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="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1619164" data-attributes="member: 812">Player problem? Point out the player problem. Unless you mean a player who doesn't cheerfully accept absurdities in the rules that pop up EVERY SINGLE ROUND. I mean, explain to me why this player SHOULDN'T be able to throw numerous rocks in the span of a minute. It would happen in a movie. It would happen in a fantasy novel. Why doesn't it happen in Dungeons and Dragons?One-minute rounds are a problem, that's all there is to it. You yourself use 10-second rounds. If one-minute rounds are so great, how come you don't use them?Rubbish. If system A fails only in extreme cases that require not only very specific player choices to maximize in one area while minimizes in multiple others, AND depends on spectacularly good luck, it is no way true to say that it "is no more plausible" than system B, which every round presents players with an implausible scenario and asks them to accept it. Clearly A is, on the basis of this comparision alone, far more plausible than B.Six-second rounds are just better than one-minute rounds because they result in less implausible scenarios, all other things being equal.And I've seen no end of movie fight scenes where 25 bad guys go down in six seconds. Easily. I've seen very few where the good guy gets one good swing in every minute.Look, I agree that a norm of 25 attacks in six seconds is as implausible as a norm of one attack per minute. But the former is NOT the norm in 3E, while the latter was in D&D. So if we're comparing the two systems on this basis alone, 3E is the clear winner for plausibility. No question.</blockquote>

Verification