Looking for clarification on SLOWED condition

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, your speed never changes. If you run, your speed is 2. You move four squares. Your speed is 2. If you walk, your speed is 2. If you shift, you move one square; your speed is 2. Your speed never changes.

You add the speeds together and move that number of squares. -That- is the applicable rule.

If I shift, I move one square, my speed is 2.

If I double move, I add the speeds together and move that number of squares?

So if I shift twice, double moving, I add the speeds together - 2+2=4, since my speed is 2 - and shift 4 squares?

There's no entry your speed can't be more than 2.

Slowed condition, p277: "You can't increase your speed above 2"

-Hyp.

 

[Bayuer]

One Speed: When you double move, add the speeds of the two move actions together and then move.

Hmm. It depends how you look at this entry. You just refer to one speed. But when you read further you see that you add your speeds together and then move. Your speed don't become 4 when you double move while slowed. It's 2+2, but it's one speed when it comes to difficult terrains or standing in a square occupied by enemy/ally. I know it's look realy solid from logical point of view, but look.

In Speed entry on p.283 it is said:

A character who has a speed of 6 can move up to 6 squares (or 30 feet) on the battle grid by using a move action.

So I can agree. Your speed can be more than 2, but it is true for a single move action only.

Another thing. Shif and then move 2 squares. You moved total 3 squares.
Move and charge. Move 2 then move 2 and attack.
Why should double move be diffrent with this? So when I'm slowed I can't go to a square with Wall of Fire with double move couse it cost me 4 squares to eneter? Thats odd.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think Hyp is just aplying a bit too much rigour to the double move rule. That rule states, in one place, that you add the two moves together, /before/ moving, yet it also states that, if you take two of the same move actions in a row, you are 'double moving.' The one requires that you state that you are double-moving before you move, the other means that any choice to take a second move action after making the first creates a double-move. You can't take each statement as a syllogism, because they contradict eachother, if held up to that level of precision. You can resolve it by adding an unwritten rule as written, that you can't take two move actions of the same type unless you declare your intent to do so at the begining of the round, but that's frankly absurd. Absurdity is what you get when you read rules overly litterally, instead of reading for comprehension.

In any case, even if you care to stray into Murphy's Rules territory with such an interpretation, the /character/'s speed isn't changed by taking a double move or running, and that's what the prohibition in slow addresses.

 

[Mistwell]

I think Hyp is just aplying a bit too much rigour to the double move rule. That rule states, in one place, that you add the two moves together, /before/ moving, yet it also states that, if you take two of the same move actions in a row, you are 'double moving.' The one requires that you state that you are double-moving before you move, the other means that any choice to take a second move action after making the first creates a double-move. You can't take each statement as a syllogism, because they contradict eachother, if held up to that level of precision. You can resolve it by adding an unwritten rule as written, that you can't take two move actions of the same type unless you declare your intent to do so at the begining of the round, but that's frankly absurd. Absurdity is what you get when you read rules overly litterally, instead of reading for comprehension.

It's not absurd if you simply declare in advance every time. And if two rules seem to conflict, but if you follow one rule (declare in advance) and that leads to no conflict with the other rule (taking two moves is a double move), then it usually means the one that solves for both (declare in advance) is the correct rule.

Declaring in advance makes sense to me.

A Double Move action gives you two advantages that two single move actions do not: 1) can advance over more difficult terrain, and 2) can occupy an occupied square at end of first portion of move.

Both advantages say you get those advantages because you never stop during movement, whereas two move actions involve stopping in between the two.

To get these advantages, you have to 1) declare in advance that you are using the Double Move action, and 2) not stop and do something else during the movement.

That seems fair and logical to me, and not at all absurd.

If you do not want the advantages of a double move, then you are free to stop after the first move and do something else, before taking your second move. You won't be able to stop in an occupied square, nor move over more difficult terrain. But you can take a minor action or a free action or even an attack action with an action point. And you didn't have to declare your move actions in advance, giving you the flexibility of adapting to the situation as it changes during your movement.

 

[Syrsuro]

I think here, as with most things, Hypersmurf is right. But right from a very strict RAW point of view which entirely disregards intent, even if that intent seems pretty clear to me.

So it's very interesting to read Hypersmurf's posts, but afterwards I tend to think "yeah, that's a poorly communicated rule; what they meant was probably something more like this" rather than "whoah, crap, I've been playing it wrong all this time!"

This.

I generally find Hypersmurf's interpretations of the rule to be accurate interpretations of the letter of the rule (strict RAW). But they start with the presumption that the rules are a well crafted and complete whole that is intended to be read in such a rigorous fashion, rather then rules written by people who knew how they wanted to rules to work and failed to consider whether the strict letter of those rules would lead to that conclusion.

In this case, no amount of arguing will convince me that a player who decides to walk five squares as his move action and then, based on what he sees, decides to downgrade his standard action to make another move of 5 more squares is unable to do so because this requires a double move and he failed to declare a double move ahead of time (although he can still choose to run, jump, do a handstand, etc. - just so long as he doesn't walk).

And yet that is the interpretation to which a strict interpretation of the RAW has led Hypersmurf.

In logic, this is called reducto ad absurdum - the logical contradiction his argument leads to disproves the argument.

In this case, that leaves us with the conclusion that either a) you do not need to declare double moves before making them or b) you can take two consecutive moves without automatically creating a double move must be true. It doesn't tell us which is true (I favor B currently, but a more generous interpretation allows for A).

Carl

 

[Jhaelen]

I think here, as with most things, Hypersmurf is right. But right from a very strict RAW point of view which entirely disregards intent, even if that intent seems pretty clear to me.

So it's very interesting to read Hypersmurf's posts, but afterwards I tend to think "yeah, that's a poorly communicated rule; what they meant was probably something more like this" rather than "whoah, crap, I've been playing it wrong all this time!"

Yep, that's exactly the right way to read these posts. Otherwise you'll keep wondering why Achilles cannot seem to win a race against a turtle after it has a headstart...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Declaring in advance makes sense to me.

Declaring actions are fine in games that use such a mechanic, but 4e doesn't, and it changes the feel of the game if there's an action you can only take if you declare your intent to take it early on in your turn.

A Double Move action gives you two advantages that two single move actions do not: 1) can advance over more difficult terrain, and 2) can occupy an occupied square at end of first portion of move.

Correct. I get the impression that the 'one speed' phrasing is just trying to get that across, rather than change the action system in a fundamental way.

To get these advantages, you have to 1) declare in advance that you are using the Double Move action, and 2) not stop and do something else during the movement.

That seems fair and logical to me, and not at all absurd.

That's not so bad, no. As long as you have the option of doing two 'sepparate' moves instead of one double move. I'd still prefer not to force a declared-action mechanic on the game, and leave that decision until the end of the first move, simply to retain flexibility and playability, and minimize player frustration. But it's workable.

If you do not want the advantages of a double move, then you are free to stop after the first move and do something else, before taking your second move.

And, that effectively eliminates the 'declared action' issue (OK, so you declare an action, but you can take it back, close enough), so at that point, I'm fine with it.