talking during combat

[Chupacabra]

So, the fighter can't talk while he's moving either then, right? How do you distinguish the move action from the standard action? How about a quickened spell? If you talk during your action (assuming your houserule and the caster doesn't cast a verbal spell), does that mean you can't then cast feather fall when the fighter falls (e.g.)? Basically, if the wizard wants to use featherfall, he can't ever talk, right?

The limit to 6 seconds pretty much sucks for a game mechanic. I can just picture the DM with a stopwatch, "Okay, ready...go!" It becomes an exercise on speaking quickly instead of a an exercise on running your character.

Especially with the limit of only on your turn. That really emphasizes the discretized combat system. Talk about enforcing the lack of realism in the system, ugh.

Fighters can move and talk and fight all they want. Provided its all done in six seconds. The rules specify that combat rounds are to be artifically segmented into 6 second chunks. These same rules only allow six seconds of movement, six seconds of combat, etc. per player turn. Why not six seconds of speech?

As for the spell caster, I simply feel that if the wizard or cleric or whoever wants to cast a spell with a Verbal component he cannot talk during the round. Period. Move action, full round action, it doesn't matter: you can't be invoking arcane incatations and holding a meaningful dialogue with someone in a combat round at the same time. Now, if the spell is Silent thru metamagic, then by definition the verbal component is done away with and the caster can recite halfling poetry if he wants to while casting the spell that turn. As for Quickened spells, frankly, it's never come up.

My "six second rule" was implemented to curb some minor abuse. Folks dishing out detailed tactical advice to other players (in charcter or otherwise) under the guise of "I yell this to the Fighter". I dont have a stopwatch. Hell, I don't have a regular watch either. I never care what time it is.

If you want "realism" consider this: Imagine yourself in a D&D combat, you are busy dodging missiles, sword-strokes and spells, (and dishing the same out) and somehow you have the time to discourse with your fellow combatants? Using the LOTR movies as an example (yeah, yeah, using movies as an example of realism, I know), how much dialogue was spoken during the battle in Balin's Tomb -- which mirrors nicely a typical D&D encounter? Shouts of peoples names, grunts of pain, a quip here and there (Sam: "I think I'm getting the hang of this") etc. That seems about right. Notice However, Gandalf did not yell out, "Gimli, you step up on that tomb so you can get a circumstance bonus to hit while Aragon flanks the troll and Legolas uses his point blank feat because he is less than 30 feet away and the Halflings should Charge because their size bonus to AC should balance out their penalty for charging......all in one six second round.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If the wizard wants to cast a spell with a verbal component he cannot talk during the round. Period. Move action, full round action, it doesn't matter.

Well, that sucks for spellcasters. Any good reason for the unfairness in it? Or, is it 'just because'?

If you want "realism" consider this:

If I wanted realism, obviously, it'd have to be from a different system. What I don't want, however, is a houserule that strongly emphasizes, throughout every single combat, that the system is cyclic. It's bad enough that it is (and I won't argue that because I believe it's necessary for simplicity) -- making houserules that enforce it even further is not good and not fun. Instead of people talking during the action, about the action, you have people talking, perhaps responding to questions, in subsequent rounds. In actual time, it could be several minutes later. It also must be hell to DM a group of bad guys, too, making them speak only in turn. Of course, if you never have the bad guys talk, then it doesn't matter, but that's a different issue.

 

[Chupacabra]

Well, that sucks for spellcasters. Any good reason for the unfairness in it? Or, is it 'just because'? QUOTE]

Even I, a trained public speaker IRL, haven't mustered the ability to speak two sentences at the same time. I just dont see how a caster can bark out the necessary "magic words" for a spell while chatting up with his friends or enemies at the same time.

