Move Silently Question

[kreynolds]

Show me where it says 'walk' means 'hustle for one move action then do something else'. That's all I'm asking.

I already gave you all the relevant referrences. I already showed you that in regards to tactical movement, "walk" means a move with a standard action. All the referrences you need are there. Here it is again...

...Table 9-3. It specfically states One Round (Tactical), then lists a speed of 30 feet beside Walk, beneath the 30 foot Speed.

Referring to Chapter 8: Combat, Movement and Position. Table 8-6: Tactical Speed, clearly shows that a human with no armor or light armor has a speed of 30 feet. This very same chapter also explains that you can move your movement rate and still take another action.

Here's more (PH, Chapter 8: Combat, page 130)...

Movement in Combat: Generally, you can move your speed in a round and still do something, such as swing an axe or cast a spell.

It's all there.

 

[drnuncheon]

I already gave you all the relevant referrences. I already showed you that in regards to tactical movement, "walk" means a move with a standard action. All the referrences you need are there. Here it is again...

Here's more (PH, Chapter 8: Combat, page 130)...

It's all there.

First: I do not see the word 'walk' in any of those citations, besides of course Table 9-3 - which is what we're discussing the meaning of.

Second: we know that when you move 30' and do a standard action you are not walking. I've posted that I don't know how many times.

So, no, it's not "all there." You still have yet to prove that 'hustle for 30' and then perform a standard action' is what is meant by 'walk'.

You also have yet to explain why one line of a table should reflect something completely different than every other line of the table. Every line on that table assumes a double move. Why do you think that one would not assume a double move, without being specially noted?

The two methods of movement may produce equivalent results in terms of distance covered, but they are not the same.

J

 

[kreynolds]

First: I do not see the word 'walk' in any of those citations, besides of course Table 9-3 - which is what we're discussing the meaning of.

You claim that the first entry in Table 9-3 is a double-move. This is not the case. A tactical "walk" is a move with a standard action. This is fact.

Second: we know that when you move 30' and do a standard action you are not walking. I've posted that I don't know how many times.

It doesn't matter what you posted and how many times you have posted it. The first entry is in regards to a tactical "walk". See first answer.

So, no, it's not "all there."

I just showed it to you again.

You still have yet to prove that 'hustle for 30' and then perform a standard action' is what is meant by 'walk'.

I did. Again.

You also have yet to explain why one line of a table should reflect something completely different than every other line of the table.

Every other line does not represent a double move.

Every line on that table assumes a double move.

No. Hustle is a double move. Run is a full-round action.

Why do you think that one would not assume a double move, without being specially noted?

Because a run is not a double move. A double move is a special standard action. A run is a full-round action. See previous answers.

The two methods of movement may produce equivalent results in terms of distance covered, but they are not the same.

I know they are not the same, and that's the point. You claim that the first entry in Table 9-3 is a double move. I have proven that it is not. You claim that all the other entries are double moves. I have proven that not all of them are.

 

[Antikinesis]

First: I do not see the word 'walk' in any of those citations...

The word "walk" is also NOT in the "move silently" skill description!

We have a PHB quote, "Characters generally don't walk in combat: they hustle or run". Yet you are absolutely resolute in your insistance that "normal speed", even in combat, means walking, while this quote is obviously stating that characters don't normally walk in combat.

If you could just let go of your own definition of "normal speed", as referring to nothing but WALKING movement, it would end this debate.

A character's speed (directly referenced by the "move silently" description) determines which column of the movement table to use. A character's choice of movement method determines which row to use. Moving silently without penalty restricts the character's SPEED, not their choice of movement method. [edit]... except for the run penalty. [/edit]

Nice debate... it'd be a shame to let this thread die, IceBear.

-AK

 

[IceBear]

But AK, it's just got to the point where it keeps going around, and around, and around, and around, and around, and around.....

(Whew - getting dizzy)

IceBear

 

[drnuncheon]

You claim that the first entry in Table 9-3 is a double-move. This is not the case. A tactical "walk" is a move with a standard action. This is fact.

That is what I am calling upon you to prove, and what you have not yet proven. Where is a 'tactical walk' defined?

