Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5519989" data-attributes="member: 65726">[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]: I think we have different definition of what RAI means.The rules are rather specific about double move. The double move action gets around most situations where you would otherwise need to end a move action in mid-air. Note that with double move rules, if you have teleport 5 as an at-will movement mode, you can use a double move to teleport 10 squares. If you're trying to double move and squeeze in an attack at the end of it, you better have a minor action attack or an action point, otherwise, rules don't allow it.Say I want to disregard the rules and want to combine my move action and standard action into a long charge that lets me move twice my speed, so I can clear a chasm reach the other end, and have enough movement to make an attack. Do the rules intend to allow this? If they do, they are pretty specific about disallowing it, which would be a complete failure of RAW.99% of the time RAI *is* RAW. There are few instances where they "forget" about a rule aspect, and RAW does not agree with RAI. For instance the Scouts had a problem being able to use their Power Strike and Dual Weapon Attack in the same turn because of a restriction in number of free attacks per turn. This was unintended, and it got fixed.In the matter at hand, if RAW and RAI are at odds, then it's a serious mess up because no reading of the rules lets me combine move actions and standard actions. You cannot combine a move and a charge into a double move attackish thing that's not even defined by the rules. This is no different than what the player was trying to do combining regular movement and teleportation written as part of an attack power into a double move after which he gets an attack. And what's worse, he was trying to turn a failed skill check into an inconsequential matter. None of this can be RAI.In the name of fun, or even verisimilitude, sure you can ignore rules, make any judgement call. I'm not debating that. But in this case, rules work as intended.</blockquote>

Verification