Goodman Games

A player can move and perform an action in a turn. I don't understand the advantage or rationale for this - it seems to complicate things, why not move or act?

If a player in engaged in combat, and a second is closing in (moving then attacking), does the first get an attack while the other is closing in (using their movement before attacking)?

You can sacrifice your Action Die for an extra move, and you can get more Action Dice as you go up in level.

Consider Move to be a free Action Die that can only be used to move.

You act on your initiative. You get to move (if you want to) and do something with your Action Die (if you want to).

You can houserule it however you'd like, that someone can hold back their Action Die and "interrupt" an approaching foe with an attack. This game is very adaptable to your own preferences.

What other RPG systems have you played? I don't understand what makes it seem complicated.

Thanks guys. I don’t think it is terribly complicated, just moreso than if only one action - a move or an attack- were allowed.

I’ll try to put it another way. Why should a first level character engaged in combat get only one attack while another first level member the party gets a full move and also an attack?

I’m getting back into rpg after many many years, have played d&d up through AD&D 1st ed.

Muddy64 wrote:Thanks guys. I don’t think it is terribly complicated, just moreso than if only one action - a move or an attack- were allowed.

I’ll try to put it another way. Why should a first level character engaged in combat get only one attack while another first level member the party gets a full move and also an attack?

I’m getting back into rpg after many many years, have played d&d up through AD&D 1st ed.

It can be dangerous trying to escape from a combat - your opponent gets a free attack if they have a readied weapon (which would include a natural weapon, IMHO...most monsters are always armed!). That might make a PC want to stay put.

I would certainly allow a Mighty Deed to shield you from this free attack, or even shield another. My mighty warrior rushes in, so that the wizard can back up and cast a spell! Or, at least, not die next round!

Don't forget that move + attack may also mean attack + move. And, since an Action Die can be sacrificed for an extra move, at higher levels that may be move + attack + move. A mounted combatant can likewise use the mount's move, make an attack, and then use the mount's Action Die to move (probably triggering a free attack).

But every PC gets a move and an action if they want it.

Muddy64 wrote:Why should a first level character engaged in combat get only one attack while another first level member the party gets a full move and also an attack

Circumstances.

I can't tell if you think it's "not right" because it seems like that one player is getting the short stick, or what. I mean, sometimes you don't need to move, so why would you? I could get up from this keyboard at any time, but if I did so without reason I might not finish thi

GnomeBoy wrote:

Muddy64 wrote:Why should a first level character engaged in combat get only one attack while another first level member the party gets a full move and also an attack

Circumstances.

I can't tell if you think it's "not right" because it seems like that one player is getting the short stick, or what. I mean, sometimes you don't need to move, so why would you? I could get up from this keyboard at any time, but if I did so without reason I might not finish thi

The player engaged in melee seems to be getting the sort stick. Both the move and attack take time. One player has time to move and attack, the other only time to attack. Why? if they aren't moving, why not another attack while the other player is moving (or while the other player attacks, whatever).

The player engaged in melee combat gets the "short end of the stick" because someone (or something!) is right next to him trying to kill him. It is far easier to move about when someone is not standing next to you and trying to kill you.

BUT

The text on page 312 of the core rules supersedes this. If you are running the game, and you want to allow an attack for a move, it's your call. You'll need to consider whether or not the creatures encountered can do the same, of course.

Raven_Crowking wrote:The player engaged in melee combat gets the "short end of the stick" because someone (or something!) is right next to him trying to kill him. It is far easier to move about when someone is not standing next to you and trying to kill you.

BUT

The text on page 312 of the core rules supersedes this. If you are running the game, and you want to allow an attack for a move, it's your call. You'll need to consider whether or not the creatures encountered can do the same, of course.

Thanks, I see the point about the difficulty involved in moving while in combat, though it seems like a distinct thing to me.

I'll check p. 312

EDITED TO ADD -

It wasn't unfairness (short end of the stick was someone else's phrase) so much as finding a way to make sense of it to me (as a DM/ref) / make it realistic that has been motivating me.

Muddy64 wrote:Thanks, I see the point about the difficulty involved in moving while in combat, though it seems like a distinct thing to me.

The guy in melee can still move, it just provokes a free attack if he moves out of melee.

So the crux of it is, one guy gets to do two things, while the other guy just gets to do one thing and "why can't everyone just do two things? ...two attacks, two moves, a move and an attack, an attack and a skill check, etc."

In that case, the answer to 'why' is 'history'. As in, it's been the basic method for a long, long time. I don't know if Wells' Little Wars used something like it, or not, but it goes way back. It's well vetted.

But by all means, experiment, change it up, see how it works. Just report back on your findings so we can all benefit.

GnomeBoy wrote:So the crux of it is, one guy gets to do two things, while the other guy just gets to do one thing and "why can't everyone just do two things? ...two attacks, two moves, a move and an attack, an attack and a skill check, etc."

Exactly - and therefore why not just say one act per turn.

GnomeBoy wrote:In that case, the answer to 'why' is 'history'. As in, it's been the basic method for a long, long time. I don't know if Wells' Little Wars used something like it, or not, but it goes way back. It's well vetted.

Fair enough. My concern is making it realistic/plausible during play. So I was half expecting a response like "abstract nature of combat" or something like that. EDIT: Or maybe that it balances out/becomes less of a difference at higher levels.

GnomeBoy wrote:But by all means, experiment, change it up, see how it works. Just report back on your findings so we can all benefit.

Will do. I'm hoping to get a game in our area sometime soon.

Muddy64 wrote:Exactly - and therefore why not just say one act per turn.

Round One:
- Player: I move up so I can hit the bad guy on my next turn.
- Judge: The bad guy moves away from you.

Round Two:
- Player: I move up so I can hit the bad guy on my next turn.
- Judge: The bad guy moves away from you.

Round Three:
- Player: I move on to a different game. Thanks, be seeing you...