Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8585764" data-attributes="member: 7032025">And once more, you have failed to prove that the rules support your claim.My view is way more nuanced, I just say that sometimes you can, sometimes you can't it all depends on circumstances and therefore, I use the 5e possibility fo make local rulings about this, without even contradicting the RAW.And that means that you only swing your sword once every six seconds, or actually every 60 seconds if there are 10 combattants ?That is your very personal view, thanks for it, but I happen to have a different one.Do you claim that dice rolls are perceivable by characters in the game world ?Shield is different, it interrupts its trigger, as has been pointed out many times, it's not your standard reaction. The explanation for shield is indeed very dodgy and has nothing to do with perceivable circumstances, since the trigger is special.Or sometimes you can't, which is why there is a perception skill.I narrate things exactly the way I want because, contrary to your claims, 5e (and previous editions, by the way) are not prescriptive about this. If two fighters are just trading blows in place, I will probably narrate the simultaneity of their exchanges with the combat going on about them. If something sequential happens somewhere in the fight that affects them, I will make it sequential.This is why you are having trouble with all these rules and why you think that they don't make sense, it's not inherent to the rules, it's due to yourself introducing extra constraints that make them appear absurd. Let go of all your PERSONAL constraints, they don't appear in the rules, and the rules will look consistent to you too.Yep, that the act in which their actions are resolved. Does it means that they freeze in place while it's someone else's turn ? Nope, it does not.That's the order in which turns are taken. Does it say that all these actions take the entire length of the round as you've said before ? No, it does not because that would not be consistent in terms of duration.And if your PC is crawling, it's the DM's perfect right to say: "you start to crawl" and then boom, you die. Do you deny this ?Please go and have a look at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYR3eCFqoA" target="_blank">this video by Matt Colville</a>.And that is exactly what I'm saying. If you describe that your PC is crawling for 10 minutes to do his 15 feet during his move in combat, it's not possible. I'm not saying anything stronger than this.Doesn't it strike you as bizarre that millions of people running the game all over the planet have no problem with the 5e system making sense and that you are the only one around (that I know of) that claims that it does not make sense at all ? We must al be complete idiots not to see it.Doesn't another explanation come to your mind, that it makes reasonable sense considering what it's depicting and that it's your view that is overconstrained and causing that "nonsense feeling" just for you ?So, basically, if there are two combattants moving in sequence, the first one moves for six seconds, the second for six seconds, end of round, and the round lasted 12 seconds. How do you reconcile this with the round being, EXPLICITELY IN THE RAW, about six seconds long ?Again, don't you think that millions of people would have caught up to such an inconsistence if it existed ? Don't you think that it's only YOUR VIEW that makes it look inconsistent ?Because I have absolutely no problem making it consistent, the only thing that you need to let go off is that each combattant dictates how long his turn lasts. Just let go of THAT bit, and it will start to make sense.</blockquote>

Verification