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

[FireLance]

Slow does two things though: 1) reduce speed to 2, 2) ends movement if you have already moved 2. So I do not see what it matters if your speed is 4 while double moving, since you still stop if you have already moved 2. You could not, for example, get the other stated benefits of double moving, like moving further in difficult terrain or occupying an already occupied space. So why would you get any other benefits of a double move?

I think I may have been a little loose with my terminology previously. I should have said "you move four squares" instead of saying "your speed is four". Although for simplicity, you can treat a double move as a single move of twice your speed, it makes more sense to me to treat it as two separate move actions.

So you would let them stop while in an occupied square, something you can only do if you combined your speed with a double move rather than took two separate moves?

But if he carries on moving, he isn't stopping in an occupied square! I don't see the problem there.

 

[Syrsuro]

A double move still takes two actions. Your interrupt would stop the first move action, but the second move action still remains.

A double move is not a special single action 'thing'. It is a synergistic effect that occurs when two consecutive move actions are taken together.

In short, it is a way to conserve half-space movement if and only if two consecutive moves are made.

But if the first move is interrupted, that has no effect on the second move because it is still a two-action process.

In the above case the first move is halted by the slow (the target has already moved two and thus cannot move any further). However the second move action remains and the creature can move two more spaces. In fact, the creature can choose to run on that second move action and move four more squares (total of 6) if it wishes to risk the penalties.

Carl.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A double move is not a special single action 'thing'.

Are you sure?

"Add the speeds of the two move actions together and then move" makes it sound as though the decision of whether or not to take a double move must be made before the first square of movement is taken.

And if you take one move action, complete it, and then decide whether or not to take a second move action, you wouldn't be able to do things like end the first move action in an occupied square.

Taking two walk actions appears to be fundamentally different to taking a walk action followed by a run action, because the two walk actions must be a double move, which means that the speeds are added together before you move, and you are, in effect, taking a special single action 'thing'.

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

But if he carries on moving, he isn't stopping in an occupied square! I don't see the problem there.

"If you’re slowed while moving, stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares"

Seems pretty clear that you do stop.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"If you’re slowed while moving, stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares"

Seems pretty clear that you do stop. That is something you are not allowed to do with a normal move.

Yeah - if someone has moved two squares with his Walk action, and he's in an occupied square since he intends to keep moving, and then he gets hit with a Slow effect, he stops moving, and is shunted back to the last square he legally occupied.

Now, if we assume that he still has an action remaining even though he had previously declared he was double-moving, I don't think he can take his second action as a Walk action. If he takes two Walk actions in a row, it's a double move, and a double move is movement without stopping, and he stopped, so he's not taking a double move, so he can't take two Walk actions in a row. He could take a Run action, since that wouldn't impose the double move scenario.

But I'm not convinced we can assume he still has an action remaining if he'd declared he was double moving, because a double move is movement without stopping, and so stopping must be the end of the double move, and so when the Slow effect took place and he stopped, that was the end of his double move.

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

If you take a single move, take a minor action (like a Kobold shifting), and then take another move, you do not gain the benefits of a double move since it was not consecutive. Neither move could stop on an occupied square in that example, whereas if it were a double move the first move could end on an occupied square.

So it seems to me a double move is a special move in 4e (unlike 3e), and it would have to be declared in advance of taking that special move. If it gets interrupted, you do not have another move action left.

 

[Syrsuro]

Yeah - if someone has moved two squares with his Walk action, and he's in an occupied square since he intends to keep moving, and then he gets hit with a Slow effect, he stops moving, and is shunted back to the last square he legally occupied.

If he takes two Walk actions in a row, it's a double move,and a double move is movement without stopping, and he stopped, so he's not taking a double move, so he can't take two Walk actions in a row.

Two move actions in a row can be a double move. It does not have to be a double move.

It can just be two move actions in a row, both of which happen to be a walk.



Bottom Line: If you want this settled, you need an official ruling on whether - having declared a 'double move' you have merged your two actions into one single 'action' and given up the ability to change what you do with the second half of that 'action' if the full action is interrupted.

I happen to think that, just as you can change your specific path if your normal move is interrupted (for example by a shifty kobold or an interrupt) you can change an interrupted double move back into two single moves if it is interrupted before you reach its midpoint (i.e. before you gain the synergistic benefit of the double move).

You appear to disagree and that is the key question which would need to be settled.

But if you are going to allow them to run after being interrupted I think you must allow them to walk as well because, as noted above, two walk actions in a row may be a double move but do not need to be a double move.

(But I would agree that, having been stopped, the resulting move can no longer be a double move. It must be two single moves. But the character can walk in the second move if he wishes.)

Carl

 

[Hypersmurf]

Two move actions in a row can be a double move. It does not have to be a double move.

Yes, it does.

It can just be two move actions in a row, both of which happen to be a walk.

No, it can't.

PHB p284: "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."

There is no provision for taking the same move action twice in a row without it being a double move. That would be worded something like "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, except when you aren't."

-Hyp.

 

[DracoSuave]

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. You only go into the double move once you start taking the second action. You cannot take two actions simultaneously, it must be one after the other.

 

[Syrsuro]

Originally Posted by Syrsuro
Two move actions in a row can be a double move. It does not have to be a double move.

Yes, it does.

It can just be two move actions in a row, both of which happen to be a walk.

No, it can't.

PHB p284: "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."

There is no provision for taking the same move action twice in a row without it being a double move. That would be worded something like "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, except when you aren't."

-Hyp.

Please resolve this contradiction:

A: You have often taken the position that a double-move is declared before starting a move and that it is therefore a single 'thing'.
B: <Given> Characters can normally take an action, resolve that action, and then decide what their next action will be.
C: <Given> Characters can downgrade standard actions to move actions.
D: You have just stated that A character who takes two consecutive walk move actions is automatically taking a double move and that two consecutive walk actions cannot be taken without being a double move.


Now consider: A character who takes a move action to walk and then, upon completion of that move action, decides to downgrade their standard action to a move action and walk again.

Based on A they are not taking a double move because they have not declared that they are taking a double move ("the speeds are added together before you move, and you are, in effect, taking a special single action 'thing'.").

Based on D they are taking a double move because "There is no provision for taking the same move action twice in a row without it being a double move. "

So which is it?

• Is a double move something that must be declared ahead of time and if you take two consecutive moves without declaring it to be a double move it's not a double move - it's just two single moves, one after the other?

• Or is a double move a consequence of taking two consecutive moves, whether or not they are declared, and thus the decision point of whether or not you are taking a double move can be delayed until after your first move is complete (or, alternately, until just before your first move ends and the synergistic effect would apply)?

• 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.

(Personally, I hold that you declare the intent to make a double move before you start moving, but it doesn't become double move until you pass a point you could not have reached if you had only done a single move. And thus if you are interrupted before you reach that point, you may have had the intent of making a double move but you were prevented from taking that double move and have instead only taken a single move. And thus you have a move action left. I do require the downgrade of standard action to move action as a part of that declaration of intent however - you have a move action left, not a standard action).

Carl