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="s/LaSH" data-source="post: 1620154" data-attributes="member: 6929">Have we lost our way?Or have many of the followers of the pioneers said, "Hey, look over there, that valley looks kinda nice, why don't we go over there instead of going to the valley the pioneers went to"?Personally, I like the nature of the recent, quicker-round rules; I think "I hit him with my sword" appeals to the impatience of the modern mind more than "I engage him in combat, which is guaranteed to take several minutes no matter how brilliantly I perform".The 6-second round is a facilitator. You can have a combat that lasts for an hour - it's just not too likely (it's likelier when truly massive ACs come to the table, though). You can also have a combat that lasts thirty seconds and is decided by a lucky swing or two (reason why I'm playing a druid instead of my sohei now - vile crit-scoring minotaur). That's freedom you just don't have under minute-rounds, which are guaranteed to last a few minutes (unless, by some coincidence, you decide matters in round 1, in which case you're excused to say it took a single swing of your mighty axe).Is that freedom necessary? Is it even a good thing? I think so, others may not.All in all, though, there are plenty of logical concerns that can be taken with the one-minute round. They can be easily explained - but the question has to be asked first, and it doesn't have to be asked with six-second rounds. The only timing problem with a six-second round is that aforementioned 26-attack lethal Elf - which boils down to perhaps four actions per second. Pretend, for a moment, you're swinging a chain around your head. Whoosh, whoosh, whoosh. There are morons (or, perhaps, trained warriors facing a minor martial prodigy, as PCs are) walking up to you at the time. What happens? Something pretty painful for the morons/trained warriors, and you could cause an awful lot of havoc in six seconds.And frankly, fiction demands warriors with the ability to hurt their enemies very badly, very quickly. If Conan, not a truly legendary fighter for all his coolness, has a trademark on slicing someone's belly and taking off his friend's swordhand with the same swing, I'll be in great trouble. At higher levels, when fighters can supposedly compete favourably with people who can call up demons with a word, immolate small army units, and step between worlds to visit their friends for tea, I would expect their combat style to become ridiculously extraordinary, compatible with the extraordinary individuals in our modern world who can draw and fire a gun between frames of a TV camera, or the duellist maestro who can strike a man four times before he can react.That's my opinion on the combat matter. I think my way's best for what I like, and I think it makes more sense than other ways. But I don't think other ways are unworkable.On the topic of alignment, I'm... of many minds. Most of the time I like to concentrate on the difference between good and evil, and leaven it with healthy servings of free choice and moral grayness; order and chaos are secondary to the good/evil divide in my mind. On the other hand, the theory that there are (at least) 9 semisecret philisophical societies which collectively encompass everyone on the planet is something which needs picking up and turning into a proper setting one day. That could be quite cool...</blockquote>

Verification