Looking for clarification on SLOWED condition

[babinro]

Greetings, I thought I was understanding how SLOWED worked, but now with the recent posts I find myself very confused with it. Can someone clarify some of these more basic scenario's.


1) Player 1 is slowed. He chooses to take a double move this turn. How many squares will he move?

2) Player 1 is slowed. He chooses to take a single move and then charge his foe. How many squares can he move?

3) Player 1 is slowed. He chooses to take a single run action. How many squares will he move?

4) Player 1 is slowed. He chooses to shift one square outside of threat range, and takes a move action in place of his standard action. How many squares will he move?

My understanding in all cases is that the answer is 2. Regardless of what action or actions they choose to take to 'increase' their overall speed score, they cannot exceed a speed of 2 squares which would then end their movement. Is this correct or an over simplification?

 

[Tony Vargas]

4,4,4 & 3.

The distance you run is 2 + your speed, moving twice is moving your speed twice, niether 'increase your speed.' Anytime you speed is referenced, it's 2. So, if, say, a wizard were slowed and cast 'Expeditious Retreat' he could shift twice his speed: 4. If he wasn't slowed, and cast 'Expeditious Retreat' he could shift twice his speed: 12 - but he couldn't 'run' to 'add two to his speed' then ER to shift 16, because running doesn't increase your speed.

 

[fba827]

What Tony said.

 

[babinro]

I guess I was just being mean, thanks for the clear answers!

 

[Hypersmurf]

... moving twice is moving your speed twice...

One Speed: When you double move, add the speeds of the two move actions together and then move.

It's not moving your speed twice; it's moving once with a speed twice normal.

A double move has One Speed, which is the speed of the two move actions added together. The speed of the move actions is 2, and the two added together is 4, so the double move has a speed of 4. Taking a double move, therefore, is arguably increasing the character's speed above 2, forbidden by the Slowed condition; his double move has One Speed which cannot, according to the Slowed condition, be greater than 2.

-Hyp.

 

[Dalzig]

One Speed: When you double move, add the speeds of the two move actions together and then move.

It's not moving your speed twice; it's moving once with a speed twice normal.

A double move has One Speed, which is the speed of the two move actions added together. The speed of the move actions is 2, and the two added together is 4, so the double move has a speed of 4. Taking a double move, therefore, is arguably increasing the character's speed above 2, forbidden by the Slowed condition; his double move has One Speed which cannot, according to the Slowed condition, be greater than 2.

-Hyp.

That might be able to be argued, but then you run into Shift+Walk not being a double move, therefore you end up moving 3 squares. That seems very odd considering you're moving slower than double-walking.

 

[Mistwell]

That might be able to be argued, but then you run into Shift+Walk not being a double move, therefore you end up moving 3 squares. That seems very odd considering you're moving slower than double-walking.

It gets even odder when you move, shift, and move again. That is not a double move (not consecutive), and therefore you would move 5 total.

 

[FireLance]

It gets even odder when you move, shift, and move again. That is not a double move (not consecutive), and therefore you would move 5 total.

Most characters can't do that, though (shifting is normally a move action), although they could move, draw or sheate a weapon, and then move again to get around the "One Speed" "restriction" of a double move.

 

[Mistwell]

Most characters can't do that, though (shifting is normally a move action), although they could move, draw or sheate a weapon, and then move again to get around the "One Speed" "restriction" of a double move.

Ah right, I was thinking of Kobolds. Your example is better.

 

[FireLance]

I should also add that in my view, any "restriction" with such a simple workaround probably shouldn't even be a restriction in the first place.