I have seen 'walk' defined as 'moving at roughly 3 mph', and I have seen moving 30' in a move action as 'hustling' - which is then defined as 'moving at roughly 6 mph'. Clearly these are not the same.

Where is the text that says 'In tactical situations, 'walk' means 'to hustle and pause'?

No. Hustle is a double move. Run is a full-round action.

Because a run is not a double move. A double move is a special standard action. A run is a full-round action. See previous answers.

All right, I misspoke. Allow me to rephrase:

Every other entry on the tactical table refers to moving at the same speed for a full round (6 seconds) - whether it is taken as a special standard action or a full action.

I know they are not the same, and that's the point. You claim that the first entry in Table 9-3 is a double move. I have proven that it is not.

You have done nothing of the sort! You have stated, but that statement is no proof.

You have proven that I misspoke when I referred to the table as 'double moves'. I have corrected that mistake, but my point still stands: every other entry on that table assumes a steady rate of movement over the period of time described, whether it is one round, one minute, one hour, or one day.

Why do you believe that the first entry is any different?

J

 

[kreynolds]

You have done nothing of the sort!

Oh yes I have. I truly do not intend any insult, but this is so not worth my time anymore. The proof is there. You don't like it. It's not my problem. I won't waste any more time on this, just like I won't waste time trying to convince someone that the Earth isn't flat. Please understand that I'm not angry...maybe a little frustrated, just as you are, but I'm not angry at all. I just have better things to do.

 

[drnuncheon]

We have a PHB quote, "Characters generally don't walk in combat: they hustle or run". Yet you are absolutely resolute in your insistance that "normal speed", even in combat, means walking, while this quote is obviously stating that characters don't normally walk in combat.

As I have said: move silently is also normally used outside of combat. So which makes more sense to use as a basis: out-of-combat movement or in-combat movement?

If you could just let go of your own definition of "normal speed", as referring to nothing but WALKING movement, it would end this debate.

If you let the definition of 'normal speed' change between out-of-combat and in-combat, then as soon as initiative is rolled, you can move silently for no penalty at a rate that would get you a -5 penalty out of combat. Pardon me for feeling that this is somehow inconsistent.

If you think that hustling is 'normal speed' out of combat then it's an entirely different argument.

J

 

[IceBear]

I'm fine with giving a -5 penalty to Listen checks in combat to balance that out

Normal speed to me the speed that you're normally moving at in that circumstance.

IceBear

 

[drnuncheon]

Oh yes I have. I truly do not intend any insult, but this is so not worth my time anymore. The proof is there. You don't like it.

It has nothing to do with me not liking it, it has to do with it not being there. All you need to do is show me where 'tactical walk' is defined as a hustle.

I think I understand where you believe your proof comes from, and unfortunately it is a logical fallacy. I have studied your words over and over again, and every time it has come up, you have used the first entry of Table 9-3 to prove it - but that is what we are discussing the meaning of! You can't use something to prove itself, all you get is circular reasoning.

I believe that you are trying to say that, because you can move 30' and then take a standard action, that must be what the first entry on Table 9-3 is referring to, because it says 30'. Allow me to illustrate why this is not so using logical principles.

Dogs are mammals.
A cat is a mammal.
Therefore, a cat is a dog.

I think that we can agree that this is a fallacious statement - 'dog' is a member of the set 'mammals', but it is not the only member of that set.

Now, replace 'dog' with 'hustling for 3 seconds and performing a standard action'. Replace 'mammal' with 'an action that lets you move thirty feet in one round'. And replace 'a cat' with 'walking for 6 seconds'.

Hustling for 3 seconds and performing a standard action is an action that lets you move thirty feet in one round.

Walking for 6 seconds is an action that lets you move thirty feet in one round.

Therefore, walking for 6 seconds is hustling for 3 seconds and performing a standard action.

That is what you seem to be claiming - and it is just as false as the 'dog' statement above. Hustling for one move action and then doing something else does indeed move you 30' - but that in no way proves that that is what Table 9-3 is talking about.

Look at it again, but this time replace 'walking' with 'moving 15 feet in each of your two move actions'. Now you get:

moving 15 feet in each of your two move actions is hustling for 3 seconds and performing a standard action.

Obviously that conclusion is nonsensical.

J