airwalkrr
Adventurer
Although it is usually a non-issue, when exactly an effect ends can strongly affect a battle. I believe most people rule that effects are cyclical, that is, an effect with a duration of one round ends immediately before your next turn. I have traditionally considered myself in the minority. In my campaigns, I rule that 1 round is subtracted from the duration of all effects at the end of a round.
Now this has some broad implications. The most important of these is how it affects stabilization rolls. For example, if one character hits another character at the end of a round and brings that character to -9 hit points, the struck character basically has a 10% chance of surviving unless someone had a readied acton to heal him because no one will get to act before he dies. I have occassionally had reservations about this being a bit rough on PCs, but it makes sense to me. One of my strengths and faults is that I am a dedicated simulationist, and this simple makes sense to me.
Most people I know do not use this interpretation. But there is a facet of the rules which I believe implies my interpretation is correct: refocusing. If you assume that durations are cyclical and rounds are subtracted from the duration immediately before the turn of the character who precipitated the effect, then the refocusing option is essentially pointless. There is never a mechanical advantage to the refocusing option because you can always delay and wind up in that initiative spot anyway. I have asked myself why the refocusing option exists, and this has always led me to the way I deal with durations. A character who casts a spell at the top of the initiative effectively gets the benefit of the spell longer than a character who casts a spell at the bottom of the initiative.
Now I admit I could be wrong on this issue, but it is food for thought. Does anyone else interpret durations this way? Can anyone think of any other mechanical benefit to refocusing?
Now this has some broad implications. The most important of these is how it affects stabilization rolls. For example, if one character hits another character at the end of a round and brings that character to -9 hit points, the struck character basically has a 10% chance of surviving unless someone had a readied acton to heal him because no one will get to act before he dies. I have occassionally had reservations about this being a bit rough on PCs, but it makes sense to me. One of my strengths and faults is that I am a dedicated simulationist, and this simple makes sense to me.
Most people I know do not use this interpretation. But there is a facet of the rules which I believe implies my interpretation is correct: refocusing. If you assume that durations are cyclical and rounds are subtracted from the duration immediately before the turn of the character who precipitated the effect, then the refocusing option is essentially pointless. There is never a mechanical advantage to the refocusing option because you can always delay and wind up in that initiative spot anyway. I have asked myself why the refocusing option exists, and this has always led me to the way I deal with durations. A character who casts a spell at the top of the initiative effectively gets the benefit of the spell longer than a character who casts a spell at the bottom of the initiative.
Now I admit I could be wrong on this issue, but it is food for thought. Does anyone else interpret durations this way? Can anyone think of any other mechanical benefit to refocusing?
