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="T. Foster" data-source="post: 1619234" data-attributes="member: 16574">This isn't really the "smoking gun" situation you would like it to be. The DMG specifies what kinds of attacks spoil a magic-user's concentration, including damaging attacks and spells that are not saved against. Thus, by inference, spells that are saved against and attacks that don't cause damage (which, remember, in AD&D doesn't necessarily mean they didn't "hit" as in make touch-contact) don't break concentration, which strongly implies that it takes more than just a little 'tap on the shoulder' or whatnot to break a spell caster's concentration. Therefore it's entirely reasonable for the DM to state that the halfling thief is up in the tree pitching a couple dozen stones at the bad guy spell caster, only the stones, whether they hit or not, aren't sufficient to break his concentration (note also the magic stone spell from UA which specifically gives a <100% chance of the stone breaking a spell caster's concentration on a successful hit, and that's for a "magic" stone!). Sure, there's a chance that a lucky hit from one of those stones will break the spell caster's concentration -- and personally I'd allow about one chance of this per minute of trying <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> .Any and all other "objections" to the minute-long combat round can be met with similar explanations/rationalizations. Whether you happen to find these explanations plausible or realistic or consistent with each other is immaterial, because we all know they're really just rationalizations for a game rule the intent of which was clearly explained by the author in the rulebook (and in the first post of this thread) -- that each round be long enough that activity can be abstracted and the process can be kept fast-moving without getting bogged down in excessive detail.And lastly, to add a little more fuel to the fire, here's a couple of AD&D rules you may have forgotten: 1) against 'mundane' opponents (0-level humans and creatures with less than 1 full hit die) fighters gain one melee attack per level per round -- thus our Conan-type superhero who is only able to gain one potentially telling blow for every 40 seconds of trying against a similarly heroic opponent (or a big animal of equivalent toughness) is able to mow through men-at-arms, goblins, giant rats, and whathaveyou at a rate of one potentially telling blow every 7.5 seconds; 2) in a situation of surprise, the unsurprised party is able to make attacks upon the surprised party as if each segment were a full round (i.e. someone who normally gains a potentially telling blow once every minute will in a surprise situation gain one every 6 seconds). In other words, the rules recognize that there are exceptional circumstances in which the normal combat procedure shouldn't apply and a character should be able to gain potentially telling blows more than just once or twice in a minute's time, and provides guidance for dealing with them. The problem is not the rules, but rather people's (mis)understanding of them.</blockquote>

Verification