jgsugden
Legend
Back in the 1980s I played in a game that used segmented combat rather than round to round combat. Using a dagger did less damage, but you could do it multiple times between the blows of a greatsword. It was designed with realism as the goal. I then took the system and revised it for balance and proceeded to use it in my games for about a decade before abandoning it for my first 3E games. It was not perfect, but it was more realistic.
If more realistic, why did I abandon it? 2 reasons: 1.) Adapting it for 3E mechanics would have been a lot of work and I had little time, and 2.) I'd realized that we play two games at once in D&D combat and they did not both need to be about realism.
D&D combat is a 'mini-game' of strategic combat. You use the rules to determine roughly what happens. Then, as role players, we can adapt that strategic game outcome into the story of the combat. We can be free to retell the story and change it so long as it does not 'cheat the outcome' of the strategic game in a meaningful way. If you listen to Critical Role, you hear that team do it all the time with their "How do you Want to Do This" having nothing to do with what the rules say took place when they rolled the dice.
So why have the 600' statue use different mechanics than a 4' PC whe they swing their respective weapons? At some point the events are fundamentally different and it will be easier to tell a story where the mechanics are within the ballpark of the story event.
As such, in my game where there is a pirate sorcerer/warlock with Eldritch Spear, Distant Spell and Spell Sniper, I deal with someone that is shooting from verrrrry long distances. That is, to me, more in the ballpark of the 600' giant's sword swinging. I'm wondering how others picture Eldritch Blasts as the way they travel would impact this one situation for me - because having it impact the situation gives me a better story to help tell.
