Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magus_Jerel" data-source="post: 155824" data-attributes="member: 3940">Do you realize just HOW ludicrous this sounds?  You start having serious issues.What winds up happening is not a cohesive combat system at ALL.Artoomis - you are QUITE correct - and that is because the strict language of the PHB when it comes to the combat system is about as inconsistent as it gets.  I know what you are saying about how it is SUPPOSED to work - but I can't "force" that into the text.  If I try - something - somewhere - breaks down; without fail.  I want one precice set of definitions.  None of this "some spells use this definition" while "the combat system uses this one".I have enough trouble when it comes to spells based solely on "precedent" - and keeping the lawyering tendencies out of the game.  A couple of My players are a wee bit better than I am about words and their meaning - they are lawyers who write contracts for a living.  Do you want to see what happens when two lawyers get into "rules-lawyering"?  It isn't preety.  That is why I get to DM - they find the philosophy student can handle the conflict of debate a whole lot more "impersonally" than a lawyer.First off, I AM being treated that way when it comes to certain persons who shall go unnamed - THAT has been made manifest.  I wish it would stop - but it won't.My players and I have a MAJOR issue with the bold statement.  Characters don't think in terms of "actions" or "rounds" or "hit points" or "saving throws" or for that matter - most game terms.  Players think in these terms.  Please - PLEASE - tell me where it says that PLAYERS cannot choose to take partial actions; I have been looking for it.  I have found text that indicates that CHARACTERS don't - but there is a difference between the two that my players would SHRED me over if I tried to flip those words around.  Unless some official errata comes out changing that - I do NOT have a chance in getting them to swallow the bit in the definition of partial action as applying to players - believe me, I tried for two hours straight.My players are just as quickly going to tell you that the chart in question (8-4 Misc actions) is what is in error - and NOT the definition of "attack".  The definition takes precedence over the chart.  From their mindset - the definition is absolute - and you can't flip them just because you want to.For them - "an attack, an attack action, and the attack action" go as followsan attack = an action of the category attack (uses definition attack)an attack action = an is used in the singular sense - meaning "partial attack action" as you translate it here.the attack action = full attack, by eliminationThey deal with that "problem" quite nicely when it IS applied.The biggest thing I wanted to absolutely SHOOT the game designers over was the following statement from pg 121 of the PHB:The undeniable fact that a character can "reasonably" accomplish two partial actions in one round is why I get compelled to rule as I do.  Now - the consequences of all this is nice when it comes to balance.Free actions can be taken "in conjunction with" other actions - and "not an action" is... in the category of "actions" (yes - they will concede that the PHB does NOT do well when it comes to definitions).  As "observing" a spellcaster is "not an action" a quickened spell "a free action" can be taken in conjunction with the observation - meaning we can and do get a WHOLE lot of interrupted castings.Because of some tricky "enforcing simultanaeity" - you can't "cast a quickened spell to stop a quickened spell" coming at you if you ARE actually casting something. (I got my players to concede that you cannot be casting two spells at the same time to support it)The "5ft step away and cast" trick doesn't work either - as the figher can take his step just as easily as the spellcaster - making it easier on the fighter vs spellcaster problem.charges - are just "you run towards your opponent in a straight line - and therefore get a bonus attack action because you are running in this fashion".It works out - and it is far "cleaner" and "consistent" than the "core" provides.  Granted - other people may be able to swallow the inconsistencies and the arguments that come from them.  I can't - and I won't.</blockquote>

Verification