, then the two move actions together always constituted a double move, so if the first move action was interrupted, then the double move was interrupted.

If the second move action you declare is not the same as the first move action you declare, then the two move actions together were never a double move, so if the first move action was interrupted, then there was not a double move to interrupt, and so the second move action remains.

So yes - if someone's Walk action is interrupted, then they can downgrade their standard to a move and Run, or Shift, or Crawl, but they can't Walk, because if they Walk, the action that was interrupted was a double move and their movement is finished.

Literally, I think the intent to double move should always be declared before you start moving. Practically, it rarely makes a difference, so the above is how I'd generally handle it.

In order to double move you have to take the same action twice in a row.

If you're interrupted during the first part of said move, you haven't taken the same action twice in a row, and therefore aren't yet in a double move.

But if your second action is the same, then you were in a double move when you were interrupted.

-Hyp.

 

[Quidam]

But if your second action is the same, then you were in a double move when you were interrupted.

It's this introduction of the retroactive that bothers me- that the second action you take determines the nature of the first one you took.

The other option is forcing someone to declare a double move at the beginning of the first move action, but what you discover from turning that corner during the first action will inform whether your next action is a charge or another move.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's this introduction of the retroactive that bothers me- that the second action you take determines the nature of the first one you took.

It's not that different to 3E's movement, where the first square you left was not threatened if you did nothing but move for the round. So if you were adjacent to an enemy, and took a move action, you didn't provoke an AoO... unless, after moving, you made an attack, in which case back when you first moved, you had, in fact, provoked an AoO.

In 3.5, they revised this rule, introducing the Withdraw action, whereby you had to choose in advance whether you were taking a move action (where the first square is threatened), or a full-round action (where the first square is not threatened, but removing your opportunity to do anything else in the round).

Or the full attack action, where you could make one attack, and it was only at the point where you made the second attack that it was determined whether your first attack had been an attack action or part of a full attack action. But if you made your first attack at no penalty, then even though you could elect to make it a full attack action, you couldn't do so if the full attack action would have imposed a penalty on the attack you already took (the Rapid Shot feat, for example, or Two-Weapon Fighting, or Flurry of Blows...).

The other option is forcing someone to declare a double move at the beginning of the first move action, but what you discover from turning that corner during the first action will inform whether your next action is a charge or another move.

Right - so the choice is similar to the 3.5 choice of 'move or withdraw'. Withdrawing has some advantages... but you might get 30 feet, reach the corner, and then think "I wish I'd only taken a move action to keep my options open". You're stuck with moving another 30 feet, or doing nothing.

If you'd taken the Move action insterad of the Withdraw action, you'd have provoked an AoO in your first square, but when you reached the corner, you'd have a wide-open standard action left to do whatever you wanted.

In 4E, you can take a Move action to walk to the corner, or you can take a double-move to walk to the corner. With the double move, you look around the corner, and all you can do is keep walking or stop. With the single walk action, you look around the corner, and you can do anything you like with your remaining standard action except take another walk action.

-Hyp.

 

[jbear]

both sides have good arguments which seems to leave it in the grey. However it doesn't seem right that you have to declare a double move to look a round the corner. If I was going to look around a corner not knowing if there was going to be an axe wielding psycho around the other side or an empty corridor I would decide what to do when I had a clear picture of the situation.

If you moved once to peek around the corner only to be hit by magic with the slow effect I would expect it to reduce my remaining move action (if that was the course of action I choose to take) to 2... not to be immobilised.

Also, it seems that when you Shift 1 to get out of enemy range and then move away, you have moved twice but made two seperate actions not simply a double move.

If someone has declared a double move to benefit from the ability to end their first move standing on their friends head and was hit by a slow spell I would be inclined to stop them in their tracks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, it seems that when you Shift 1 to get out of enemy range and then move away, you have moved twice but made two seperate actions not simply a double move.

Absolutely. But if you Shift 1, and then Shift 1 again, you have made a double move.

A double move is when you take the same move action twice in a row. Shift and Walk? Not a double move. Walk and Run? Not a double move. Shift and Shift? That is, and is required to be, a double move.

-Hyp.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Here's the way I see it:

1 - Since a player can substitute a Move action for a Standard action, he or she can move twice in one turn. Example:
a - Move action
b - Minor action
c - Standard action -> Move action

2 - With a double move, you essentially are moving twice. PH 284 uses terminology to even support that you are using 2 distinct actions when you do so. Phrases like:
a - "When you double move, your first move action can..."
b - "Your second move action can’t..."
c - When referencing difficult terrain: "... the two move actions together..."

