Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 9220208" data-attributes="member: 2013">I am. If someone has a better way to adjudicate actions that are "reactions" I am very anxious to see it (and steal it), since "reaction" presupposes "triggering action first."Most combat spells take "1 action" to cast. The rules as written do not define "1 action" however, given the rules as written define "1 round" as "six seconds long" and characters are allowed to complete at least 1 action per round it stands to reason that "1 action" must be less than 6 seconds. One might also conclude that since under normal circumstances (i.e., without Haste or similar), characters can ONLY complete 1 action per round, an action must be more than 3 seconds in duration (since if "1 action" takes fewer than 3 seconds, you should be able to complete 2 of them in a 6-second round). Then there's the question of "how long does a bonus action take" and "how long does an interaction take" and "how long does a move action take" and then we're trying to subdivide rounds into even more atomic pieces in order to try to satisfy ourselves that our narration of how events unfold is a perfect simulation of reality.I happen not to subscribe to the need to define "how long, in seconds, does an action/bonus action/free action/interaction/move action" take. Instead, I subscribe to the idea that "a round has been defined as 6 seconds long" and while this of necessity means that an action/bonus action/free action/interaction/move action must also be less than 6 seconds long since these can be performed within the confines of a round, I also recognize that "1 action" is the level of granularity to which we are abstracting (bear in mind that if you have 10 combatants and each combatant takes one round's worth of actions, 10 actions have been performed, but since only one combat round has elapsed, ALL of these 10 actions have been performed in the same six-second span)."One combat round" in 1e/2e was ONE MINUTE long (there were rules for using six-seconds segments to add more granularity, but stay with me on the definition of a round for a moment). One combat round in BECMI was 10 seconds long. One combat round in 3e/4e/5e is six seconds long. This is the granularity to which we are mutually agreeing to subdivide time. These granularity divisions are arbitrary and attempting to subdivide further in the name of "realism" or "immersion" or "verisimilitude" or anything else is pointless. It takes less time  as measured in seconds to pull the trigger that fires a crossbow bolt than it does to swing a great maul, and yet both are considered to happen in the space of 1 action.Similarly, in 1e/2e/BECMI, three characters could walk abreast down a 10' passage - about 3' across (this is about the width of a phone booth). Starting in 3e, we changed the level of spatial abstraction to the 5' by 5' square and now TWO characters can walk abreast down a 10' passage (or maybe, just like in the real world, D&D characters have gotten more obese in the past 40 years). I don't see nearly as many people arguing on the internet about how the 5x5' square is stupid because that's 25 square feet and if you believe <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1959/7/23/how-many-in-a-phone-booth/#:~:text=Then%20there%20is%20the%20matter,the%20Continental%20United%20States%2C%20vol" target="_blank">https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1959/7/23/how-many-in-a-phone-booth/#:~:text=Then there is the matter,the Continental United States, vol</a>. we have photographic evidence of being able to fit 33 people in a phone booth so clearly AT LEAST 33 people can fit into a 5x5 square. But no, we agree 5x5 is the right level of granularity because it's easy and call it a day.And lest I start hearing that breaking up time and space into discrete lengths that we cannot subdivide further is unrealistic or "breaks immersion", let me point you to the concept of Planck Time, the Planck Length and Planck Voxels - subatomic in scale, but measurements beyond which we literally cannot subdivide our world further into more precise units. Nothing is more realistic than abstracting our world into discrete units beyond which we cannot be more precise.The above quote is attempting to use and argument of verisimilitude to prove your point. That doesn't work because not everyone agrees on the way magic works. However, for the sake of argument, let me give you an ex post facto "verisimilitude" rationalization of why my mechanical system would work "in the real world" that relies on the concept of "casting time."Once the verbal, somatic, and material components are met to cast a spell, latent magic (the "Weave" if you are in Faerun) begins to build up in a pattern to execute the spell. This pattern buildup takes 3.5 seconds to fully form, well within the bounds of time of "1 action." And if we assume human reaction is at least 0.3 seconds, that puts an upper limit of 20 reactions that can take place in a chain. We'll keep the number of reactions to two to make things simple.Magic-sensitive characters in the area may attempt to perturb the formation of the pattern during this buildup window, spoiling it - perturbation is almost instantaneous (though not quite but for sake of argument let's call it 0.0001 seconds) and if done correctly does not need to use as much energy as the spell itself (this is why lower level spell slots can counter higher ones or why diverting just a pinch of fire energy from a stored fireball can perturb the pattern of cold energy forming to execute an Ice Storm). This faster (reaction-speed) perturbation is commonly referred to as a "counterspell" but it is possible for multiple casters to send off-setting perturbations into the latent magical energy ("Weave") so that a second caster can offset the perturbation caused by the initial caster (this is what we call "Countering the Counterspell") and allow the pattern that executes the spell to form despite the initial perturbation... so a pattern buildup that takes 3.5 seconds normally might have a perturbation thrown at it to counter it at the 2.0 seconds mark... and a second perturbation thrown at it to counter the counter at 2.8 seconds... so by 3.5 seconds, the proper pattern has formed.Now, this may not be how magic works in your head (or in your world), but it's logically consistent within the framework of the rules as written, and "how magic works" is a completely subjective thing when we're asking about verisimilitude (and not strictly game mechanics).Again, this presupposes several things, none of which are true...<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Ice Storm takes longer to cast than Fireball" - while 1e and 2e listed casting times in "Segments" so one could take longer than another by RAW, as you note, 5e sets all these times to "1 action" - however, as noted above "1 action" is an abstraction and so by RAW there is no way to tell whether one takes longer to cast than another if you're using some sort of stopwatch - the rules are silent on this.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Counterspell takes the same amount of time to cast" - no; Counterspell takes "1 Reaction" which is an abstraction of some unspecified amount of time but which can be inferred to be shorter than "1 Action" since casting "Shield" (a Reaction cast) can be used when you see someone starting to cast Magic Missile (one action to cast) to intercept and block the incoming Missiles - so the duration of "Reaction Cast" MUST be shorter than "Action Cast"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Sigil's rules for Counterspelling allow offsetting spellcasts" - this is true; however you are ASSUMING I am requiring a "Full Cast" of Fireball to counter Ice Storm. That isn't what I said. Rather, you are allowed to substitute a prepared spell slot with Fireball in a faster "reaction cast" to counter the spell. What nobody has asked is "what if TWO casters attempt to counter the same spell with Fireball substitutions and both are successful?" The answer is NOT that the second caster's Fireball "goes off" because you weren't "casting fireball" (which takes a full action); instead, you were using the shorter reaction-speed action to vent the stored energy of Fireball into disrupting someone else's spell; using the energy in this manner is NOT the same as casting Fireball and doesn't result in a Fireball going off when the energy is discharged because you're focusing the energy in a different manner than you focus it when you're casting the spell. (If you WERE doing a "standard cast" of Fireball to try to counter Ice Storm, the result would be the target area getting blasted by BOTH Ice and Fire, and everyone in the area taking damage from both spells).</li> </ul>Nice pre-emptive block of "Appeal to Authority." <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Note it's not a logical fallacy for me to "Appeal to Authority" when I'm discussing my own house rules work because the ask is effectively "how do you do things" and the only way for that to be answered is for me to explain that. You can certainly tell me I should do things differently but that's different than telling me that I actually do things differently. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I'm probably going to bow out of the thread at this point unless someone brings up a point that either requires me to elaborate on my house rules or points out a problem with my house rules that I agree needs a correction so if someone later comes upon this thread and wants to steal my house rules, the house rules have already been "fixed" with corrections I agree with. I don't like knowingly leaving things "broken" when I've invited others to take them for themselves.I think for the most part, we are now all in the position whereby arguing is serving only to entrench each of us more firmly in our belief that the position we have taken is the correct one, and when we reach that point, arguing is no longer serving to enlighten but instead to incense, and that's something I would rather not be party to. I probably WILL keep reading this thread because I am interested in the ideas here, but please do not mistake future silence from me in this thread as assent, anger, argument, or anything else. Future silence does not mean I have nothing else to say, but rather that I do not feel there is value in my saying it (for any number of reasons).</blockquote>

Verification