GMG Page 233: A character can also choose to make a ranged attack or cast a spell during his turn in a chase.
Question: The character can overcome a card’s obstacle to exit it and also cast a spell on the same turn? Or does it means that a character can move in the card area without leaving it and casting a spell?
GMG Page 233: A character who wants to attempt to move three cards during his turn can do so by taking a full-round action. That character must overcome both obstacles on the card he is leaving.
Questions: The chase have cards A,B,C and D. The character is at card A. Moving tree cards means going from A to C or from A to D? If it means going from A to C will the character be at the end of the C card area or it beginning?
As far as I can tell, it would work like this:
Player's turn, starting on Card Area A. He is a ranger, has a Bow out, and can cast spells.
For a player to "Move" from Card Area A to Card Area B, he must perform one of Card Area A's chase requirements. Generally, this would mean that in order for him to progress to Card Area B, he must spend a Move Action to perform one of the proper checks listed on the card he is going to attempt in order to progress.
Now, let's say he succeeds, and lands on Card Area B. From here he has a few choices.
- He can attempt to cast a buff spell on himself, or a hostile spell on the opponents during the Chase. Since he spent a Move Action to move from Card Area A to Card Area B, and is ahead of the opponents at this time, he could spend his Standard Action to slow them down or to help their team out.
- He can try to "assist" somebody in a previous Card Area one of the two card checks with an Aid Another action, which would be a Standard Action.
- If he is falling behind from the opponents in the chase, he could spend his Standard Action to try and move from Card Area B to Card Area C, performing the proper check listed for the card as needed.
Whether I am completely correct in terms of RAW or not, I do not know. I hope this helps!
I found the RAW answer for the first question: Instead of exiting a card, a character can choose to take another action not directly related to navigating the chase’s course, such as casting a spell or drawing a weapon.
But I am still not sure about my second question.
But I am still not sure about my second question.
The movement question is easy.
Consider cards A, B, C and D
If you start on A and move
0 cards, you end on A
1 card, you end on B
2 cards, you end on C
3 cards, you end on D.
Normally, you use a move action to A=>B and standard B=>C. That's 2 cards. Next round you have to deal with card C.
With a full round you go from A=>D. That's 3 cards. Next round you have to deal with card D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I am still not sure about my second question.Normally, you use a move action to A=>B and standard B=>C. That's 2 cards. Next round you have to deal with card C.
Correct if I am wrong but RAW reads: It takes a move action to move through a single card. When a character exits from a card, he must choose one of that card’s two obstacles to face as a standard action before moving to the next card.
So I understand that on a single turn you can only go from A to B unless your doing a full round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I forgot that I had the PDF for GMG. Thanks for citing the page, and I will now cite the RAW.
Using the base assumption of 30-foot cards, it takes a move
action to move through a single card. When a character exits
from a card, he must choose one of that card’s two obstacles
to face as a standard action before moving to the next card.
Success means the character moves to the next card, while
failure means the character must face the obstacle again
on the next round. Instead of exiting a card, a character
can choose to take another action not directly related to
navigating the chase’s course, such as casting a spell or
drawing a weapon
(Emphasis Mine)
First part supports it takes a move action to exit a card (as Movement). Also take note that this can vary from the 30-feet example it gives, meaning a character might be able to move more "cards."
This next paragraph supports that theory:
A character who wants to attempt to move three cards
during his turn can do so by taking a full-round action.
That character must overcome both obstacles on the
card he is leaving. In this case, if a character fails either
obstacle check by 5 or less, he only moves one card forward
and his turn ends. If a character fails either obstacle
check by more than 5, he cannot move at all that turn. A
character unfortunate enough to fail two obstacle checks
in a turn becomes mired in his current square (he might
have fallen from a ledge, gotten a foot stuck amid roots,
or got caught in a crowd, for example). A character who is
mired must spend another full-round action becoming
unmired and effectively loses his next turn in the chase.
In some cases, becoming mired might impart additional
penalties (such as falling damage).
In the book example, if I were on the starting square, and wanted to proceed straight to the Finish Line, I could do both checks simultaneously, and if I make both of them, I move 3 spaces (straight to the Finish Line to beat the BBEG). If I fail one, I only move one space and can do no other action. If I fail both, I critically fumble my attempt, and am "mired" until I spend a full-round action to unmire myself (in other words, you become dazed for a Round in terms of RAW effect, and if you can't use a full-round action, you can't become unmired).
There you have it.
First part supports it takes a move action to exit a card (as Movement). Also take note that this can vary from the 30-feet example it gives, meaning a character might be able to move more "cards."
I agree with you in the cases where the card don't have an obstacle however I understand that if the card have one I need a move action + roll to overcome the obstacle (standard action) and I wont be able to cast or do any other standard action on the same turn.
Re-reading the text, no you wouldn't be able to.
It says instead of exiting a card (which would be based upon succeeding the check, being classified as a standard action), you could instead do up to a Full Round Action in terms of actions without progressing in the chase.
I suppose with how we did it, it was house-ruled/overlooked by our DM for it to be more-or-less a full-round action to progress one square performing one check, when with that same full-round action, we can just do both checks and progress so much faster; why even have the second option be the same as the first except better?
But we're not discussing the redundance of the rules, we're discussing what they actually are. And with what I just said, that's what they are.
Thanks for your opinions. I think your right on the A-D movement for full round chase actions.