3 - However, PH 284 also give this phrase: "If you take the same move action twice in a row - two walks, two runs, two shifts, two crawls - you're taking a double move."

4 - There is no rule in the PHB stating you must decide and announce all of the actions you will take on your turn before you take any of them.

All of this tells me the following:

A double move is taking 2 move actions during your turn. The second move action must immediately follow the first and be the same kind of move action (Shift, walk, etc). There are special rules allowing you to stop in an ally's square at the end of the first move. There are special rules for moving through difficult terrain during a double move. The terminology, and the way the double move is presented indicate that it is not it's own kind of action, but merely a set of rules that apply when 2 move actions are taken consecutively. You can decide to use a double move while taking a single move action (since the rules for a double move affect whether you can end in an ally's space) but unless you end in an ally's square, you are not 'committed' to double moving.

So, for the whole Slow vs Double move issue, I can conclude the following order of opperations:
1 - The target decided to move. He uses a single move action to do so. With the intent on later using a second.
2 - The target moves 2 squares.
3 - The target has triggered the slow effect. It resolves now. The target is now slowed.
4 - The target find himself now slowed and having moved 2 squares. He has not used his standard or minor actions this turn yet.
5 - If the movement from the target's original 2 square movement left him or her in an ally's square, leading to 2 choices.
A - The target has taken an illegal move and follows the rules for ending a movement in an illegal square.
B - The target can decide to take a double move, making the movement legal. This means the target needs to use another move action.
6 - The target continues with his or her turn as he or she sees fit.

 

[Hypersmurf]

B - The target can decide to take a double move, making the movement legal. This means the target needs to use another move action.

But if he decides to take a double move, then the double move is what is stopped by the Slow effect.

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

5 - If the movement from the target's original 2 square movement left him or her in an ally's square, leading to 2 choices.
A - The target has taken an illegal move and follows the rules for ending a movement in an illegal square.
B - The target can decide to take a double move, making the movement legal. This means the target needs to use another move action.

You cannot by definition take a double move in that circumstance, and will have to follow the illegal move rules (A). Slow makes you stop. You cannot stop in an occupied square. You cannot then decide to take a double move because you've already made an illegal move (stopping in an occupied square).

Which is why I think all the double move language talks about combining your speeds and then moving. It's not really two moves. It's one big move calculated based on the total of two regular moves.

 

[eamon]

If you have some ability to fly up to an altitude of 100ft, but come crashing down if you exceed 100ft, and another effect allows you to fly 50ft higher than usual, clearly the meaning is that you do not come crashing down until your altitude exceeds the new ceiling. Similarly, if a slowed creature has moved 2 or more square, it must stop. Implicitly, this is because it's used up it's movement for that round. In other words, the rule about stopping if you've moved 2 squares by plain logic becomes a rule that forces you to stop after 4 squares if you can move twice your speed.

To argue otherwise is to suggest that the two separate instances of the number '2' are unrelated and not to be conflated in the rules on page 277. That's not how I read it, and I doubt that's how others do. If you really want to read the rules to a ridiculously literal level, realize that the rule only requires you to stop if you have already moved 2 or more squares. But what if you're crossing difficult terrain? Apparently you get to move 2 squares regardless of terrain... Or what if you're falling? Whew, lucky you, you stop after falling the first two squares.

In addition to the fact that the rules for slow clearly only stop you after 2 squares since your new speed is 2 (thus clarifying that if you declare 6 squares of movement but are slowed half-way, you new speed kicks in immediately irrespective of your original intent), you'd also be permitted to take a second move action despite the double move rule. The actual rules block on double move does not force you to use it. Furthermore, it clearly does not consider (and thus does not apply to) interrupted moves. As a general principle, moves in D&D seem to be resolved square-by-square, and it is thus not necessary (nor for that matter possible) to fix in stone your movement more than a square in advance. This is not stated in the rules in such a form, but CS has confirmed it, and assuming the contrary leads to weirdness in the event of interrupted moves due to OA's and readied actions, to say nothing of the many immediate reactions and interrupts.

So you can both resume a stopped move by moving again (see for instance combat superiority) since you are not forced to use the double move action, and further, when slowed you need to stop after moving 2 squares by reason that that is your speed, and thus anything affecting that reason affects the conclusion.