What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 31 to 40 of 53
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 03:51 PM #31
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
1 minute rounds has never worked for me. It causes confusion plus it does not follow logically for the game. It always felt right to allow each player to do an single action or perhaps a 2-3 quick actions on their turn. So I was always playing "6 second rounds" before it even was a rule back in 1st edition. So really I was playing segments as rounds. Allowing one player to do multiple consecutive actions before another perform his just doesn't work in a combat situation. Going from 1 minute to the next minute only works in out of combat situations, and that's where it should be used.
An NPC can mount a horse ride 200 yards away, get behind a gate, close that gate, then lite up a pipe of tobacco. Then I turn to the player on their initiative and say "okay your turn." That's absurd.
Last edited by hamstertamer; Sunday, 7th October, 2012 at 03:55 PM.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 04:08 PM #32
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
Somebody actually thinks one-minute rounds are a good idea?
I see absolutely no benefit whatsoever to making the round a minute long.
In fact, I've always felt that the six-second round was too long; I prefer GURPS's one-second rounds.
I will, however, accept a six-second round long before I'll accept a one-minute round.
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 05:41 PM #33
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 06:49 PM #34
Lama (Lvl 13)
As someone who usually plays spellcasters, I'm not comfortable with having an adjustable round length. Casting a spell takes a set amount of time. In Third Edition, it takes six seconds. If the DM then says that, for this combat, rounds are one minutes, then I'll expect to be able to cast ten spells per round.
Ranged attacks are the same.
The only think I could see working is if the 1 minute round is part of an abstract combat module that addresses these issues. But such a module would have to alter the use of many class abilities that are designed for the less abstract normal combat.
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 07:10 PM #35
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
The 1 minute round is really meant fo dungeon exploration and/or or wilderness skirmishing. It can make sense in that environment, because it's assumed that a great deal of time is spent skulking and moving. For example, "The Howling Tower", a Fafhrd and Gray Mouser early adventure as a scene where they fight some bandits while circling around the woods of a clearing, with said tower in the middle. No one wants to go out in the clearing and give away their position, but no one wants to leave the edge where they can't see the clearing. Everyone in the fight knows this. So you have pauses in the action until two opponents close, whereupon it ends rather quickly.
Of course, you could also do a hybrid approach that had distinct "skirmish" rounds of longer duration, but then close melee rounds with limited options happening far quicker. Average spell casting to mainly work in the skirmish scale, which puts a caster at a disadvantage in melee (absent certain key spells designed just for that). Something like this might do a better job of handling the pacing (stalking, building action, followed by relatively rapid resolution) than a set scale, and would also enjoy the best of both worlds for ease of play.
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 08:53 PM #36
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
The most recent two videos aren't videos of fiction, but videos of training techniques and real world sparring. And were intended to show that (a) that the beats were a lot less than a minute apart and (b) anyone who thinks that you don't have several blows from each side in six seconds hasn't ever held a sword.It is interesting that all the examples of combat so far are from video. Anyone wanting to run D&D adventures inspired by written fiction?
It depends on the fight and how much is riding on it. And what the protagonists are - whether they are warriors or more likely to want to hide under the table. I could produce very high detail snippets from Oath of Swords and generally less detailed ones from Sheepfarmer's Daughter - both books about D&D inspired Paladins (for those of you who don't know, Sheepfarmer's Daughter is the first of the three parts of the Deed of Paksennarion, and comfortably the best piece of directly and obviously D&D inspired fiction I've ever read - it's also legally free online at the link - so go and read it if you haven't ). But this is another argument for scaling.I'd guess that there would be longer rounds with less detail in a lot of written fantasy.
Either that or you do what I'd try as the PCs - to delay the battle and go for razmatazz rather than just grunt holding the line. It's the regroups not the fight itself where the time is really taken up.
