Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 6040893" data-attributes="member: 1544">I think this might actually be an AD&amp;D vs 3/4 thing. In 3 and 4, a round is 6 seconds, and the text says something like &quot;an attack roll represents your attempt to strike your target&quot;.In AD&amp;D (specifically 2e) it says:It is important to remember that in AD&amp;D a round lasted about 1 minute, not 6 seconds. That's a very big difference. &nbsp;[MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION]'s statement makes perfect sense for AD&amp;D, but [MENTION=162]GnomeWorks[/MENTION]'s interpretation makes more sense for 3E &amp; 4E. Personally I side with Chris Nightwing, even bearing the 6 seconds in mind.Any single swing of a sword takes a fraction of a second - even for me, and I only have a handful of hours training with a sword. I don't believe for a moment that an adventurer only makes one strike in 6 seconds at 1st level.Here's another quote from 2E which I feel sums up combat abstraction (in any version of DND) really well:Call me a grognard if you want, but I feel that this interpretation is still valid in the 6 second round. 1 dice roll does not equal one swing of the sword.For what it's worth, I'm also in favour of defining a combat round as 10 or 12 seconds, rather than 6. Especially if iterative attacks exist in any form. No person should be making 5 shots with a bow in 6 seconds. AD&amp;D's 2 shots per minute is closer to the mark, particularly given that the adventurers are aiming at specific moving targets, not just raining arrows down on an opposing army.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zustiur, post: 6040893, member: 1544"] I think this might actually be an AD&D vs 3/4 thing. In 3 and 4, a round is 6 seconds, and the text says something like "an attack roll represents your attempt to strike your target". In AD&D (specifically 2e) it says: It is important to remember that in AD&D a round lasted about 1 minute, not 6 seconds. That's a very big difference. [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION]'s statement makes perfect sense for AD&D, but [MENTION=162]GnomeWorks[/MENTION]'s interpretation makes more sense for 3E & 4E. Personally I side with Chris Nightwing, even bearing the 6 seconds in mind. Any single swing of a sword takes a fraction of a second - even for me, and I only have a handful of hours training with a sword. I don't believe for a moment that an adventurer only makes one strike in 6 seconds at 1st level. Here's another quote from 2E which I feel sums up combat abstraction (in any version of DND) really well: Call me a grognard if you want, but I feel that this interpretation is still valid in the 6 second round. 1 dice roll does not equal one swing of the sword. For what it's worth, I'm also in favour of defining a combat round as 10 or 12 seconds, rather than 6. Especially if iterative attacks exist in any form. No person should be making 5 shots with a bow in 6 seconds. AD&D's 2 shots per minute is closer to the mark, particularly given that the adventurers are aiming at specific moving targets, not just raining arrows down on an opposing army. [/QUOTE]

Verification