Community

Just to clarify, there seem to be two main discussions/questions going on in this thread...



1) The first matches the thread title: "When does movement end?"

From what Guy has said above, it seems to me that he is saying that movement ends the moment that a creature moves into the last squares allowed by it's movement. I disagree with that aspect of his ruling, and have tried to explain why moving into a square and the end of movement should be separate even when the creature is required to end movement because it has already moved double its full speed.

At the moment, the consequences of it being ruled either way are relatively minor, since a swift action could be used just as easily after movement has ended. The only two abilities that come to mind as being affected are the Half-Giant Psychic Warrior's hustle and the Mounted Melee Attack ability.

Regardless of how this is ultimately ruled, by itself it will not allow creatures to use a teleporter from an obstructed position when they don't have enough movement left to reach a legal position (see below).



2) The second question is essentially "Why don't the movement rules allow creatures to take swift actions into consideration when determining a legal position to end movement?"

The governing rule that prevents a creature from teleporting in Jesster's third example above is that the movement rules (and special abilities like flight which allow some of those rules to be bent) all require that a creature be able to end its move in a legal position. It has been previously clarified that this requirement should be interpreted with each "step" that a creature takes, preventing a creature from moving into a square if it would no longer have sufficient movement afterwards to reach a legal space at the end of its movement.

Currently, the ability to reach a legal position is determined based purely on the available movement that a creature has left, and the cost for that creature to reach a legal position through the use of its existing stats and abilities at the time that the cost is calculated. Abilities or effects that a creature hypothetically might use in the future are not taken into consideration when determining whether or not the creature would be able to reach a legal position.

A creature's movement may be limited even before its "last step". For example, if there is a teleporter within 5 quares of an Iron Golem (speed 4, allowing it to move 8 if it double moves) and the nearby squares around the teleporter are occupied by allies, the Iron Golem might not be able to reach the teleporter. If there is not a legal position within 3 squares of the space that it would occupy in order to occupy the teleporter, then it would not be allowed to move into the teleporter's square even though it would have 3 remaining squares of movement afterwards.


The issue is that there are some types of actions which can be used during movement and which can be used in a manner which changes the number or location of legal positions available to end movement.

Teleporting is a relatively simple swift action, with a fixed outcome. For many other swift actions and other actions that can be taken during movement, the outcome isn't predetermined. In the MDP example I used in one of my posts above, even though it's virtually guaranteed that the MDP could kill a Blood Ghost Berserker with 5 hp left so that there was space for the MDP to end its movement, it's possible for the MDP to miss.

It would be difficult to split up all of the existing and potential future types of actions into those whose outcome is fixed (like a teleporter) and those which are not (like an attack) since there are abilities which may have an automatic result in one situation but not in another.

One example would be a Steel Predator's swift cone, which in one particular situation might be guaranteed to eliminate a weak enemy creature, but in other cases the result might depend on the enemy creature's save against the cone or morale save. It's difficult to create to create a "universal" solution that divides these cases since there will always be additional cases to consider (like if a nearby enemy can cast close wounds to keep the weak target from dying).

Another example would be an Archmage using the Quick Cast ability to cast dimension door. In most cases (assuming the Archmage is not threatened and is otherwise able to cast the spell), it has a fixed outcome. If a Beholder has line of sight to the Archmage, suddenly it's not guaranteed anymore. The rules to allow swift actions to be taken into consideration in some situations but not in others would be fairly complex, and subject to problems when players make mistakes in determining whether or not the outcome would be fixed or not.

If certain specific "simple" abilities and effects are divided up to create special categories, eventually things get messy as more and more abilities are added to the game. For the rules to work well, in general all of these abilities need to be treated the same way.


It's possible that R&D will decide to make teleporters a specific exception to the movement rules, and allow creatures to take teleporters into consideration when determining whether or not a creature could reach a legal position. At the moment, the rules as written do not allow it to happen.
.

It doesn't seem counter-intuitive to me. Assume, unless otherwise specified, that you can't end your movement in an illegal space - ever. Even if you want to do an action afterwards, you must end that movement legally.

Kumaiti]The "counterintuitiviness" lies on this:

A creature must END its movement in a legal position: outside of walls or the space of other creatures.

nowhere in the rulebook says that a swift action ends the current action. I also does not say that it does NOT end the current action, I agree, but common sense tells us that since it is an action that can be taken DURING the course of any other action, it is NOT ending the current action.

If it is not ending the current action, then the event "a creature must END its movement in a legal position" is not triggered and thus the creature can move to other teleporter and THEN end its movement in a legal position.

The way it is being ruled, it seems that when a creature takes a swift action during its movement, it actually ends the movement, do its action, then starts the movement again. Will that provoke attacks of oportunity on the "restart" of the movement? If won't provoke attack, then why? After all, the movement had to END (and thus the condition to end it had to be met) for the swift action to take place.

What about a flying creature? A flying creature will provoke attacks of oportunity only when starting its movement. If it moves and then teleports to a threatened square, will it provoke attacks of oportunity?


Another way to look at the ruling that is not so counterintuitive is in the sense that "to take a swift action, you must meet the requirements to take that action as if it wasn't a swift action". For example: if you cast a spell as a swift action, you still have to be outside a threatened area and still have to do all the necessary rolls. In this case, it makes sense because if using the teleport wasn't a swift action, but a "replaces attacks" action or whatever other action, then you couldn't use it when in an illegal position.

Huh? None of that is applicable. A swift action merely interrupts whatever the current action is.

The point that is being debated is whether there is a period of time that can interrupted between when you've moved your last space (ie, used all your movement points) and when your movement is considere wrote: