Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6006923" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>You say these are unrelated (again), but I'm seeing the exact same thing.</p><p></p><p>It's simply not feasible to do multiple things in a combat round. Just how much you might be able to do is a matter of conjecture - and will likely change with situation and circumstance (bringing in an element of luck). But, for game system purposes, we simply say that there is a limit to the number of "actions" and "effects" that you can stack in there. This is an abstraction of the problem; we estimate what is reasonable <em>on average</em>, and we set a system limit at that level.</p><p></p><p>By the same token, there are many actions or effects which it is simply impossible to do multiple times in quick succession. Either the action is particularly draining on the physique of the actor, or the circumstances required occur only infrequently, or the sequence of actions necessary to set up the manoeuvre only come together successfully on a few occasions, or some other limitation means that the feat cannot be attempted very often. A 'barbarian' rage is a good example of this; it would be unbelievable if a "berserker" never raged, but at the same time it is quite clear that they did not rage in every combat. We don't have very precise answers as to why this is/was, but it seems nevertheless to be true. How do we represent this in a game system? We say that the "barbarian" may only rage x number of times "per day" - with the exact occasions when s/he does so determined by the player. It's an abstraction, nothing more. You might prefer that the player have no say in when the rages occur, but then you would need to invent some sort of system that does determine when rages occur that is both fun and plausible. The obvious options (die roll to rage and GM fiat) are neither. The abstraction seems to me to be fine with the player "spending the resource" to time the rage as s/he sees fit.</p><p></p><p>In the game world, there <strong><em>are</em></strong> clear reasons why - we just don't model them all. The alternatives to this are:</p><p></p><p>1) To model <strong><em>every</em></strong> circumstance and resource that may lead to actions that clearly are not attempted every few seconds not being attempted every few seconds, or</p><p></p><p>2) Ignore all actions and abilities that are not routinely attempted every few seconds completely (unless we can invent some hokey excuse like "remembering" them, thus neatly restricting such possibilities only to invented, or "magical", effects).</p><p></p><p>The first of these I defy anyone to achieve in a playable system; the second is intensely unsatisfactory to me.</p><p></p><p>Oh, great. Now, not only does hit point loss not always coincide with a physical wound (per Mike Mearls' hit point explanation a while back), but a physical wound does not neccessarily coincide with hit point loss... Remind me what "dissociated" means, again? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6006923, member: 27160"] You say these are unrelated (again), but I'm seeing the exact same thing. It's simply not feasible to do multiple things in a combat round. Just how much you might be able to do is a matter of conjecture - and will likely change with situation and circumstance (bringing in an element of luck). But, for game system purposes, we simply say that there is a limit to the number of "actions" and "effects" that you can stack in there. This is an abstraction of the problem; we estimate what is reasonable [I]on average[/I], and we set a system limit at that level. By the same token, there are many actions or effects which it is simply impossible to do multiple times in quick succession. Either the action is particularly draining on the physique of the actor, or the circumstances required occur only infrequently, or the sequence of actions necessary to set up the manoeuvre only come together successfully on a few occasions, or some other limitation means that the feat cannot be attempted very often. A 'barbarian' rage is a good example of this; it would be unbelievable if a "berserker" never raged, but at the same time it is quite clear that they did not rage in every combat. We don't have very precise answers as to why this is/was, but it seems nevertheless to be true. How do we represent this in a game system? We say that the "barbarian" may only rage x number of times "per day" - with the exact occasions when s/he does so determined by the player. It's an abstraction, nothing more. You might prefer that the player have no say in when the rages occur, but then you would need to invent some sort of system that does determine when rages occur that is both fun and plausible. The obvious options (die roll to rage and GM fiat) are neither. The abstraction seems to me to be fine with the player "spending the resource" to time the rage as s/he sees fit. In the game world, there [B][I]are[/I][/B] clear reasons why - we just don't model them all. The alternatives to this are: 1) To model [B][I]every[/I][/B] circumstance and resource that may lead to actions that clearly are not attempted every few seconds not being attempted every few seconds, or 2) Ignore all actions and abilities that are not routinely attempted every few seconds completely (unless we can invent some hokey excuse like "remembering" them, thus neatly restricting such possibilities only to invented, or "magical", effects). The first of these I defy anyone to achieve in a playable system; the second is intensely unsatisfactory to me. Oh, great. Now, not only does hit point loss not always coincide with a physical wound (per Mike Mearls' hit point explanation a while back), but a physical wound does not neccessarily coincide with hit point loss... Remind me what "dissociated" means, again? :confused: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top