Quote from: Windjammer;367497You're so funny.

Actually what's funny is that for all your claims that 4e doesn't have immersion problems almost all of your house rules look like they're fixing stuff that to you doesn't make sense for that campaign.  In other words, you're changing the rules of 4e to make it less dissociative and more immersive. :rotfl:

Did some googling and sure you have people tweaking the balance purely from a mechanical viewpoint, but houserule after houserule I kept seeing people working to make 4e more immersive, basically changing or removing a lot of the elements that people on therpgsite have been complaining about.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367566I guess that shows how AD&D-centric I am.

Edit: But doesn't that go even *farther* to illustrate the point? In one edition-- it's a full minute, and in another it's 10 seconds. Are these realistic models of reality or just games? I think they might be games.  

You rail against 'realistic' with every fibre of your being until this very moment, when it is convenient to your argument to embrace it.

Since your only argument is 'non-4e suxx0rs LOL!', I will explain once again:  'Realistic' is an argument used by munchkins and other bad players to open up loopholes.  What good gamers are concerned with is verisimilitude.

Any time period for a combat is a gaming break and at attempt at balance.
(we always switch a round into a segment for timings.) but it's generally a non-immersion breaking artificial devision. And we are flexible if someone wants to make a little speech in a round we don't time it to 6 seconds we role/roll with it.

But I have seen an archer (well actually a re-enacter to be entirely accurate) fire 20 arrows in a minute, even if only the first 5 or 6  hit the target and the rest got progressively closer, using a standard longbow.

If you are actually fighting time really is quite elastic. You might land 10 blows in a few seconds you might circle your opponent lookign for an opening and throw one or less in a minute but for purposes of the game a 5 - 10 second combat round feels about right, doesn't break immersion and gives you a scale that you can use to work out movement, casting , lockpicking and all that other stuff.

Oh and 120 feet movement in a minute is incredible slow I mean 2 feet per second isn't even walking speed. So not only can you wander round the battle map moreorless at will you could move that fast carrying a tray of drinks if you wanted. If you are running unemcumbered anyone reasonable fit can jog 200 yards in 1 minute or sprint 400 yards, that is 1200 feet or 240 of those little 5 foot squares.

Quote from: jibbajibba;367614Oh and 120 feet movement in a minute is incredible slow I mean 2 feet per second isn't even walking speed.

It's not my concern though. My concern is purely on a game play standpoint between movement rates and actual sizes of battlemats and dungeon features.
Read above.

Quote from: StormBringer;367606...Since your only argument is 'non-4e suxx0rs LOL!',...

Although I am not going to respond to this shithead (it's pointless, and I don't think this guy actually games), does anyone else actually think this is my argument?

Quote from: Benoist;367615It's not my concern though. My concern is purely on a game play standpoint between movement rates and actual sizes of battlemats and dungeon features.
Read above.

and there really is a huge difference in how fast you move if that is your main goal, vs if you are trying to react to missle fire and other threats, if you have a counter blow enabled, etc.  
I have been surprised howfast my freinds can move in lammellar and chain, and surprised how slow one has to move when trying to keep reactive to threats.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367616Although I am not going to respond to this shithead (it's pointless, and I don't think this guy actually games), does anyone else actually think this is my argument?

No, it's not, though you actually left out you know... the actual argument that "realistic" is a pointless argumentative ground to stand on, while verisimilitude (or the "appearance of reality") is a more constructive one.

Your original premise: "But doesn't that go even *farther* to illustrate the point? In one edition-- it's a full minute, and in another it's 10 seconds. Are these realistic models of reality or just games? I think they might be games" is a fallacy of the excluded middle, where there is just a strict adherence to some nebulous concept of what "reality" is and isn't, versus "it's just a game, why care?". Which is where Stormy's differenciation between "realism" and "verisimilitude" plugs itself.

What Stormy's saying is that your point that "all are games so why care?" is just one way to look at it. Sure, you can go "it's only a game, whatever makes sense to have fun with the game", but you can also go with "how do I give this game world action/move/etc a mechanical application that is also interesting from a game's standpoint?". The latter approach is what Stormy's talking about.

But really, in a general sense, your posts start with a contemptuous premise, which you, yourself, admitted, and are constantly plagued, tainted by endless occurences of faux-humour, overstatements, and back-handed insults to such an extent that it's easy to miss your points.

Quote from: LordVreeg;367617and there really is a huge difference in how fast you move if that is your main goal, vs if you are trying to react to missle fire and other threats, if you have a counter blow enabled, etc.

I have been surprised howfast my freinds can move in lammellar and chain, and surprised how slow one has to move when trying to keep reactive to threats.

