Sam brought up a very good point in an email this morning.
So there's no minimum move? I'd think an effective minimum of 1 hex/rnd would be simple and prevent issues like trees presenting an impassable barrier to those with move > 6.
Also, how does the Dwarven ability to ignore terrain modifiers interact with the trees? Strictly following the rules you laid out last session a Dwarve would move at full speed through trees but that seems a little less reasonable than moving at full speed through snow.
And how would all of this apply to Hobbits if there were any around? They presumably don't get the Dwarven ignore terrain modifiers ability but that would mean that a Hobbit carrying a shield or wearing heavy armor would be unable to move through snow, let alone trees.
Just random thoughts.
Good points Sam.
Hmm... the idea of the movement points is to give an indication that some terrains are harder to cross than others, and so to varying degrees slows down movement. In some cases obstacles completely impede movement. It's a simple mechanic in order to keep things simple. However, the downside to the simplicity, as usual, is that it's fuzzy, and not all that realistic as soon as you look at the details. However, to fix that we need to add more mechanics. I'm not completely adverse to that. However, my intention is to keep things as simple as possible, while balancing that against our tendency to want the rules to simulate reality to whatever degree possible so that things feel like they "make sense". Fair objectives both, but difficult to balance.
In this case we have an interesting twist that I think merits consideration. Different races are effected by terrains differently. Fish are not slowed down in water, but humans are. To represent that accurately would require that I create a matrix of Races base movement vs. every terrain. Think about the maintenance of that. Lets say you have 100 Races in your world. And lets say you have 100 terrains. Every time you add a new race, or a new terrain, you have to add 100 Base Movements to the table. You could try to simplify it by saying Races vs. Basic Terrain Types (like surface of the earth, water, air, etc) but that in fact leads to further tables to maintain that structure, and becomes even more complicated, not less.
It's an annoyance that the basic movement system is frustratingly inaccurate. However, to make it accurate requires a level of additional complexity that would defeat the simplicity goal. What to do? Well, from a rules perspective the simple thing is to simply say that "Base Movement is in relation to the given Race's natural terrain", meaning fish in water, humans on land. And with Dwarves to give a general bonus rule such as "Dwarves can ignore movement minuses for certain terrain types, such as snow" and allow the GM to adjudicate. The problems with that solution are of course legion. For one thing, the movement rule is entirely tactical in nature. It's designed to help negotiate movement during combat on hex or grid maps. Each movement point represents roughly 5 or 6 feet. As such accurate accounting for movement is important, otherwise you can not plan movement, and that defeats the purpose of using grid maps for combat. Again, something of an annoyance. If we were playing the game on a computer, and not on paper, where the computer could keep track of movement points (we would not need points then, actually, because the computer could easily keep track of actual movement speeds, and distances), then that would solve the problem. But this is a table top game essentially, so we have to live with certain trade offs.
Here's my thinking: The general rule is that each Race gets a base default movement that pertains to their normal terrain. Terrains are generally set to have movement modifiers based on Humanoid movement (dwarves and hobbits included). So a marsh is, lets say -2 Movement (for humanoids). Dwarves may not get any advantage in a marsh, however, as their weight is sinking them into the gooey water. Dwarves in fact might be at an even greater minus. Hobbits, who are light footed, however, might have less of a minus. So, without going into excessive and annoying detail, the rule is that the GM should be able to adjudicate and adjust for different races according to the rules of their world. In Elthos, snow does not impede Dwarves because they are dense and plow through it. Marshes however are a different matter. Each terrain needs to be considered on a per race basis. So here's how it should work. Keep the simple rule. But when new terrains are encountered on any given map, the GM should announce what the terrain movements are per race. So the adjudication comes up front, and is known, and therefore the players can plan properly, but the GM is not burdened with excessive record keeping. If there are a lot of complicated terrains and races, make a grid for that map, and those races.
Ok. That would work for me in Elthos. Not 1000% sure for other GMs and other Worlds, but at least in theory I think that is a "good enough" way to handle it.
As for minimum movement... Good point. However, as a hard and fast rule, it might not work. Tar, for example, for humans, is an impassable obstacle that not only prohibits forward movement, but once in it, prohibits any movement at all. You're stuck, buddy. How to show that in terms of movement points? Tar = -10 movement. That means unless you have some sort of magical assistance or other, you ain't gonna get anywhere when you go into a tar hex. You're stuck, buddy. So the idea is that impassible terrain has a movement modifier below the movement threshold of the characters moving across it, and so at least in some cases a general rule of "minimum movement = 1" would not work. There sometimes are impassible obstacles. Again, because different races move across terrains differently, it is a complex problem. The Movement rule is designed to offset that complexity by maintaining a simple, though somewhat inaccurate, rule. Hence, some adjudication is required. It is clear at this point that care needs to be taken when assigning the Race vs Terrain Modifier values.
