Basic Movement

[Gizzard]

Does your group declare each Move Action and then execute it in its entirety? Or are your Moves more fluid, involving Spot and Listen checks and the discovery of new information?

For instance, my group has been very fluid; "I move 5 feet to the corner and keep looking for monsters. Then I move 5 feet around the corner. I see a monster? Well, I have 20' left on my first Move, then my entire second Move, so ...."

The game would play differently if, "I move 30 feet up the hall and around the corner. I see a monster when I get to the corner? I abandon my declared Move, then take my second Move to run 30 feet away."

It would also be different if, "I move 30 feet up the hall and around the corner. A monster swings at me as I run by him? Hrmm, maybe I shouldn't declare moves into areas I can't see."

So which one is your group most like?

 

[Nightchill]

Not really like either. We use moves when in combat. If there's no combat, the board is not in use and as such, that never occurs.

Player: "I move up the corridor, keeping an eye out for monsters"
DM: "You see a shadow looming on the wall and stop dead, a generic monster comes into view."

Then comes initiative if either the player or the monster initiates combat.

 

[Bauglir]

We would tend towards the second method, however it is assumed that the character is looking for monsters, instead of needing to explicitly state it every 5 feet, so if I were to 'move 30 feet into a room' and 10 feet into that move something changes, such as seeing a monster, I can then decide to either keep moving or do something else.

 

[dcollins]

Agree with Nightchill that if the party isn't seeing any monsters, they're likely not in combat in the first place and therefore initiative and actions of any sort are not applicable.

Does your group declare each Move Action and then execute it in its entirety? Or are your Moves more fluid, involving Spot and Listen checks and the discovery of new information?

Note that on-demand Listen and Spot checks are actually full-round actions (check skill descriptions). If a player is in combat, and wants to call for one of these on their turn, they both have to stop and take their next turn to do it, as well. Reactive Listen/Spot as a free action can basically only happen on an opponent's turn.

 

[wocky]

Note that on-demand Listen and Spot checks are actually full-round actions (check skill descriptions). If a player is in combat, and wants to call for one of these on their turn, they both have to stop and take their next turn to do it, as well. Reactive Listen/Spot as a free action can basically only happen on an opponent's turn.

Nope... actually, this is what the SRD has to say about that:

Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action.

So, no... it's not a full round action. And you get one whenever you have the chance to spot something reactively, not only on your opponent's turn.

As for me and my group... we only use tactical movement when in combat. However, we do preempt and modify move actions while in combat if circumstances change because of a reactive spot/listen check.

 

[iwatt]

So, no... it's not a full round action. And you get one whenever you have the chance to spot something reactively, not only on your opponent's turn.

QUOTE]

But remember to apply the +5 for being distracted/not paying attention when this applicable.

 

[dcollins]

So, no... it's not a full round action. And you get one whenever you have the chance to spot something reactively, not only on your opponent's turn.

I was looking at 3.0, where it was a full-round action. I agree in 3.5 it's changed to a move action.

However, I would still not allow a free "reactive" check in the middle of a PCs action. What are they reacting to, their own action? "Reactive" checks I would only allow actually in reaction to someone else's activity. In my game, to properly look into a new room during combat, PCs must move to the entrance, then stop to take in the new area.

 

[Gizzard]

Oh, yes, this tactical movement is mostly in combat. Maybe its just my players but they are always rushing around blind corners etc; that's the situation I am curious about.

So I see one vote for method #2 from Bauglir. Additionally, Wocky voted for #1 and dcollins voted for #2?

Anyway, here's an example of what I am wondering: Say a flying character flees combat into an unexplored maze. Do you handle this by:

1) Allowing them to move 120 ft into the maze, exploring while they go?
2) Have them declare each move into the maze but then end it when something unexpected happens, like a monster or an unseen twist in the passage? (Effectively letting them move 30-40 ft into the maze)
3) Allow them a certain number of "looks" (or Spots?) during the movement, which allows them to explore partway into the maze but not to the full 120 ft? (Perhaps 60-80 ft of movement.)

 

[dcollins]

My players would have the option of either 2) or:

4) Allowing them to move 120 ft into the maze, but not exploring while they go.

This latter case would a total-fleeing situation. With a normal move or hustle they would get course features like how many corners they just took, if there were side doors, etc. If they were in "run" mode (say a long dark corridor as they carry a torch), they wouldn't even get that -- they get to barrel ahead and wouldn't know how far they travelled or what exactly they had passed. If any monsters ambush them, they have to be flat-footed.

 

[Saeviomagy]

However, I would still not allow a free "reactive" check in the middle of a PCs action. What are they reacting to, their own action? "Reactive" checks I would only allow actually in reaction to someone else's activity. In my game, to properly look into a new room during combat, PCs must move to the entrance, then stop to take in the new area.

*boggle*

You mean it really takes your characters an entire 3 seconds to notice a monster standing in the middle of the room?