Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 5826150" data-attributes="member: 4303">I'm not sure that 1e was any more &quot;realistic&quot; at modelling combat; you (or your player) seem to be picking out a particular artifice of 3.X and citing it as &quot;unrealistic&quot; when, in fact, 1e could be guilty of much more egregious violations of verisimilitude.Let's say that (in 1e) your opponent wins 3 surprise segments and subsequently gains initiative. Your opponent has a longbow. What then? P. 62 of the 1e DMG is ambiguous, but at the very least your opponent will shoot 3 arrows at you before you can lob your javelin. 18 seconds of &quot;real time&quot; have elapsed in the surprise segments.For some reason, people are under the apprehension that it is more acceptable to use common sense over RAW in editions prior to 3.0 than it is in later editions.I guess my question is why?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sepulchrave II, post: 5826150, member: 4303"] I'm not sure that 1e was any more "realistic" at modelling combat; you (or your player) seem to be picking out a particular artifice of 3.X and citing it as "unrealistic" when, in fact, 1e could be guilty of much more egregious violations of verisimilitude. Let's say that (in 1e) your opponent wins [I]3 surprise segments[/I] and subsequently [I]gains initiative[/I]. Your opponent has a longbow. What then? P. 62 of the 1e DMG is ambiguous, but at the very least your opponent will shoot 3 arrows at you before you can lob your javelin. 18 seconds of "real time" have elapsed in the surprise segments. For some reason, people are under the apprehension that [I]it is more acceptable to use common sense over RAW in editions prior to 3.0 than it is in later editions.[/I] I guess my question is [I]why?[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification