D&D 5E Move and Attack question

[Jeff Carlsen]

I was never so strict on flanking in 4E such that if two people already were flanking a target, a third could come in adjacent to one of the two and also get the flanking bonus.

This always made sense to me. If flanking grants a bonus or advantage because the target can't easily defend from both directions, then it should be at least as difficult to defend against a third attacker while trying to defend from two opposite directions. Thus, if I were using flanking, I tend to rule that if two people are flanking a creature, all other attackers get the flanking bonus as well.

Personally, I wouldn't use the flanking rule at all, unless you're in a tight confines and can't maneuver. I'm tempted to grant advantage when three or more people gang up on a single target, but I prefer to keep things simple.

 

[Hriston]

I can't see how they aren't moves. There's no such thing as a move action. You use some of your movement speed to move from one location to another, and we call that a move. If you have remaining speed, you can take an action, and then move again.

YOUR TURN

On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action... The “Movement and Position” section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.

On your turn you only have one move, which is what the rules refer to as "your move". It is defined here as moving "a distance up to your speed". That doesn't mean, however, that moving any distance less than your speed counts as your move, unless that's all the movement you take on your turn.

Move and movement are used interchangeably to refer to the movement portion of your turn. That's what your move is. It's like chess. We do not say the knight has two moves because it moves two squares in one direction, turns 90 degrees, and then moves another square. That's its move.

Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you’re moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.

No matter how many modes of movement you are using you don't end up with more than one move. They are each a "part of your move".

BREAKING UP YOUR MOVE

You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.

Breaking up your movement is breaking up your move. You can see by the title of this section that your move is the thing that is being broken up. When it is, it is not broken up into more moves. It is broken up into parts of your move. If running, then jumping, then swimming results in only one move, then surely walking 30 feet while taking an action is still only one move.

MOVING BETWEEN ATTACKS

If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.

Nowhere in these rules does it say that by breaking up your movement you are ending up with more than one move. The rules only ever talk about one move, and that's the movement you can take on your turn.

 

[Arial Black]

Let him have advantage for flanking, and also give him disadvantage for squeezing. Problem solved.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

On your turn you only have one move, which is what the rules refer to as "your move". It is defined here as moving "a distance up to your speed". That doesn't mean, however, that moving any distance less than your speed counts as your move, unless that's all the movement you take on your turn.



Move and movement are used interchangeably to refer to the movement portion of your turn. That's what your move is. It's like chess. We do not say the knight has two moves because it moves two squares in one direction, turns 90 degrees, and then moves another square. That's its move.







No matter how many modes of movement you are using you don't end up with more than one move. They are each a "part of your move".







Breaking up your movement is breaking up your move. You can see by the title of this section that your move is the thing that is being broken up. When it is, it is not broken up into more moves. It is broken up into parts of your move. If running, then jumping, then swimming results in only one move, then surely walking 30 feet while taking an action is still only one move.







Nowhere in these rules does it say that by breaking up your movement you are ending up with more than one move. The rules only ever talk about one move, and that's the movement you can take on your turn.

A reasonable interpretation. But, I interpret the title "Breaking Up Your Move" and the phrase as used to mean breaking up your move into multiple moves.

Even if you interpret it to mean one move in multiple parts, it's reasonable that each part should follow the rules of the whole, including being able to use multiple types of movement and being able to pass through but not end movement in an allies occupied space.

 

[Coredump]

On your turn you only have one move, which is what the rules refer to as "your move". It is defined here as moving "a distance up to your speed". That doesn't mean, however, that moving any distance less than your speed counts as your move, unless that's all the movement you take on your turn.

But there is no rule supporting this.
You *start* with only one move, but then you can "break it up"... and you move 10'.... then you move 15'. There is nothing in the rules saying that those two moves are really just one move....
While you quote "your move"... the movement rules *never* use such a term, and they certainly don't define it as you describe.
The rules refer to making two moves, as 'move 10' and as 'move 15'... they never say "the first part of your move' or 'the first half of your move' etc. They expressly state that you can "move", "attack", "move".....

Move and movement are used interchangeably to refer to the movement portion of your turn. That's what your move is. It's like chess. We do not say the knight has two moves because it moves two squares in one direction, turns 90 degrees, and then moves another square. That's its move.

I agree.... but the knight also can't move, cast a spell, make an attack, talk a bit, and then move again.

No matter how many modes of movement you are using you don't end up with more than one move. They are each a "part of your move".

I have shown where they refer to two separate 'moves' during a turn... can you please point out anywhere where it says you don't have more than one move? Can you point out anywhere that when they say "move" and "move" they really mean "part of move" and "part of move"?

Breaking up your movement is breaking up your move. You can see by the title of this section that your move is the thing that is being broken up. When it is, it is not broken up into more moves. It is broken up into parts of your move.

Again, we get that you keep saying this... but can you provide anything in the rules that supports your claim? Anything that refers to "part of your move" do something "part of your move"?

If running, then jumping, then swimming results in only one move, then surely walking 30 feet while taking an action is still only one move.

Running, jumping, swimming are all *movement*... so it is all the same move. If you Run, cast a spell, jump, make an attack, swim... then it is 3 different moves.

