From: justisaur@yahoo.com
On 12/21/2025 9:18 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2025 15:58:15 -0600, Zaghadka
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2025 18:03:09 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it
>>> did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever
>>> edition-- that you think was bad for the game. Preferably it should be
>>> a rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific
>>> weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but,
>>> whatever. If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it.
>>> Ghostly Gygax says its okay. ;-)
>>>
>> Annoyances. Opportunity Attack/Attack of Opportunity. Gone.
>> ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>> Who thought this up? Hey, let's make the movement phase of the game slow,
>> pensive, and complicated. FFS, can we please just play? It adds less than
>> nothing to the game. Just let me walk away from somebody already without
>> determinining which squares are "threatened."
>
> I'm not totally opposed to attacks-of-opportunity, but I agree that
> modern editions have made it more complicated than necessary. It can
> add some tactical thinking to the game, but at the same time it also
> tends to force players (and monsters) into static lines where
> everybody just stays in one place and whales on the others until the
> hitpoint value drops to zero.
>
It's just a more codified 'back attack' when fleeing. There's still a
disengage action which allows you to disengage in modern. But I agree
with Zag, as I removed it completely from from my game.
The back attack of AD&D makes lines even more static.
>> Broader tactical remediation. The 6 second round. Gone.
>> Back to 1-minute rounds in 10 6-second segments.
>> Why? Mostly, because casting times then mean something again. It takes 18
>> seconds to cast a Fireball (3 segments). A Flame Strike? 8 segments.
>> You're at it for almost a minute. PWK is feared again because it is
>> *fast*. Initiative means something again because spellcasters can
>> actually be interrupted and have to *choose* if they're going for big
>> mojo or a quick attack. No more dumping out Flame Strike round after
>> round like it's candy. You do it once and then everyone knows who to pile
>> onto. You ain't casting that again if anyone has anything to say about
>> it.
>
> A one minute round always felt way too long for what was actually
> going on, but six seconds was too short. We compromised at 20 seconds,
> with 2-second segments. Initiative determined which segment your
> attack started; you added weapon/casting speed to that value (or
> subtracted any speed bonuses) to get your actually initiative value.
> It gave us the benefit of tactical planning without making battles
> take an overly-long period of (in-game) time.
I don't remember what Holmes uses, which is what I started with.
Probably 10 seconds as that's what the other basics use. Which seems
about right. 6 too short, and 60 to long.
I went with 1 minute anyway as I always liked that best. Lots of time
to do what you want. Attack, drink a potion, etc. Movement is
ridiculously slow, but far enough that movement is always less than max
in a dungeon. I mainly went with it as it's more 'natural language' 1
minute instead of/equal to a round.
> (We originally used 10-second rounds, but decided that was still too
> short for the amount of activity going on. Twenty seconds seemed a
> well-balanced medium... and it corresponded well to the d20 ;)
Interesting. That reminds me, Champions has a 12 second round. I made
a speedster once that could act many many times in that, but only got to
play him at a con, as my local GM wouldn't allow him. That was my first
character. They made me play a bubble boy *stinkface*.
--
-Justisaur
ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
