johnsemlak
First Post
I think what Merric is really saying is that it would be nice if the entire game was designed with the turn in mind (spell effects, time required to perform skills, etc etc).Thanee said:
Do you miss the Turn?
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Thanee said:
And, indeed, I do that from time to time (at other times, I keep track of things in minutes, or just handwave a lot).
But, true to my evangelistical nature, I think the turn is of most use as a learning tool - and without it, things get more difficult to adjudicate.
Cheers!
IronWolf
blank
I do not miss the turn. While I see some of the points that a turn allowed an additional defined segment of time, the DM *still * has to keep track of it. As a DM I feel I keep track of enough things during the course of a game and time tracking is one of the first things to fall to an approximation. I let players know via time checks along the way by throwing in "twenty minutes have passed", etc. This helps with spells with limited durations that we need to keep track of. So far the players in my games have been fine with such approximations.
johnsemlak said:
Somewhat - I'm not actually saying that spells should be adjudicated in turns or the like.
Instead, I'd like the core dungeon activities to be set up around a simple unit - the turn - so you don't have to count things in rounds (which is how the skill system makes it work at present!)
You might note that the 'turn' for wilderness travel in 3E is an hour - it is how often random encounter checks are made, and how often you must make environmental hazard checks, and the movement is stated in miles/hour.
There is an idea in the PHB that 'local' movement in the dungeon is measured in minutes... and 3E almost uses the minute as the replacement for the turn (not a bad idea, I must say), but it doesn't quite have the courage to use it in that manner, and thus we get the confusing situation at present.
The chief thing it neglects, in my view, is the 'slow' movement speed of mapping and searching.
Cheers!
Lord Rasputin
Explorer
MerricB said:
You're fast. I once played in an 8-hour Epic combat. Everyone was airborne.
johnsemlak
First Post
To continue this discussion, I might add that the game also lacks, to my knowledge, the kind of clear, day-by-day rules on overland travel set in the D&D Expert set. It was easy in those rules to calculate distance of overland travel, determine whether the party got lost (if they'r not on a trail), determine wandering monsters, etc.
I am not suggesting a need to return to D&D expert rules; just saying sometimes that system's simplicity was nice.
I am not suggesting a need to return to D&D expert rules; just saying sometimes that system's simplicity was nice.
johnsemlak said:
Indeed. I do think 3.5e is slightly better than 3e was on this matter.
What it lacks is a nice checklist for wilderness travel. It has most of the procedures - and does them quite well - but it isn't set up as well as it might be.
1) Determine weather for the day (DMG pg 94)
2) Each hour the party travels.
-- see if they get lost (DMG pg 86)
-- see if there is a random encounter (DMG pg 95)
-- determine distance travelled (PHB pg 163-4)
The party may travel for 8 hours. Each hour past that is a forced march (see PHB 164) with the penalties that implies.
The DMG also fails to mention the reduced chances of encounters when resting - the FR DM screen did mention that.
Cheers!
DragonLancer
Hero
I voted no. I'm just too used to the 3rd ed rules now.
Merric, it's hard to know exactly what it is you're advocating. On the one hand, your first post mentions the formal definition of "turn == 10 minutes". On the other hand, everything else you've said revolves around a much looser, more informal subdivision of "out-of-combat time".
The first, as far as I can see, is useless. The second is pretty much the same as what I said before: a metagame definition fitting somewhere in between "encounter" and "adventure". I wouldn't have a problem with that.
The first, as far as I can see, is useless. The second is pretty much the same as what I said before: a metagame definition fitting somewhere in between "encounter" and "adventure". I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Last edited:
