Community

Dec 20, 2010 -- 3:47AM, Thvor wrote:

Dec 19, 2010 -- 9:16PM, Palmerkun wrote:

So getting up off the ground requiring your entire movement is a surprise...

But taking 2 steps without being attacked using your whole movement is NOT?

Bonus fact: Getting up doesn't provoke opportunity attacks. So it's not just standing up, it's avoiding being hit in the process.

So, getting up is supposed to be the equivalent of shifting. I can go with that, if the character is in the middle of melee combat. But if the nearest enemy is 5 squares away, you don't need to be as careful when you're moving, so you're not going to move as slowly, right?

Basically, my surprise boiled down to the fact that, in a normal round, a PC can move 6 squares--or about 30 feet. Without running. In full battle armor. Or they can heave themselves off the ground. It takes me a lot longer to move 30 feet than to stand up, even if I'm getting up from my back (which wouldn't be the case if a character intentionally dropped prone for cover, which had happened in our game).

But, if that's the RAW, that's the RAW, I guess...

-Thvor 

Yes, it's the equivalent of shifting.

In full "battle armor" would constitute heavy armor in my book unless someone is wearing special Omega Tech. In any case, heavy armor reduces your speed by 1 so a PC would have a move of 5, typically, unless they were a Felinoid, Speedster, Wheeled, or someone who gets bonus speed. I think Seismic reduces speed by 1 so a heavy armor-wearing Seismic would have a speed of 4...

Dec 20, 2010 -- 9:29AM, ExcalibursZone wrote:

I'm not to worried about how realistic the rule is or not. The system has to abstract to some point or we'd be doing physics calculations every time our characters farted.

If farting were as significant in a combat situation as taking a hit hard enough to knock you on your ass then I think you'd have a point.

Dec 20, 2010 -- 9:29AM, ExcalibursZone wrote:

Or if we were talking about chess, we'd be really ticked that Knights can only move in L and inverse-L directions. I mean, hasn't anyone ever seen a horse run straight?

Does chess even take place in the real world? There's a moving tower and the only explicitly female piece is arguably the most strategically significant, it's a toss up which is more unrealistic.

Dec 20, 2010 -- 9:29AM, ExcalibursZone wrote:

Of course, if you want hyper-realistic rules on how people can move, talk, walk, and scratch their butts, feel free to redesign the game and create house rules. Nobody's stopping you. Just remember that this game system is abstracted to speed up the game.

Hyper-realistic? What? We're talking about standing up in front of the individual that knocked you down and then inexplicable getting a swing in before they can react. The fights I've seen don't typically see one attacker wait for the fallen attacker to get up and attack. Swapping the designation of move to standard isn't exactly fundementally altering the abstract system or the precursor to an avalanche of tedium. Besides, I'm not even worried about it. I just thought my player made a good point, don't see that happening too often.

*sigh* The point is that standing, going prone, etc. are not attack-based actions, they are movement and therefore classified as move actions.

If *YOU* want to make it a house rule that standing up is a standard action, have at it, it's your game.

Personally, I have no issues with stating that standing up is a move action. You can still attack after you stand up but you cannot move unless you have something that lets you move with a minor action.

The game is set up so that things are grouped into logical (at least to me) categories. Attacks, grabbing something, performing a skill, those are standard actions. Standing, sitting, running, walking, climbing, etc. are all movement.

That's what I think the game designers were attempting to accomplish.

Again, it's your game, house rule all you want! Make it fun for you. House ruling is not an evil act at all.

Dec 20, 2010 -- 10:05AM, FlashbackJon wrote:

Are you arguing his own point to him?

Any way you look at it, the system is abstracted to represent the fluidity of combat in regimented turns.  Actions that are in no way simultaneous are merely abstractions of actions that happen semi-concurrently. 

Dec 20, 2010 -- 10:07AM, ExcalibursZone wrote:

*sigh* The point is that standing,  going prone, etc. are not attack-based actions, they are movement and  therefore classified as move actions.

I don't get you guys. You take a "isn't it a little weird..." observation and launch into some diatribe that amounts to calling me a game delaying realism nazi and repeating what everyone here already knows about the rules.

Next time just go, "yeah, it is a little weird" and leave it at that.