Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 4606899" data-attributes="member: 12731">A great question!My answer would be &quot;Because that would create other, equally troublesome, problems at the other end.&quot;Basically, I don't have any problem with the six second round. I guess you could say I'm used to it.But a one-second round in general? Nah, movement and other stuff would be thrown out of synch.The root of the problem, I guess, is that 4E seems to scream for a solution that allows 1) the DM to tailor the length of a combat round according to his needs 2) that this tailoring can be kept localized (that is, combat running on a different time-scale than ritual casting or simple running) and 3) that this doesn't come across as completely arbitrary to the players.(Point #3 is important. D&amp;D isn't a game where rules should be set aside willy-nilly. If you free-form anyway then all its balance is completely superfluous.)Cheers,Zapp</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 4606899, member: 12731"] A great question! My answer would be "Because that would create other, equally troublesome, problems at the other end." Basically, I don't have any problem with the six second round. I guess you could say I'm used to it. But a one-second round in general? Nah, movement and other stuff would be thrown out of synch. The root of the problem, I guess, is that 4E seems to scream for a solution that allows 1) the DM to tailor the length of a combat round according to his needs 2) that this tailoring can be kept localized (that is, combat running on a different time-scale than ritual casting or simple running) and 3) that this doesn't come across as completely arbitrary to the players. (Point #3 is important. D&D isn't a game where rules should be set aside willy-nilly. If you free-form anyway then all its balance is completely superfluous.) Cheers, Zapp [/QUOTE]

Verification