Trees, for example. My idea on the Prancing Unicorn Vale map was that trees are impassable, and that those hexes on which there are large numbers of trees, can not be passed through, except veerrrrry slowly. Chris has this to say in his email:
The trees penalty is way too high. Brush or jungle, yes, but trees, especially big ones, don't grow so close together since the shade of the smaller trees inhibits the growth of more. I wasn't really picturing what Mark was picturing there.
Fact is, I once was in a pine forest just like the one I'm imagining, that I failed to describe well enough, so I'll do that now. The trees are pine. They are standing about 10 feet apart in a large cluster of 200 hundred trees. Their branches come low to the ground, and are very long. To pass between the trees required me to break branches as I went. In some cases the branches were dense with smaller branches which got in my eyes. The going was VERY slow. That's the nature of the trees on the Prancing Unicorn Vale map.
So yes, the Tree Movement Modifier is steep, but I'm not thinking it is too steep. For a human moving 1 hex through that per melee seems about right to me. And I'm the GM! MWAHAHAAHAHAHA!!! oh. ahem... I mean ... so my adjudication is that that modifier should probably stay at the fore mentioned -5 Movement. This leaves a normal human a 1 movement point per melee capability, which strikes me as about right. But what about those Hobbits?! Their small. Hmmm... their light footed. Hmmm... their stealthy. Hmmm... Hobbits should get a -3 Movement through the trees. And so there you have it. That's how I imagine the adjudication to work. Pretty simple, and seems to be effective.... I think.
What do you guys think about that?
Also note: Once I migrate the Boards from the larger Elthos Program into the Web Application then some of these considerations will go away as I will have the computer handle the math, and that will make things quite a bit more reasonable. Until then, and for table top players generally, I think these rules will have to do for now - unless I come up with a completely revolutionary approach that is just as simple, yet resolves these issues elegantly. The Suggestion Box is open! :)
And for those following here are the movement rules that came with the Prancing Unicorn Vale Map:
MovementRiver = Impassable except at fords which is -3 movement (tricky footing)
Bridge = Normal Movement
Snow (white) = -3 movement
Path (brown) = -1 movement
Trees (green) = -5 movement
Paths up rocks (dark gray) = -2 movement (inclines 5' per hex)
Paths on rocks (light gray) = -1 movement (no incline)
Rock Faces (maroon) = -3 Movement (impassable normally unless "climbing" skill is used). Climbing when successful = 10' up / turn (6 melees). You roll once per climb to see if you get to the top without falling. If a critical is rolled then you roll 1d6 to see what percent of the way you made it to the top before you fell (this is a rare case where you want to roll low). Then roll 1d6 for damage and multiply it by the previous roll. So a 6 on the first roll and 6 on the second roll means that the character fell from nearly the top and takes 36 points of damage from the fall. Note that Archers can not fire straight down along cliff edges, so moving along a cliff edge provides effective cover from archers at the top of that cliff (but not from opposing cliffs, obviously).
Missile Shielding- Trees = +2 AC if hiding behind a tree, but return attack is possible if "hiding behind tree" with a -2 AL penalty for firing around a corner while trying not to get hit. "Hiding behind a tree" must be decided during the movement phase. (note: Archer #2 could have tried hiding behind the tree, but did not want to lose the chance to take shots at Praymar and Ben. He was foolish and paid the price).
- Having a character stand in front of you with a shield while firing is possible, and provides a +1 AC for the archer. Having a shield wall in front of the archer(s) (three people with shields) provides a + 2 AC.
- It is not really all that feasible for characters to carry 2 shields in order to increase their AC, and attempting to do so may open an unwieldy gap between the shields which may create a critical vulnerability (critical hits are scored on a roll of 6 and then a subsequent roll of 4, 5 or 6), nor does it increase the Damage Absorption (DAB), since only one of the two shields will be hit.
Notes- Enemy forces may not be visible at various angles on the map.
- The rocks are as high as the number of Dark Gray Hexes would indicate.
- Trees are roughly 50' high.
Attached you may find the Prancing Unicorn Vale Map (JPG file) that we are discussing.
vbwyrde attached the following image(s):
Hex_600x1200_TotalMap_12P.jpg (588kb) downloaded 0 time(s).
You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.