-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
[OOC] Shamutanti Hills - psi/gng [3/4]
- Thread starter doghead
- Start date
doghead
thotd
Bendyn, the Bandit and the Javlin.
On range and rounds.
While each characters actions occur in turn, I try and interpret events as happening over the course of the round. So at the start of the round, the bandit is 30 feet away. By the time Bendyn has drawn his Javlin (mv action) the bandit will have covered some more distance. Given you can move and attack in a round, a move action takes what, about 2 or 3 seconds (depending on the action and distance I suppose). So the bandit is about 40 feet away when Bendyn throws.
While I realise that this intrepretive reading is a little less quantifiable, it seems more appropriate for a RPG. The current DND rules seem very much set up for the absolute world of table top minitures battle. And quite frankly, sometimes quite unhelpful.
In this instance I gave Bendyn +1 for height (technically its only for melee, but I find it easier to throw down than up), -2 for range and -2 for visibility. I let the bandit keep some of his defense bonus as he was conscious of the possibilty of attack and doing his best to avoid being hit.
On talking and turns
Similarly, I do consider the time taken on discussion. While characters can talk as a free action, if characters discuss what they are going to do first, then they will not do it until they are finished talking. In this case for instance, it takes about 6-7 seconds to say what Casparen said. It didn't come into play here, as I read the post as meaning Bendyn choose to throw immediately. But it gave me pause for thought. And I thought I should mention it now.
I am generally pretty easy going on these things. I am looking to try and give the world a realistic feel, rather than penalise planning or any such thing. Or perhpas, a better way to look at it is that I am trying to avoid "rule trumps reality" situations.
I suppose, what I am trying to do is create a game that imersive and hopefully, fun. So let me know what you think. I am not the most experienced of DM's (though I have been playing for a few years; I suppose I DM the way I like to play). I am also fairly new to 3rd Ed. Am I missing anything?
thotd.
On range and rounds.
While each characters actions occur in turn, I try and interpret events as happening over the course of the round. So at the start of the round, the bandit is 30 feet away. By the time Bendyn has drawn his Javlin (mv action) the bandit will have covered some more distance. Given you can move and attack in a round, a move action takes what, about 2 or 3 seconds (depending on the action and distance I suppose). So the bandit is about 40 feet away when Bendyn throws.
While I realise that this intrepretive reading is a little less quantifiable, it seems more appropriate for a RPG. The current DND rules seem very much set up for the absolute world of table top minitures battle. And quite frankly, sometimes quite unhelpful.
In this instance I gave Bendyn +1 for height (technically its only for melee, but I find it easier to throw down than up), -2 for range and -2 for visibility. I let the bandit keep some of his defense bonus as he was conscious of the possibilty of attack and doing his best to avoid being hit.
On talking and turns
Similarly, I do consider the time taken on discussion. While characters can talk as a free action, if characters discuss what they are going to do first, then they will not do it until they are finished talking. In this case for instance, it takes about 6-7 seconds to say what Casparen said. It didn't come into play here, as I read the post as meaning Bendyn choose to throw immediately. But it gave me pause for thought. And I thought I should mention it now.
I am generally pretty easy going on these things. I am looking to try and give the world a realistic feel, rather than penalise planning or any such thing. Or perhpas, a better way to look at it is that I am trying to avoid "rule trumps reality" situations.
I suppose, what I am trying to do is create a game that imersive and hopefully, fun. So let me know what you think. I am not the most experienced of DM's (though I have been playing for a few years; I suppose I DM the way I like to play). I am also fairly new to 3rd Ed. Am I missing anything?
thotd.
Scotley
Hero
Sounds like you've given this a good deal of thought. The rules often leave something to be desired when approached with logic. I was interpreting your post to suggest that the bandit would be 30' away by the time we could act. Thus, my comment about range. Given your interpretation I think the extra distance is appropriate. I would disagree about requiring a free action--speaking to take so much time--more than a round. When I DM I don't penalize players for short comments. I would say that Casparan's post of roughly three lines of comments would be about the limit, but I'd allow that much exchange in the interest of getting more interaction. My experience is that if you limit such comments, the players start to play their own game rather than work as a team. Consider two actual warriors in combat working together. A lot of unspoken communication will be exchanged. Each will be constantly assessing his partner's condition, position, gestures and other body language. In this format or even a face to face game we have no easy meduim to share such information. Thus, I allow more conversation to replace the communication that is lost in the translation to a game format. Just my two coppers worth.
doghead
thotd
Sado: I suppose I read it that way, but ...
Scotley: Good point. I agree that the characters would be far more familier with each other than we as player are, and there is a lot more interaction than is represented in the ic thread. In this format or even in a face to face game we have no easy meduim to share such information. Thus, I allow more conversation to replace the communication that is lost in the translation to a game format. Nicely put.
... so given this it can be taken as having happened as is posted. Casparen is up.
Thanks for the thoughts.
thotd.
Scotley: Good point. I agree that the characters would be far more familier with each other than we as player are, and there is a lot more interaction than is represented in the ic thread. In this format or even in a face to face game we have no easy meduim to share such information. Thus, I allow more conversation to replace the communication that is lost in the translation to a game format. Nicely put.
... so given this it can be taken as having happened as is posted. Casparen is up.
Thanks for the thoughts.
thotd.