I guess it all goes back to how strongly one holds to the cyclical nature of D&D combat. You obviously view it as a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless. Something to be de-emphasized as much as possible. Maybe its the table-top-wargamer in me, but I LIKE the strong turn-based, cyclical, tactical feel of the combat. I get uncomfortable when fights get all loosey-goosey and players are trying to squeeze in too many actions in one round. For me, getting away from the cyclical nature of the game I feel leads to abuse. Your milage may vary.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Even I, a trained public speaker IRL, haven't mustered the ability to speak two sentences at the same time. I just dont see how a caster can bark out the necessary "magic words" for a spell while chatting up with his friends or enemies at the same time.

Easy. He doesn't do it at the exact same time ...

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=112

 

[Infiniti2000]

Even I, a trained public speaker IRL, haven't mustered the ability to speak two sentences at the same time. I just dont see how a caster can bark out the necessary "magic words" for a spell while chatting up with his friends or enemies at the same time.

I'm not even specifying at the same time. I guess you haven't understood my point about the move action. A wizard casting magic missile, for example, can take a move action first. Say, moving thirty feet. Why in the world can the wizard not talk while he's moving? Are you telling me that you, as a trained speaker, cannot walk and talk at the same time? Why is it so hard for the wizard to walk and talk and not the rogue? If a wizard casts a spell that consumes only a standard action, why can't he talk during the move action?

I guess it all goes back to how strongly one holds to the cyclical nature of D&D combat. You obviously view it as a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless. Something to be de-emphasized as much as possible. Maybe its the table-top-wargamer in me, but I LIKE the strong turn-based, cyclical, tactical feel of the combat. I get uncomfortable when fights get all loosey-goosey and players are trying to squeeze in too many actions in one round. For me, getting away from the cyclical nature of the game I feel leads to abuse. Your milage may vary.

I agree with you there. That's a highly subjective view point for anyone, so I won't belabor it. I just wouldn't like it, that's all.

 

[farscapesg1]

Well, our group recently had to implement a "talking during combat rule" in our game due to the overactive mouths of the players. Personally, I think we limited it to much. Basically we said that you can speak any 12 words or less once during a combat round. For the party leader to try to command the group, this is pretty hard and may need to be looked again.

As to the idea of not letting a wizard speak during a round that he casts a spell, that would cause serious issues since my wizard has had to take the mantle of leadership in our group. That sort of limitation on the class would seriously detract from my enjoyment of the game. Of course, if your players are okay with it, then have fun, but I would have left the table

 

[Infiniti2000]

This is strictly an outside observation, but from similar discussions like this I find that most people who have a problem with 'too much talking' are really referring to metagame talking, and not in-character talking. Unless your point is to restrict RP, it's rarely conducive to attempt to curb in-character talking. If the wizard, however, says things like "you should 5ft-step to the left after your full attack so that I can ..." the problem is metagaming, it's not actually in the allowance of people to talk outside their turn or talking too much.

As another example, it would suck to play a bard. I mean, their whole life is about talking, and suddenly they're restricted to only a fraction of the time.

 

[Quasqueton]

I, too, restrict talking in character to the PC's turn (though nothing extra restrictive for spellcasters). Every game I've played in that allowed the PCs to talk "whenever" ended up being a cocophany of instructions, suggestions, questions, etc. constantly, during every step of the combats. Players would actually discuss tactics and strategy during the combat to the point of making combats last many times longer than necessary.

By restricting talk to a character's turn, the combats go quicker, and in character talk seems more appropriate. I don't set a timer. No one has ever abused the 6-second round.

Quasqueton

 

[The_Universe]

I figure you can say as much stuff as would fit in 5-6 seconds, since that's how long a round is.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So, as long as the players keep it under 6 seconds, then any metagaming talk is fine? But, if I'm a bard and compose a 30-second ballad about the swashbuckler's current combat maneuver, you wouldn't allow it?

I can see a lot of cases in your games where the combatants delay until they get a response from their companions. Oh wait, delaying is not you actually taking a turn, so you can't talk and then delay, you have to talk and then ready, and then what? Do you restrict the player to two 3-second bursts?

Are you at least understanding what I'm saying here? I say again, don't restrict the talking, restrict the metagaming.