Conditions Precluding Withdraw or Tumble?

[Nyarlathotep]

I find it incredibly ironic that the same guy who just said "This is a basic concept" just got an actual basic concept of the game wrong. Withdraw does not involve going in a straight line. You seem to have withdraw confused with Run. In fact, the pretty picture on page 144 of the PHB that shows you visually what a withdraw looks like even involves Tordek moving in a manner that is not a straight line. Maybe that is why you thought withdraw and a double move are so different?

Wow, I just pulled my PHB out and discovered that you are correct about the not having to withdraw in a straight line. Good news for my players!

The downside of your ironic "find" is that I didn't actually say "This is a basic concept". moritheil said it (post 18).

Edit: I'm assuming that you did mean me, as you had quoted my post in your post

 

[godfear]

"Isn't it ironic? Don'tcha think?"

 

[Mistwell]

Wow, I just pulled my PHB out and discovered that you are correct about the not having to withdraw in a straight line. Good news for my players!

The downside of your ironic "find" is that I didn't actually say "This is a basic concept". moritheil said it (post 18).

Edit: I'm assuming that you did mean me, as you had quoted my post in your post

Yeah well that is why my post was edited before you responded My apologies to you for confusing you with moritheil, and also to moritheil for being unnecessarily snarky.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Yeah well that is why my post was edited before you responded My apologies to you for confusing you with moritheil, and also to moritheil for being unnecessarily snarky.

I type slow

 

[moritheil]

The entire point of this thread was to NOT involve that other discussion so as to get some perspective on the issue of whether or not the proposed interpretation was unique to Web, or whether there were other concepts in the game that support that interpretation. Quidam wasn't starting this just so he could hear what he wants to hear (in fact I suspect it's more the opposite of that). He started it to take a step back away from the argument he had invested himself in, and see if a clean slate without the mention of web would result in a consistent rules-based line of thinking on the issue.

In other words, he posted it here BECAUSE he cares about what you and other people said in that other thread, and wants to see if it holds up in a different context.

Besides, if you think someone has done something "rude to the extreme" it might be a good idea to email them and ask them about it. In this case, I tried to send you a private message on this, but you seem to have them blocked.

1. I understand that. My assertion remains that prior related positions on a subject can and should be at least referred to, or what have people been arguing and posting for? The most logical reason for abandoning a prior train of thought is that is that it led to the wrong conclusion, or an undesirable conclusion. Is the abandonment of the prior thread, then, not an implication that the train of thought there was wrong or undesirable? Of course, I assume a certain degree of rationality in reaching this conclusion.

2. If he cares what people said in the other thread, would he not do well to at least mention their efforts and their thoughts?

3. You misquoted me slightly. Nonetheless, let me try to understand what you are saying. If someone else seems to be doing things that, to me, indicate a lack of respect, I should then contact this person, who to me appears disrespectful, and appeal to his respect for other people to gain his ear? Do I have it right?

You can say that I'm putting words in your mouth by saying that the appeal is to his respect for others, but honestly, what else can the average poster appeal to in a private message to someone else? Authority? Fear of punishment? I am not a moderator. Self-interest? Greed? I do not propose to send payment.

 

[Mistwell]

1. I understand that. My assertion remains that prior related positions on a subject can and should be at least referred to, or what have people been arguing and posting for? The most logical reason for abandoning a prior train of thought is that is that it led to the wrong conclusion, or an undesirable conclusion. Is the abandonment of the prior thread, then, not an implication that the train of thought there was wrong or undesirable? Of course, I assume a certain degree of rationality in reaching this conclusion.

2. If he cares what people said in the other thread, would he not do well to at least mention their efforts and their thoughts?

3. You misquoted me slightly. Nonetheless, let me try to understand what you are saying. If someone else seems to be doing things that, to me, indicate a lack of respect, I should then contact this person, who to me appears disrespectful, and appeal to his respect for other people to gain his ear? Do I have it right?

You can say that I'm putting words in your mouth by saying that the appeal is to his respect for others, but honestly, what else can the average poster appeal to in a private message to someone else? Authority? Fear of punishment? I am not a moderator. Self-interest? Greed? I do not propose to send payment.

The other thread was not abandoned. It's on the front page, and was actively discussed just today. This is a different thread for a reason - it's about a materially different issue.

I think you are taking things a bit too seriously. All I meant was that it's easy to misinterpret what someone means on a message board, and if you really think they are being "rude in the extreme" it's a good idea to talk to them off-line and actually check to see if your intpretation of their position is correct. In this case, I think you are in fact misinterpreting what Quidam said and meant by this thread, and his specific purpose in not linking to the other thread. I think if you had taken this part of the discussion off-line, the two of you would have easily worked that part out.

That said, it sounds like you are pretty invested in your position right now, to the point where this discussion isn't very useful (or fun) for me. So I will take a step back now, and let others continue with this (or not).

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The other thread was not abandoned. It's on the front page, and was actively discussed just today. This is a different thread for a reason - it's about a materially different issue.

I think you are taking things a bit too seriously. All I meant was that it's easy to misinterpret what someone means on a message board, and if you really think they are being "rude in the extreme" it's a good idea to talk to them off-line and actually check to see if your intpretation of their position is correct. In this case, I think you are in fact misinterpreting what Quidam said and meant by this thread, and his specific purpose in not linking to the other thread. I think if you had taken this part of the discussion off-line, the two of you would have easily worked that part out.

That said, it sounds like you are pretty invested in your position right now, to the point where this discussion isn't very useful (or fun) for me. So I will take a step back now, and let others continue with this (or not).

Well said. Although in the case of rudeness, I would just use the Report bad post button to bring it to a mod's attention.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Derailing a thread into a meta (non-Rules) topic, might be considered rude. By some.

EDIT: Oops, didn't point out anything about the subject! Color me a hypocrite... I could add something, but I really have no oppinion on the matter as of right now, still thinking it over.

 

[apesamongus]

While the effect is the same, the process is different. Double moving would draw an AoO for leaving the "first square", whereas Withdrawing does not draw an AoO for leaving the "first square". A double move is two seperate actions (a move and another move in place of a standard), a withdraw is a full-round action.

OK, but that doesn't explain why a turned creature would be required to double move instead of withdraw. In that context, the only relevant factor is the distancve moved (since they're required to move as quickly as possible), and by that comparison they are the same.

 

[just__al]

OK, but that doesn't explain why a turned creature would be required to double move instead of withdraw. In that context, the only relevant factor is the distancve moved (since they're required to move as quickly as possible), and by that comparison they are the same.

Wait, wouldn't moving as quickly as possible mean running perhaps even up to 4 times their movement rate?