Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
full attacks, haste, and spring attack
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="comrade raoul" data-source="post: 251080" data-attributes="member: 554"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Let me rephrase my question. Suppose a player controls said 11th-level fighter with Spring Attack. Even though neither <em>haste</em> 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?</p><p></p><p>To clarify what options "a" and "b" really mean: option "a" involves a loose interpretation of both <em>haste</em> 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 <em>haste</em> 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'):</p><p></p><p>1) [First part of <em>haste</em> partial action] Take the first part of a move action, moving 15'.</p><p>2) [Full-round action] Perform a full attack, taking no 5-foot step.</p><p>3) [Final part of <em>haste</em> partial action) Finish the move action, moving 15'.</p><p></p><p>Option "b" involves a loose interpretation of <em>haste</em> (not Spring Attack), allowing the player to -- in this, specialized situation -- take his extra <em>haste</em> action in the middle of the round (again, I know this isn't, techically, legal). The sequence here is as follows:</p><p></p><p>1) [First part of move action] Take the first part of a move action, moving 15'.</p><p>2) [Standard action] Perform a melee attack.</p><p>3) [<em>Haste</em> partial action] Perform a melee attack.</p><p>4) [Final part of move action] Finish the move action, moving 15'.</p><p></p><p>I would allow these, because I think these actions are in the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules. Am I correct?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="comrade raoul, post: 251080, member: 554"] 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 [i]haste[/i] 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 [i]haste[/i] 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 [i]haste[/i] 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 [i]haste[/i] 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 [i]haste[/i] partial action) Finish the move action, moving 15'. Option "b" involves a loose interpretation of [i]haste[/i] (not Spring Attack), allowing the player to -- in this, specialized situation -- take his extra [i]haste[/i] 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) [[i]Haste[/i] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
full attacks, haste, and spring attack
Top