Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5453088" data-attributes="member: 7883">But nowhere in what you quoted did I make the statement that a round in 3E accounts for a bunch of attacks.  As I stated......in a minute in a fencing match, you could easily have 10-20 attacks each....or more.10 rounds a 1 minute.  Thus, *minimum* of 1-2 attacks per 6 seconds.You sure the analogy of one melee round representing multiple swings, parries etc. isn't a 2nd Ed-ism?  Because I was just reading through the Actions in Combat section of PHB 3.5, and didn't see anything stating that.....though I seem to remember it *was* in the 2nd Ed. PHB.  The impression I had in 3E was that the contention that 1 action didn't actually equate to one action was no longer true.Unless you want to do something like equate one attack action = step in, balestra, feint or disengage, then strike.  Theoretically, yes, those are multiple actions, but they are part of one attack sequence.  I'd still credit them as one 5 foot step + attack.It's not exact....obviously....but the point remains that melee combat appears much faster than missile combat (before the arrival of automatic weapons etc.).  There's no reload time.  The multiple actions you have in a round are a better approximation of the speed of melee combat.  But I'm not so sure about bows, crossbows, or primitive firearms. The Auld Gump has me there....sounds like he's got much more experience with those than I.  The only one of the three I've shot was the bow and arrow......and I frankly don't remember how quick or slow it was.  Pawsnplay made the valid point that the whole 10 arrows a minute thing probably didn't involve shots at single, moving targets.  Theoretically, a 20th lvl fighter with a longbow and rapid shot would be a veritable medieval machine gun, launching 50 arrows a minute, which seems a tad fast <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I found a few posts online, indicating a rate of about 1 arrow every 4 seconds is realistic, hitting a target at 40 yards...but that's about it.Anyways, I think we've kind of gone off topic here.  All I had intended to say was that the combination of rules suggestions I was referencing for firearms, based on the rules I found in Swashbuckling Adventures, gave the quality of verisimilutude to the inclusion of firearms in the game, and might work a bit better than making firearms touch attacks at short range.I figure they should be dangerous, but limited somehow, and firing rate seemed a good way to do it.  I remember a quote on a plaque in the Canadian War Museum....it was from a Canadian officer in the Boer War, I believe....he said something to the effect that "a new recruit with a $20 pistol could end the best trained swordsman in the world from 50' away, or something to that effect."Sounds like Paizo still has some work to do to get it right...but hopefully they're able to.  They still have like 6 months or so, so you'd think they could work it out.I just hope "True Grit" doesn't stay.  Two years from now, that name is going to seem kind of silly <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Banshee</blockquote>

Verification