This all works - and keeping the magic users at a disadvantage in combat is not something I see as a bad thing.Of course, you could also do a hybrid approach that had distinct "skirmish" rounds of longer duration, but then close melee rounds with limited options happening far quicker. Average spell casting to mainly work in the skirmish scale, which puts a caster at a disadvantage in melee (absent certain key spells designed just for that). Something like this might do a better job of handling the pacing (stalking, building action, followed by relatively rapid resolution) than a set scale, and would also enjoy the best of both worlds for ease of play.
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 09:38 PM #37
Lama (Lvl 13)
A segment is a set period of time used for tracking player actions when time might matter but you don't need to detail of combat rounds. As DM, you choose how long a segment is (1 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour, etc.) based on the scale needed. In a dungeon with active inhabitants, you might want a one minute segment. When tracking actions in a city, you might choose a one hour segment.
During each segment, ask the players what their characters do. If there are monsters or other active elements in the vicinity, determine what they do as well. You may want to keep track of this.
PCs may take whatever actions are reasonable during a segment, and you may determine how long certain actions take. For example, if you're using one minute segments, and a PC wants to search a large room for secret doors, you may determine that doing so will take 3 segments.
Combat During Segments
When combat happens, players roll initiative and you start tracking rounds. When combat is finished, you return to tracking in segments. For tracking purposes while using one minute segments, it's usually best to assume that a short combat takes one full segment.
Sometimes, you may not need to roll initiative for combat, though. A fighter holding a barricade, or a wizard casting a spell at a group of goblins that are out of melee range might best be handled using segments. These are cases that are more story driven than tactical in nature. Use your best judgement. If a situation becomes more complicated, you can always roll initiative.
With something like this, segments are more of a tool than a mechanic, while still giving you something to hook mechanics onto. For example, random encounters or events might be rolled for each segment. Nothing here is new, but it does provide a name for a unifying concept.
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 11:04 PM #38
If you really want to cover a longer stretch of time, it feels like they should be attempting not combat delaying tactics anyway. (Barricades, traps, distractions, etc.)
As a kid playing 1e, I always thought the 1 minute rounds were dopey. I think we house ruled them as 10 seconds pretty early on. I understand why some players who started with (and continued playing with) extended combat rounds might feel attached to them, but I think this is an evolutionary oddity to D&D. D&D was first, and was born of tactical war games that are demonstrably more abstract. Every RPG since has always had rounds substantially shorter than one minute.
(There's a chance I may be wrong on that last point, and if so I am happy to be corrected.)
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 11:22 PM #39
Magsman (Lvl 14)
"It would be no great task to devise an elaborate set of rules for highly complex individual combats with rounds of but a few seconds' length. It is not in the best interests of an adventure game, however, to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte...
"The system of AD&D combat maximizes the sense of hand-to-hand combat and the life-or-death character of melee without undue complication. Because of this, you, the DM, are enabled to conduct such portions of the game without endless resort to charts, tables, procedure clarifications, and over-lengthy time requirements. Players, on the other hand, will not become bored with endless dice rolling and rules consulting, but at the same time will have a reasonable chance to seek escape for their characters should the affair go badly."
More and more I find that the problems of modern D&D already had solutions in old-school D&D. I was born 30 years too late, dammit.
Last edited by GX.Sigma; Sunday, 7th October, 2012 at 11:28 PM.
Sunday, 7th October, 2012, 11:35 PM #40
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
May I direct you to the original post, wherein I provide three such benefits? (Benefits you may well disagree with, but benefits, nonetheless.)I see absolutely no benefit whatsoever to making the round a minute long.
And most ranged attacks should take longer than 6 seconds to load and aim, also.
That said, I do favor an approach that decouples mechanics from the round length, so that a sliding scale could be employed (even to rounds as short as one-second, if desired).
Frankly, this need not even be a module. All it has to be is something the designers pay attention to when designing spell effects & durations, and a few notes to the DM on how shifts along the scale (or "dial," if you prefer) affect the action currency.