Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
House Rule: Battle Queue instead of rounds
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Goken100" data-source="post: 3015435" data-attributes="member: 42968"><p>Heya Magic. I'll give an example how I calculated my chart and we can compare notes.</p><p></p><p>As I understand it, you propose a character's actions to take 7 ticks until the BAB is +6. If a tick is half a second, each action takes 3.5 seconds. </p><p></p><p>The number of actions taking 3.5 seconds in a minute that could be accomplished is:</p><p>60 / 3.5 = 17.14. The number you got was 8.59, which is exactly half of mine. Does that mean you're agreeing that seconds should be a second long? And that low level characters should actually take slightly longer than the traditional 6 seconds to complete an action? I'm not necessarily opposed to that, I'm just trying to make sure I understand.</p><p></p><p>To give an example for movement, it takes 2 seconds for a medium character to move 10 feet. Therefore, to move 10 feet then attack under MtG's rules is 2 + 3.5 seconds = 5.5.</p><p></p><p>The number of times a chacters can move 10 ft and then attack (when thet attack takes 3.5 seconds) in a minute would be:</p><p>60 / 5.5 = 10.91</p><p></p><p>By the way, the method for evaluating each plan involves subtracking the proposal from the core rules. However, we don't care if the value is positive or negative, we just want to know how far off target the result is. So we take the absolute value of each difference and sum them up. If we use MtG's proposal where each tick is a second, that the sum of the abosulte values of the differences is 35.73. That is much better than 72.46, but still not as good as 29.56.</p><p></p><p>Note that your chart is slightly inaccurate, as my proposal does not include a jump at the 20th level, but your calculations imply that they do. I've therefore omitted the 20th level from the above sums. I they were included, however, the MtG plan would further fall behind due to that jump in speediness.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Goken100, post: 3015435, member: 42968"] Heya Magic. I'll give an example how I calculated my chart and we can compare notes. As I understand it, you propose a character's actions to take 7 ticks until the BAB is +6. If a tick is half a second, each action takes 3.5 seconds. The number of actions taking 3.5 seconds in a minute that could be accomplished is: 60 / 3.5 = 17.14. The number you got was 8.59, which is exactly half of mine. Does that mean you're agreeing that seconds should be a second long? And that low level characters should actually take slightly longer than the traditional 6 seconds to complete an action? I'm not necessarily opposed to that, I'm just trying to make sure I understand. To give an example for movement, it takes 2 seconds for a medium character to move 10 feet. Therefore, to move 10 feet then attack under MtG's rules is 2 + 3.5 seconds = 5.5. The number of times a chacters can move 10 ft and then attack (when thet attack takes 3.5 seconds) in a minute would be: 60 / 5.5 = 10.91 By the way, the method for evaluating each plan involves subtracking the proposal from the core rules. However, we don't care if the value is positive or negative, we just want to know how far off target the result is. So we take the absolute value of each difference and sum them up. If we use MtG's proposal where each tick is a second, that the sum of the abosulte values of the differences is 35.73. That is much better than 72.46, but still not as good as 29.56. Note that your chart is slightly inaccurate, as my proposal does not include a jump at the 20th level, but your calculations imply that they do. I've therefore omitted the 20th level from the above sums. I they were included, however, the MtG plan would further fall behind due to that jump in speediness. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
House Rule: Battle Queue instead of rounds
Top