Move 6 then move 2 and hide without penalty?

[Pickles JG]

"If you take the same move action twice in a row—two walks, two runs, two shifts, two crawls—you’re taking a double move."
[snip]
I'm not arguing what the rules are intended to be, or even what I wish they were. I'm arguing what the rules -are-, then advising your DM ignores it and does whatever he wants anyways.

Couldn't you take a free action in the middle to break them up? That would indicate to me they are intended to be added for the benefit of players eg jumping or shifting in difficult terrain. Though using RAI is of course a slippery slope we all seem to want to be able to split double moves.

 

[DracoSuave]

Couldn't you take a free action in the middle to break them up? That would indicate to me they are intended to be added for the benefit of players eg jumping or shifting in difficult terrain. Though using RAI is of course a slippery slope we all seem to want to be able to split double moves.

Already covered you on that. Yes, you can.

And I agree, you should be able to split the double move.

 

[eamon]

"If you take the same move action twice in a row—two walks, two runs, two shifts, two crawls—you’re taking a double move."

It's pretty cut and dry. If you are doing A, you are doing B. Not a lot of wiggleroom there.

Actually; there's lots. What you're quoting is in the descriptive introduction, not the definitive grey-box. And indeed, it describes the intent of the rule perfectly: When you make two move actions, you effectively are taking a double move - simpler to administer and slightly advantageous to boot! See below.

You may interpret that description as a definition: after all to run the game, you need to interpret the rules which cannot unambiguously describe the mechanics (being in english). However, given the overall tone of the section, it sounds to me like the most appropriate interpretation is one whereby the double move is an advantageous option that avoids defining where the first move ends and the second starts rather than a requirement to merge the two actions into one.

I'm not arguing what the rules are intended to be, or even what I wish they were. I'm arguing what the rules -are-, then advising your DM ignores it and does whatever he wants anyways.

You're deceiving yourself if you believe such a thing exists. The rules are written in an extremely ambiguous language whereby the appropriate interpretation depends on context. It is fundamentally impossible to read "the rules" without interpretation of context and the disambiguation it provides.

 

[Grandpa]

I'm inexperienced with RAW arguments but want to participate for the sake of learning. Regarding double move, though PHB RAW states "you're taking a double move" when you perform consecutive move actions of the same type, isn't it true that since double move is not an action itself, it wouldn't necessarily cause a move action to be subject to the -5 penalty? Double move not being an action seems supported by it appearing among other situational modifiers such as flanking, by it not appearing in the "Actions in Combat" chapter, by its description being updated in the RC to "Taking the same move action twice in a row is called taking a double move," and by the double move description in both the PHB and RC still referencing and adjudicating the first and second move actions.

TLDR: it seems legal, even as part of a double move, because double move is not an action.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I'm inexperienced with RAW arguments but want to participate for the sake of learning. Regarding double move, though PHB RAW states "you're taking a double move" when you perform consecutive move actions of the same type, isn't it true that since double move is not an action itself, it wouldn't necessarily cause a move action to be subject to the -5 penalty? Double move not being an action seems supported by it appearing among other situational modifiers such as flanking, by it not appearing in the "Actions in Combat" chapter, by its description being updated in the RC to "Taking the same move action twice in a row is called taking a double move," and by the double move description in both the PHB and RC still referencing and adjudicating the first and second move actions.

TLDR: it seems legal, even as part of a double move, because double move is not an action.

I don't have my book in front of me, but I was going to suggest this as well. Is a "double move" an action in and of itself? And if not, doesn't that matter at all?

 

[Festivus]

I also don't have the rule book in front of me, but I agree with the idea that the rogue moves to a pillar, and then slinks around it to gain the cover. If I was playing, I would even have my rogue expend a minor action to attempt a bluff to make the enemy think there was someone coming from the other side of the room... so the rogue could duck into cover.

 

[Azlith]

It's pretty cut and dry. If you are doing A, you are doing B. Not a lot of wiggleroom there.

Actually.... If B requires A does not necessarily mean A causes B. If I am required to have my car keys on me to drive my car, having my car keys on me does not mean that I am driving my car. I can have my keys and be eating dinner at home or riding a bike in the park. A double move requires you take two of the same move actions in a turn. But nowhere does it say that taking two of the same move actions in a turn is automatically a double move. If you choose to not double move, you can't end one action in an ally's square, you can't normally shift into difficult terrain, etc. I could still Shift - Shift across clear terrain with two separate actions.

Take a step back and look at a more concrete example. Lets say I have three actions in a turn: One that takes no real time (minor), and two that take 3 seconds each (move and standard). I draw my dagger (minor). If I then take one of my 3 second actions and hustle, moving 6 squares, I make lots of noise and can't easily make the required effort to stealthily move. I then take 3 seconds to move 2 squares, slowing myself down quite a bit, moving quietly, taking as much cover as I possibly can. Doesn't it make sense that way? [I draw my assassin's blade, jog across the alley and slip behind the boxes where my target can't see me.]

 

[DracoSuave]

Actually.... If B requires A does not necessarily mean A causes B. If I am required to have my car keys on me to drive my car, having my car keys on me does not mean that I am driving my car.

Except that's not what we're talking about. The statement is pretty clear.

'When you take two of the same move action in a row, you are taking a double move.'

Your counter argument is appropriate for the form B -> A, but the statement in question is of the form A <-> B. The rules say, firstly, when you take the same move action twice in a row, you are taking a double move (A -> B) then to take a double move, you must take the same move action twice in a row (B -> A); (A -> B) and (B -> A) becomes (A <-> B).

I can have my keys and be eating dinner at home or riding a bike in the park. A double move requires you take two of the same move actions in a turn. But nowhere does it say that taking two of the same move actions in a turn is automatically a double move.

It says that taking two of the same move action in a row IS a double move. What is a double move? It's when you take two of the same move action in a row. Are you taking two of the same move action in a row? Then it's a double move.

This is mutual implication, rather than unilateral implication.

If you choose to not double move, you can't end one action in an ally's square, you can't normally shift into difficult terrain, etc. I could still Shift - Shift across clear terrain with two separate actions.

If you take the same shift action in a row, you're taking a double move.

Take a step back and look at a more concrete example. Lets say I have three actions in a turn: One that takes no real time (minor), and two that take 3 seconds each (move and standard). I draw my dagger (minor). If I then take one of my 3 second actions and hustle, moving 6 squares, I make lots of noise and can't easily make the required effort to stealthily move. I then take 3 seconds to move 2 squares, slowing myself down quite a bit, moving quietly, taking as much cover as I possibly can. Doesn't it make sense that way? [I draw my assassin's blade, jog across the alley and slip behind the boxes where my target can't see me.]

What makes sense, and what is RAW are not the same thing. I've argued your way can make sense in some games, and DMs should do it that way. I've also argued that RAW gives a strange corner case, and it creates an odd interaction. But, RAW, regardless of how you want to present it... two of the same move action in a row = a double move. You seem to think that it is optional.... it is actually not.

"On your turn, you can move twice if you take a move action instead of a standard action. If you take the same move action twice in a row—two walks, two runs, two shifts, two crawls—you’re taking a double move."

In your example, you're taking the walk action, then taking a walk action. That's walk actions twice in a row. By the rules, you're taking a double move.