Combat Rounds: How Long Should They Be?

[Oni]

From what I've read, I think the idea is for wizards to have at-will powers they cast every round, so you're not "twiddling your thumbs", but then on say round 3 your fireball goes off and destroys all the weaker monsters in the room.

From here on in is presumption, but I presume that you choose the spell you're going to cast after you've built enough power to use it, so you can start building your power on round 1 with the intention of casting fireball but change your mind to lightning bolt when the spell is actually cast in round 3.

Meanwhile you'll be pelting the enemy with magic missile and javelin of fire though.

PS: I think you jumped in with both feet and added a pair of ridiculous assumptions to the original premise, just so you could be outraged. Good job.

I'm not outraged, I just think it's a particularly poor idea and I gave my reasons why, it's just one man's opinion.

I'm not sure what ridiculous assumptions you believe I've jumped to, but certainly if one of them is that while casting one spell, that you'd not be able to cast another, or that if a spell takes multiple rounds that's the only action you can take until it's complete lest it be ruined, well that has more than ample precedence in previous editions of the game as opposed to what you suggest above. Though if that is what Hassassin had in mind I'm sure he will correct me on the matter. I would appreciate if you would not ascribe untoward motivations to my post, thank you.

 

[Oni]

Eh. A round is a round in-game no matter how much time it is supposed to be. Things last a number of rounds. Not much functional difference. However, you would be surprised how long 6 seconds is when you're fighting for your life. If somebody is choking you, not as in practice but seriously choking you, you'd be shocked to learn afterwards that it was only for 6 seconds. We may be carefully, tactically plotting every nuance of our turn, but in the game characters are scrambling like hell!

Six seconds gets eaten up very very quickly when you start adding things like caution, jockeying for position, obstacles, armor, et c. into the mix. It's not just like walking up and decking someone, or choking someone out, there are a great deal of other things that must occur to even be able to successfully perform such actions.

 

[the Jester]

I think a 20 second round is a good compromise that acknowledges that fights take time while still agreeing that the action should move quickly.

I always kinda liked White Wolf's "a round is 3 seconds to 3 minutes, depending" approach, but if there are going to be casting times, weapon speeds or anything like that, a round needs a consistent length.

Re: 3 round casting spells- Frankly, this is a horrible idea IMHO. Too short for a ritual, too long for a meaningful action in combat.

 

[Dragonblade]

The 3e/4e model of 6 seconds with Standard, Move, Minor or Swift actions is the best. I don't necessarily need interrupts as core, but they should be in the tactical rules module because I like them and they add another layer of strategy.

But I don't want to go back to the 1 minute round. 3e/4e style combat rounds struck the right level of granularity for me.

 

[Hassassin]

That's all well and good until it's your turn the play the fighter and your buddy across the table decides he does want to try those spell, and then you're back to the babysitter/useless wizard dichotomy, just from the opposite side.

I don't really see the problem, but I suppose it may depend on the spell effect. An automatic "I win" would be boring, of course.

The fighter gets to play the tough guy for three rounds, either protecting the wizard (if he's more of a defender) or hunting enemies (if he's more of a slayer). The wizard gets to either mop up the minions or take out the BBEG, depending on the spell, the party, the enemy. Everyone has their time in the spotlight, doing their thing, which are different.

 

[Li Shenron]

Whatever the exact duration, it seems the choice here is really between short and long rounds.

1) Short rounds allow for combat to get really tactical, for example because you have to deal with exact movement rates (which are quite irrelevant with long rounds, except maybe giving you some bonus). Descriptions are more exact, and even if you have interrupts/reactions/etc you still have a fairly straighforward resolution where each character takes some actions and you resolve them immediately.

2) Long rounds may cater to gamers that don't want to fiddle with details and exact distances, but on the other hand require some additional rules for resolving what really happens simultaneously.

It seems to me that 1) is more tactical but it is actually ultimately easier to play, while 2) may require more effort and experience.

 

[Szatany]

I like 6 or 10 second combat rounds, but I can play with 1 minute rounds too.

10 secons sounds perfect for me.

2) Long rounds may cater to gamers that don't want to fiddle with details and exact distances, but on the other hand require some additional rules for resolving what really happens simultaneously.

Maybe they could create a system that has both short rounds and long rounds. You go with fights with long, 1 minute rounds until you need to get to specifics, then you can switch to 6 or 10 second rounds, and then back.

 

[Kaodi]

15 or 20 second round is the way to go, I think. 3 or 4 action cycles per minute sounds reasonable.

 

[Tallifer]

I think it is very hard to make realistic combat rounds in a game like turn-by-turn roleplaying game like D&D. Swinging a sword or shooting an arrow takes seconds in real life, charging across an open room takes only seconds as well; but in most fantasy literature casting a magical spell requires melodramatic hand gestures and incantations (although on the BBC television show Merlin, magic takes less than a second and a glowing of the eyes); lighting a torch or getting a potion out and drinking, or swapping weapons, would definitely take more than six seconds.

Ace & Eights had the most realistic timing system, but no D&D player would want it. It was second by second, and there was a time track. You declared actions, every action had a second cost, and when your time was up on the chart, you took that action. Your skill, dexterity and situation influenced the timing. It meant that there were no rounds: every few second something happened. Skilled and quick people did things a bit more often. Drawing, aiming and shooting seemed to take ages. Once your gun was drawn and you had someone in a vulnerable spot, you could just pull the trigger as long as you had bullets, which was incredibly deadly.

In the end, I think we have to accept six or twenty second rounds for the sake of the game. It seems like a good compromise between the sword and the torch and the spell and the sprint. It is much easier and more enjoyable than the Aces & Eights system in my opinion.

 

[Mallus]

I've come round to preferring long, mostly abstract combat, err, rounds. 30-60 seconds each works for me. Long enough for to perform a (cinematic) sequence of related actions while under duress (described in natural language), ie, run into the chamber, grab the weird-looking scepter on the alter, and bash the monster.

Short rounds favor whatever mechanical actions the system explicitly states can be undertaken in a single round, at the expense of taking actions not explicitly covered by the rules.