comrade raoul
Explorer
I apologize -- this should've been in House Rules -- I posted it here because I thought it was small and technical enough to count as a "loose, slightly different interpretation of existing rules" (thus, in D&D Rules) rather than altogether new ones. The final paragraph of my post is key -- I noted that neither option is technically legal, but both seem very reasonable to me, to the point that they ought to be allowed.
Let me rephrase my question. Suppose a player controls said 11th-level fighter with Spring Attack. Even though neither haste nor Spring Attack, as written, allows him to perform either option "a" or "b," is it reasonable to allow the player to do so anyway?
To clarify what options "a" and "b" really mean: option "a" involves a loose interpretation of both haste and Spring Attack. The idea here is that Spring Attack, broadly, allows a player to move before and after a melee attack -- to split a move action so that part of the move occurs before his attack, and part of it afterwards. So the fighter in "a" uses his extra haste action for a partial move, and then uses Spring Attack to "split" that move in such a way that it occurs both before and after his full attack action. So his round might be described according to the following sequence (pretend he has a move of 30'):
1) [First part of haste partial action] Take the first part of a move action, moving 15'.
2) [Full-round action] Perform a full attack, taking no 5-foot step.
3) [Final part of haste partial action) Finish the move action, moving 15'.
Option "b" involves a loose interpretation of haste (not Spring Attack), allowing the player to -- in this, specialized situation -- take his extra haste action in the middle of the round (again, I know this isn't, techically, legal). The sequence here is as follows:
1) [First part of move action] Take the first part of a move action, moving 15'.
2) [Standard action] Perform a melee attack.
3) [Haste partial action] Perform a melee attack.
4) [Final part of move action] Finish the move action, moving 15'.
I would allow these, because I think these actions are in the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules. Am I correct?
Let me rephrase my question. Suppose a player controls said 11th-level fighter with Spring Attack. Even though neither haste nor Spring Attack, as written, allows him to perform either option "a" or "b," is it reasonable to allow the player to do so anyway?
To clarify what options "a" and "b" really mean: option "a" involves a loose interpretation of both haste and Spring Attack. The idea here is that Spring Attack, broadly, allows a player to move before and after a melee attack -- to split a move action so that part of the move occurs before his attack, and part of it afterwards. So the fighter in "a" uses his extra haste action for a partial move, and then uses Spring Attack to "split" that move in such a way that it occurs both before and after his full attack action. So his round might be described according to the following sequence (pretend he has a move of 30'):
1) [First part of haste partial action] Take the first part of a move action, moving 15'.
2) [Full-round action] Perform a full attack, taking no 5-foot step.
3) [Final part of haste partial action) Finish the move action, moving 15'.
Option "b" involves a loose interpretation of haste (not Spring Attack), allowing the player to -- in this, specialized situation -- take his extra haste action in the middle of the round (again, I know this isn't, techically, legal). The sequence here is as follows:
1) [First part of move action] Take the first part of a move action, moving 15'.
2) [Standard action] Perform a melee attack.
3) [Haste partial action] Perform a melee attack.
4) [Final part of move action] Finish the move action, moving 15'.
I would allow these, because I think these actions are in the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules. Am I correct?
I'll second that, Theovis.
