Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4621707" data-attributes="member: 4937">I generally don't have a problem with it either.  In general, if it seems to me that you ought to be able to do it, then I come up with a way for you to do it regardless of what the rules say.That being said, I'm not entirely sure that as a teenage DM 20 odd years ago I would have been perfectly comfortable with allowing a player to move-fire-move.  The question then would be not whether an average person wielding say a crossbow would be able to do it, because clearly they could, but whether an average person wielding a crossbow would be able to do it before an opponent would have a chance at replying.  I would quite probably have argued that the player was attempting to take advantage of the limitations of the rules to argue for being able to do something that he in fact couldn't do.  If we break down what is actually going on, the character wants to move - thereby revealing himself - fire, and then move back.   Main difference between that and three rounds of action is that the enemy doesn't get to fire back.   And that's what the player is really demanding - not the ability to move and fire, but the ability to attack without getting attacked in reply.  If they thought that they could get fired on, they wouldn't attempt it.  Perhaps if the character had surprise, I might allow this, but if the character doesn't have surprise then I wouldn't see why this couldn't be broke into 3 rounds of action.  I certainly wouldn't allow it repeatedly without some means of repeatedly achieving surprise.Of course, my tool set is alot bigger now than then, and my answer would probably be alot different now than then regardless of edition.However, this is all somewhat irrelevant, as the question isn't how would I have handled, but how was it being handled by the DM's who are fond of doing 'Tucker's Kobolds' sorts of scenarios.</blockquote>

Verification