Nowhere in these rules does it say that by breaking up your movement you are ending up with more than one move. The rules only ever talk about one move, and that's the movement you can take on your turn.

It says it repeatedly. I says you "Move 10', then you attack, then you "move 15'"... that is two different moves. It never says they are 'part' of a move.

You have a total movement equal to a multiple of your speed.... you can move up to your allowed movement.... if you stop you can move again, up to your remaining movement.

 

[Hriston]

A reasonable interpretation. But, I interpret the title "Breaking Up Your Move" and the phrase as used to mean breaking up your move into multiple moves.

Even if you interpret it to mean one move in multiple parts, it's reasonable that each part should follow the rules of the whole, including being able to use multiple types of movement and being able to pass through but not end movement in an allies occupied space.

If "your move" means the entirety of your available movement that you use on your turn, as it does in the sections I quoted, then of course you could break up or use different modes of movement in any part of your move. It doesn't follow that each part, however, would be subject to a limitation on where you can choose to end your entire move.

Another point I would bring up is that nowhere does it say that you must end, or delay, or stop using your movement in order to make an attack. I see no reason why you can't make an attack while moving through your ally's space. Because of Halfling Nimbleness, the halfling should be able to attack while moving through an enemy's space as well, as long as the enemy is medium or larger.

 

[Hriston]

We've had this conversation before, haven't we?

But there is no rule supporting this.
You *start* with only one move, but then you can "break it up"... and you move 10'.... then you move 15'. There is nothing in the rules saying that those two moves are really just one move....

Not explicitly, no, but there's also nothing that says that those two uses of your movement are moves.

While you quote "your move"... the movement rules *never* use such a term, and they certainly don't define it as you describe.

The “Movement and Position” section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.

The rules refer to making two moves, as 'move 10' and as 'move 15'... they never say "the first part of your move' or 'the first half of your move' etc. They expressly state that you can "move", "attack", "move".....

No, the rules refer to moving twice, not to making two moves. Show me where it says that, will you?

I agree.... but the knight also can't move, cast a spell, make an attack, talk a bit, and then move again.

Right, but what if I wrote a rule that said, "You are a knight. As your move, you can move two squares, turn right or left, then move one more square." Would you say the knight has one or two moves?

I have shown where they refer to two separate 'moves' during a turn...

I'm sorry but you haven't. You have shown me where they describe someone moving twice, not someone taking two moves.

can you please point out anywhere where it says you don't have more than one move?

Sadly I cannot, nor can you show me where it says you do have more than one move.

Can you point out anywhere that when they say "move" and "move" they really mean "part of move" and "part of move"?

Only the text I've already quoted in this thread, but intention is hard to prove.

Again, we get that you keep saying this... but can you provide anything in the rules that supports your claim? Anything that refers to "part of your move" do something "part of your move"?

Same answer. When it says you move, you attack, then you move again, that's what it means.

Running, jumping, swimming are all *movement*... so it is all the same move. If you Run, cast a spell, jump, make an attack, swim... then it is 3 different moves.

Why?

It says it repeatedly. I says you "Move 10', then you attack, then you "move 15'"... that is two different moves. It never says they are 'part' of a move.

It never says they are moves either. You seem to be confusing the verb move with the noun move. They are not the same thing. All it says is that you are moving twice, not that you are taking two moves.

You have a total movement equal to a multiple of your speed.... you can move up to your allowed movement.... if you stop you can move again, up to your remaining movement.

Right, and your total movement is your move.

 

[Hriston]

the other side says you are not ending your move in the space and you are using Breaking Up Your Move rule in page 190 of the PHB

This.

You are not ending your move. You are breaking up your move.

 

[Pickles III]

Right, but what if I wrote a rule that said, "You are a knight. As your move, you can move two squares, turn right or left, then move one more square." Would you say the knight has one or two moves?

A closer analogy would be if the knight moved two spaces & took a piece then moved another square orthogonally. Which it can't do. (1)

Much as I dislike the rulings excuse sloppy rule writing dogma that is trotted out I don't thin this is a situation where it's going to make a whole lot of difference which way you rule it.
If you want to force more tactical play (one of the original flankers could get out of the way) then be strict. If you want to get on with the fun be liberal. (2)


1 En passant exists but I dont know what it is.
2 I may be sounding dismissive of tactics but while I love tactical stuff this is pretty banal & the sort of thing that lead to flanking conga lines in 4e & especially 3e)

 

[epithet]

I used to rule that a creature could move through a friendly creature's space and, while moving, make a melee attack against a hostile creature within its reach. Then I ran into a situation where that was just stupid.

There was a narrow stairway, with the PCs at the top and a room full of bad guys at the bottom. The encounter turned into the party's paladin toe-to-toe with the biggest brute of the bad guys, each with their allies strung out behind them. Ruling that an attack did not require you to stop meant that each party member would come around the corner and stab at the brute before going back to its starting position, and each bad guy would run up the stairs to stab at the paladin before heading back down stairs to its starting position. Both the paladin and the brute would take their one attack of opportunity.

That's when I realised that the only ruling that made any sense was that you have to stop to attack, even if you are breaking up your move and will be continuing on after the attack.