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

[Hypersmurf]

I think the point here is that you can 'double move' or just take 2 move actions...

Not if they're the same, according to the text immediately below the heading "double move".

Hyp didn't quote rules text, but the flavor text preceding it.

What check is required to move a helpless ally I've grabbed?

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

Hyp didn't quote rules text, but the flavor text preceding it.

What check is required to move a helpless ally I've grabbed?

Ok, I'll bite : text outside grey boxes is relevant, but less precise, and generally not used to describe actual mechanics. Notably, there is no mechanic to move helpless allies, you just do it.

At that level of precision the sentence describing two moves as being a double move is perfectly accurate - that's indeed what's happening in general. However, it's not a mechanically precise stricture - the actual grey-block rules don't prevent you from moving twice, and apply in a straightforward fashion if for some reason you stop half-way.

I read the white-backed text as general description. If you had to describe a double move in intuitive terms, the description in the PHB is perfectly natural, even if it's not all-encompassing. It's so exceedingly rare that you'll be stopped half-way, it would simply be confusing to focus attention on that. To me, the phrasing naturally suggests that it applies when you take two consecutive, uninterrupted moves. If you interpret it literally, then you're taking a double move whenever you spend any two identical move actions in a row - but clearly it's nonsensical to interpret a "stand up"-(some immediate reaction trips you)-"stand up" sequence of actions as a double move. The text isn't meant to be read that literally, however, it's a human-language description of a rule set, not an automated implementation.

 

[kerbarian]

I noticed this in the other thread about double moving while already slowed: Is there any reason you couldn't walk, take an unrelated free action, then walk again without it being a double move?

This comes down to what's meant by "take the same move action twice in a row". Does it mean "take the same move action twice without taking any actions in between"? If so, taking a free action in between would get you out of the forced double move issue. I can't think of any other reasonable definitions offhand.

In that case, you'd only have to declare a double move ahead of time if you want the benefit of not stopping after your first move. Otherwise (most of the time), you could just take your first move, take a free action to blink or swallow or something, and then decide if you want to take another move action, even one of the same type as your first move.

Yes, it's pedantic, but I don't think that's inconsistent with the rest of the thread

 

[Hypersmurf]

text outside grey boxes is relevant, but less precise, and generally not used to describe actual mechanics.

The text regarding moving diagonally around a corner is outside a grey box, and it has a diagram confirming just how precisely the mechanics are described.

If you interpret it literally, then you're taking a double move whenever you spend any two identical move actions in a row - but clearly it's nonsensical to interpret a "stand up"-(some immediate reaction trips you)-"stand up" sequence of actions as a double move.

The sentence is quite specific - two walks, two runs, two shifts, or two crawls.

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

I noticed this in the other thread about double moving while already slowed: Is there any reason you couldn't walk, take an unrelated free action, then walk again without it being a double move?

You can do this, and it entails some benefits and drawbacks.

Drawbacks: You lose the two benefits of the Double Move action, which let you 1) occupy an occupied space at the end of the first portion of your move, and 2) advance over more difficult terrain.

Benefits: You gain two advantages: 1) you do not have to declare both moves in advance, giving you more flexibility to adapt to a changed situation caused by your first move action, and 2) you can take a free action, minor action, or even attack action (with the use of an action point), between your two moves.

In that case, you'd only have to declare a double move ahead of time if you want the benefit of not stopping after your first move. Otherwise (most of the time), you could just take your first move, take a free action to blink or swallow or something, and then decide if you want to take another move action, even one of the same type as your first move.

Yes, it's pedantic, but I don't think that's inconsistent with the rest of the thread

I agree. And I do not think it is as pedantic as it first seems. D&D rules often trade flexibility for power, and in this case you trade flexibility (an action between your moves, and ability to decide if you want to use second move action only once you see the consequences of your first move action) for power (ability to "stop" in occupied space with first portion of move, and movement over more difficult terrain). Makes sense to me!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not if they're the same, according to the text immediately below the heading "double move"

Which, taken to that same degree of precision, contradicts the text that implies that a double-move can only be initiated before moving. There are three options, here, if you want to cling to an overly precise & litteral interpretation:

1) Double-move must be declared before moving, which means a character might decide to move again after completing a move, taking two moves without double-moving.
2) Any second move of the same type becomes a move, which means that you do not have to declare a double move before you begin moving, but can't have two sepparate moves of the same type.
3) Double-move must be declared, and it is impossible to take two of the same move actions in a round without declaring that double move before you begin moving. This means you can walk then decide to shift, moving less than twice your speed or walk, then run, moving /more/ than twice your speed, but never, ever, walk, then decide to walk again, moving about twice your speed. And that is simply absurd.

The sensible alternative might be:

You can decide to double-move before you complete your first move, and use the double-move rules. Or, having completed a move action, you can decide to move, again, without using the double-move rules (which mainly means you might lose a square or two of movement to round-offs due to squares that cost more than 1 movement to enter).

Or, slightly less sensible, since it creates a unique declared action rule that can be quite frustrating to the player: You can decide to double-move only before you have begun moving. If you do not declare a double-move, once you have begun moving, you cannot use the double-move rules to avoid losing movement to round-offs. If you /do/ declare a double-move, both move actions (one typically your standard action) are expended, even if you end up deciding to end your movement before moving your speed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

3) Double-move must be declared, and it is impossible to take two of the same move actions in a round without declaring that double move before you begin moving. This means you can walk then decide to shift, moving less than twice your speed or walk, then run, moving /more/ than twice your speed, but never, ever, walk, then decide to walk again, moving about twice your speed.

Right - I already stepped that through in one of these threads somewhere.

It's similar to 3E, where a choice you make at the start of a round can prevent certain other choices later in the round.

For example, in 3E, the first square you move out of is not considered threatened if all you do in the round is move. Normally, I can move 30 feet, and then I can stop, or move another 30 feet (taking a second move action in place of a standard action), or do something else - say, shoot a bow.

But if I start adjacent to an enemy, and move 30 feet without incurring an AoO, my choices are now stop, or move another 30 feet... but I cannot shoot a bow, because if I do, then the square I started in is retroactively no longer unthreatened, and I did provoke an AoO 30 feet ago.

(This was rationalised in 3.5 with the Withdraw action.)

If I have a BAB of +6, I can make two attacks at +6/+1 with the Full Attack full round action. I can make one attack, and then decide based on the result of that attack if I wish to continue attacking (in which case I'm taking a Full Attack action), or move (in which case I'm taking the Attack standard action, and have a move action remaining). Which action I was using to make the initial attack is dependent on what I do afterwards.

However, while I can make three attacks in a Full Attack action if I use the Rapid Shot feat, I can't decide to do that after taking my first shot at +6, even though I can elect to make a Full Attack action at that point... because if I were using Rapid Shot, my first shot would have been taken at +4, and it wasn't.

Having later, normally valid actions forbidden by earlier choices is not new to D&D.

-Hyp.