AD&D represents this not in movement rates but tactically, by differenciating "Closing In On Combat" (cautiously) vs. a "Charge". The former negates the attacks from the opponent you come in contact with but also forbids you to attack this round, while the latter allows you to attack (with double damage on a warhorse with a lance and some such), but with the opponent defender attacking/receiving you first, with potential of double damage if Weapons are "Set Against a Charge" (which is a tactical option/action itself).

Note that it's not just that in BD&D 1 round = 10 seconds and in AD&D 1 round = 1 minute and everything else is equal. Characters in BD&D explicitly can't do as much in a round as their AD&D counterparts -- movement is divided by 3 (so if you've got a move rate of 120' you can only move 40' per combat round), and multiple attacks are much less common -- the aforementioned missiles (AD&D allows 2 arrows or thrown daggers and 3 thrown darts per round -- even more if weapon specialization is used) and also fighters who in AD&D get extra attacks starting at 2nd level against sub-1HD opponents -- a 5th level fighter against a group of goblins or 0-level city guards gets 5 attacks per round -- and against everybody starting at 7th (or 1st with specialization), neither of which are present in BD&D (at least until the Master Set added Weapon Mastery).

Maybe I could just assume 1 round = 10 seconds in my AD&D games, while keeping everything else, and just get rid of my issues with movement rates altogether with a 40 feet/round rate for humans. :hmm:

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367616Although I am not going to respond to this shithead (it's pointless, and I don't think this guy actually games), does anyone else actually think this is my argument?

You have to admit, "...Since your only argument is 'non-4e suxx0rs LOL!',..." has been your default arguement for a long time and many posts (many of which were what you called "retard farming").

It doesn't mean that you can't dig yourself out of the hole you made, though. Just stick with relevant points and leave the trolling somewhere else.

Quote from: jibbajibba;367614But I have seen an archer (well actually a re-enacter to be entirely accurate) fire 20 arrows in a minute, even if only the first 5 or 6  hit the target and the rest got progressively closer, using a standard longbow.

I have read about medieval archers achieving similar feats.  On the other hand, that was firing over a curtain wall into an open field at a mass of charging enemies where accuracy wasn't really important.  An arrow shower, if you will.  Once their own ground forces were engaged, those guys took a coffee break, as you would likely cut down as many of your own as the enemy.

So, it's true, a trained archer can achieve high rates of fire, but they aren't shooting into a mixed crowd of enemies and allies.  If that archer landed 5 arrows where he wanted, the other 15 are now sticking out the backs of your allies and other enemies.  Lining up a decent shot to minimize the Fighter or Cleric catching a arrow in the back of the head can easily take a round, but more believably, a one minute round.  Launching one arrow every six seconds without the majority of them hitting your own party is pretty unlikely.

QuoteOh and 120 feet movement in a minute is incredible slow I mean 2 feet per second isn't even walking speed. So not only can you wander round the battle map moreorless at will you could move that fast carrying a tray of drinks if you wanted. If you are running unemcumbered anyone reasonable fit can jog 200 yards in 1 minute or sprint 400 yards, that is 1200 feet or 240 of those little 5 foot squares.

But again, this is assuming a pretty clear field and a straight line path.  Weaving in and around enemies and allies to get close to an opponent would be much, much slower.  Imagine a mall during the week of Christmas, peak shopping time.  Now imagine all of them have weapons and are trying to kill each other.  If you can manage 120 inches in a minute, you are doing pretty well.

These are the kinds of things that minis and battlemats tend to engender; this idea that while you are making your moves and attacks, the rest of the participants are immobile, like a game of freeze tag or something.  To get a better idea of missile combat, at least, the next time the battlemat is set up, assume that any square occupied by a figure is total cover both ways.  For even a moderate sized hallway, I think you will find missile fire all but impossible, unless the archer can find some high ground to fire down into the melee, and even then, it would be quite dodgy.

Quote from: jeff37923;367629You have to admit, "...Since your only argument is 'non-4e suxx0rs LOL!',..." has been your default arguement for a long time and many posts (many of which were what you called "retard farming").

It's an interpretation made only by a few very people. I won't deny I like what I like.

The ongoing attempt to shame people for liking D&D4 is a dead end.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367635It's an interpretation made only by a few very people.

Overstatement.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367635The ongoing attempt to shame people for liking D&D4 is a dead end.

Strawman.

There's just no discussing with you. You're going out of your way to be confrontational.

Are you sure it's not just you feeling an obsessive need to confront me?

I'd rather not play whack-a-mole with the same six-or-so retards all day. It goes nowhere. If you have a problem with me and can't stay on the actual D&D topic, take it to email.