Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 2695018" data-attributes="member: 707">Why are you saying there's enough time in a round to fire more than once?  The only case in which this is true is with a creature that has taken a specific feat, which reduces the time it takes to fire a wand.  A wand takes a standard action to fire, that's "exactly how long it takes" to use it, and now that 3.0 Haste is gone nobody gets 2 standard actions in a single round.  They can get two move actions in a single round.  Now, it's been argued that this is not a matter of time (which I believe it is meant to represent) but purely mechanics (a balance issue).  I can understand that argument, even though I don't agree with it.  For me, it is a matter of time.  There's not enough time to do it twice in a round.Obviously I disagree.The concentration is the action.  It's one of those "purely mental actions" that Hold Person is so fond of mentioning.I'm not equating firing a crossbow with firing a gun, so I'm making no such houserule.  If you think firing and reloading a crossbow is the same as firing and reloading a 9mm, you are sorely mistaken.I have not taken formal debate, so I may have the terminology wrong, but I believe a "straw man" is when you set up an argument the other side did not make in order to easily defeat it, thus claiming your side's superiority to a position the opposition never took.My analogy did not (or was not meant to) do that.  I felt your analogy was flawed.  It did not take into account actual using of the item (the ball, in the analogy) but only the passing of it.  Saying one could move the ball 4-6 times in six seconds didn't address the issue at all, because none of the participants were doing anything with the ball while they had it.  I therefore modified the analogy to take that into account, in an attempt to use it to illustrate my point.Yes, I understood your analogy.  As I mentioned above, I provided a counter-analogy because I don't believe merely passing the ball between players means anything.  If you'd rather, I concede that six wizards could all pass the wand from one to the next in a single round...without using it.Hyp did point out another part of the game where simultenaity breaks down, no doubt about that.  But I think you misunderstand my intent or belief in this discussion.  I'm not arguing that simultenaity doesn't break down.  It does, and I know it.  And for the most part I don't think about it too hard.  I just take it as a necessary part of a game that is trying to simulate real time action with turn-based rounds.  But if I were to have a player or players try and exploit that system, then I'd feel the need to do something to bring things back under control.  There's a difference between everyone ignoring the cracks in the wall and playing is if they weren't there, and a few players blatantly trying to squeeze things through it.In that case, I take my cue from the RAW, which informs me that there may be times I need to enforce ad hoc simultenaity in the game, and do exactly that to preserve suspension-of-disbelief in my games.</blockquote>

Verification