Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can you CHOOSE to turn your spell into a full-round action?
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="dcollins" data-source="post: 153094" data-attributes="member: 876"><p>I'll respond to something that Archmage Ignoramus said on the first page -- back when he admitted knowledge that fighters weren't allowed multiple attack actions in a normal round, or wizards multiple spells (if you care to check back to his long post on the first page):</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Such a rule definitely has been written. Under "Attack Options" (both PH p. 117 and 122) you can read "Attack: You can move and make a single attack, or attack and move." Those are your options for using the Attack Action in a normal round, period.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Furthermore, just to point out errors in something entirely different that he's said, he also went and said this:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As a long-time 1st Ed. player, I have to point out that the 3rd Ed. round/action ("timing") system (the real one, in the book, in the FAQ, per the designers, per all players other than this guy) bears very little resemblance to the 1st Ed. system at all, and its functioning can't be attributed to 1st/2nd Ed. holdovers. For those who aren't already aware:</p><p></p><p>- In 1st Ed., you could either move OR attack in a normal round, but not both (barring charges -- but even <em>haste</em> wouldn't allow it).</p><p>- In 1st Ed., multiple attacks did <em>not</em> fall on a single initiative count -- they were supposed to be intermingled (e.g., I hit, then you, then me, then you -- assuming we both have 2 atks/round).</p><p>- In 1st Ed., spells had a separate "casting time"; you only started casting on your initiative, progressed for a number of time-counts, and then finished later in the round. Opponent actions could always occur during the intervening time.</p><p>- In 1st Ed., a spellcaster confronted by a melee fighter may or may not get his spell off, regardless of who had initiative; a moderately complicated comparison of Initiatives versus Casting Times versus Weapon Speed Factors had to be made.</p><p></p><p>I see no resemblance between those features and the new 3rd Ed. D&D combat system. If someone was "superimposing" the 1st Ed. rules on 3rd Ed., then you'd get NO attack even after a single move-action, never mind being allowed an attack and then another attack action.</p><p></p><p>A decisive majority of players felt that those 1st Ed. rules (intermingling attacks, time-tracked spells, and separately adjudicated spells vs. weapons timing) were too cumbersome, complex, and error-prone. The 3rd Ed. designers purposely removed them and replaced them with a more discrete system after 25+ years of experience and analysis. Not because they felt like playing "checkers".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Beautiful troll, jerk.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dcollins, post: 153094, member: 876"] I'll respond to something that Archmage Ignoramus said on the first page -- back when he admitted knowledge that fighters weren't allowed multiple attack actions in a normal round, or wizards multiple spells (if you care to check back to his long post on the first page): Such a rule definitely has been written. Under "Attack Options" (both PH p. 117 and 122) you can read "Attack: You can move and make a single attack, or attack and move." Those are your options for using the Attack Action in a normal round, period. Furthermore, just to point out errors in something entirely different that he's said, he also went and said this: As a long-time 1st Ed. player, I have to point out that the 3rd Ed. round/action ("timing") system (the real one, in the book, in the FAQ, per the designers, per all players other than this guy) bears very little resemblance to the 1st Ed. system at all, and its functioning can't be attributed to 1st/2nd Ed. holdovers. For those who aren't already aware: - In 1st Ed., you could either move OR attack in a normal round, but not both (barring charges -- but even [i]haste[/i] wouldn't allow it). - In 1st Ed., multiple attacks did [i]not[/i] fall on a single initiative count -- they were supposed to be intermingled (e.g., I hit, then you, then me, then you -- assuming we both have 2 atks/round). - In 1st Ed., spells had a separate "casting time"; you only started casting on your initiative, progressed for a number of time-counts, and then finished later in the round. Opponent actions could always occur during the intervening time. - In 1st Ed., a spellcaster confronted by a melee fighter may or may not get his spell off, regardless of who had initiative; a moderately complicated comparison of Initiatives versus Casting Times versus Weapon Speed Factors had to be made. I see no resemblance between those features and the new 3rd Ed. D&D combat system. If someone was "superimposing" the 1st Ed. rules on 3rd Ed., then you'd get NO attack even after a single move-action, never mind being allowed an attack and then another attack action. A decisive majority of players felt that those 1st Ed. rules (intermingling attacks, time-tracked spells, and separately adjudicated spells vs. weapons timing) were too cumbersome, complex, and error-prone. The 3rd Ed. designers purposely removed them and replaced them with a more discrete system after 25+ years of experience and analysis. Not because they felt like playing "checkers". Beautiful troll, jerk. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can you CHOOSE to turn your spell into a full-round action?
Top