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
D&D Combat is fictionless
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="Voadam" data-source="post: 8401145" data-attributes="member: 2209"><p>We are taking the 5e rules, removing turn based resolution and applying the rest of the 5e rules simultaneously in a round.</p><p></p><p>The archer backs up 30 feet and shoots at the fighter as the fighter charges at him from starting 30 feet away before the archer began his simultaneous move. Because the archer backed up to 60 feet from where the fighter started the fighter does not get to the archer in the six second round, but ends up next to him.</p><p></p><p>Under 5e the fighter can move 30 and attack someone who is there. In turn based it is clear if there is someone there or not.</p><p></p><p>In declaring then resolving simultaneously it is not clear when the fighter declares his action where the archer will be, only where he starts from.</p><p></p><p>The fiction translating this would go: </p><p></p><p>DM: "The two of you face off from a distance."</p><p>Fighter: "He's just close enough for me to close as long as he stays there to take his shot, I charge and attack the archer."</p><p>DM: "However he realizes that too and backs up enough as he takes a shot so that by the time you get to him the round is over before you can attack."</p><p></p><p>If the resolution was that declarations have to be more specific to translate into a dash it would be:</p><p></p><p>DM: "The two of you face off from a distance."</p><p>Fighter: "He's just close enough for me to close as long as he stays there to take his shot, I charge and attack the archer."</p><p>DM: "However he realizes that too and takes a shot as he runs away. You chase him, but with him running away and firing back at you, you'd really have to put on the speed to close with him."</p><p></p><p>In turn based it would either be the fighter goes first, closes and attacks and the archer has some tough choices about OAs and disadvantage or dropping his bow, or the archer goes first, pulls back, shoots the fighter, then the fighter can close with a dash. </p><p></p><p>The fiction would be:</p><p></p><p>DM: "The two of you face off from a distance."</p><p>Fighter: "He's just close enough, I charge and attack the archer."</p><p>DM: "He's in a bad spot now that you've closed with him and attacked."</p><p></p><p>DM: "The two of you face off from a distance. He backs up and takes a shot, if you push it you can just reach him."</p><p>Fighter: "I charge to close."</p><p></p><p>These all seem decently reasonable fictions for the fight with minor variations based on timing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Voadam, post: 8401145, member: 2209"] We are taking the 5e rules, removing turn based resolution and applying the rest of the 5e rules simultaneously in a round. The archer backs up 30 feet and shoots at the fighter as the fighter charges at him from starting 30 feet away before the archer began his simultaneous move. Because the archer backed up to 60 feet from where the fighter started the fighter does not get to the archer in the six second round, but ends up next to him. Under 5e the fighter can move 30 and attack someone who is there. In turn based it is clear if there is someone there or not. In declaring then resolving simultaneously it is not clear when the fighter declares his action where the archer will be, only where he starts from. The fiction translating this would go: DM: "The two of you face off from a distance." Fighter: "He's just close enough for me to close as long as he stays there to take his shot, I charge and attack the archer." DM: "However he realizes that too and backs up enough as he takes a shot so that by the time you get to him the round is over before you can attack." If the resolution was that declarations have to be more specific to translate into a dash it would be: DM: "The two of you face off from a distance." Fighter: "He's just close enough for me to close as long as he stays there to take his shot, I charge and attack the archer." DM: "However he realizes that too and takes a shot as he runs away. You chase him, but with him running away and firing back at you, you'd really have to put on the speed to close with him." In turn based it would either be the fighter goes first, closes and attacks and the archer has some tough choices about OAs and disadvantage or dropping his bow, or the archer goes first, pulls back, shoots the fighter, then the fighter can close with a dash. The fiction would be: DM: "The two of you face off from a distance." Fighter: "He's just close enough, I charge and attack the archer." DM: "He's in a bad spot now that you've closed with him and attacked." DM: "The two of you face off from a distance. He backs up and takes a shot, if you push it you can just reach him." Fighter: "I charge to close." These all seem decently reasonable fictions for the fight with minor variations based on timing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Combat is fictionless
Top