Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9220318" data-attributes="member: 29398">The simplest way is to just not allow a reaction to be triggered by (or to target) another reaction.  This holds two benefits: 1) the integrity of the passage of in-game time is preserved, and 2) it prevents these silly counter-counter wars where everyone has to ask "Are you done?" before the game can proceed.D&D isn't Magic: the Gathering, despite WotC's best attempts.Personally, I'd take this subdivision of rounds into smaller units as a good thing.I think we mostly agree here, though I think the abstraction is too remote.  Every action takes a certain amount of actual in-game time, and IMO that needs to be tracked somehow.  For melee martials it's easy: you're attacking the whole round and your initiative just happens to be when you get your best attack in (note too that I'm a strident advocate of rerolling initiatives each round).  For ranged, it's when you get your shot away.But for two groups of actions there are two distinct times within a round that are important: the time when the action begins, and the time when it ends.Those two action groups are movement, and spellcasting.  If movement is not to be in effect a mini-teleport, then it needs to be tracked somehow within the round - this can be abstracted a bit by (whenever it matters where a moving person is e.g. there's a lightning bolt crossing their path) simply rolling to see how far the character has got in its movement at that moment.For spellcasting, the time between starting the spell and ending it is when the caster is (or certainly should be!) a) defenseless and b) interruptable.In my 1e-adjacent system the rounds are 30 seconds long, made up of six 5-second segments (because we use a d6 for initiative).Adn that's because while it takes less time to pull the trigger on a crossbow that trigger-pull is only one part of the process: you also have to fish out a bolt, load the thing, and then aim it.Note that "we" here does not include me.  I'm fine with three-abreast in a 10' passage; or even four-abreast if they're all Hobbits or Gnomes.On a more general note, I'm one who will happily bend the game rules to suit reality when-where it makes sense to do so; the x-abreast piece is one such place.Ah.  For me the perturbation at 2.0 seconds would kill the initial spell then and there.  By the time the second perturbation arrived it'd be too late to matter, and would Do Nothing.Yes, and the dropping of casting times was a poor design move (unless you're a wizard player, in whcih case it was great!).Here we agree: reaction spells take less time to cast than non-reaction spells.  And if one rules that reactions cannot themselves trigger or be targeted by further reactions (because using FIFO sequencing by the time the second reaction resolves the first one has already resolved) the whole issue goes away.OK, here we'll disagree mightily, I think: Fireball is Fireball.  Periond, stop, end of story.There's no "fast Fireball" or "slow Fireball", there's just Fireball.  It's a 1-action spell.Your system allows for a fast version as a reaction, and if that works for you all is cool.  But it don't work for me.  The only way to counter a spell with another spell should IMO be the actual Counterspell spell, as that's what it's for.Fair enough. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification