In 2E it is definitely one minute, and a turn is 10 minutes.
But one attack per round was never meant to mean only one swing of the sword. It means in a minute of melee, most non-warriors will get one opportunity to strike an effective blow. Most of the round will be spent in ineffective thrust and parry, looking for an opening. A warrior, especially a weapon specialist, doesn't really swing their sword any faster, they just have more opportunities to find openings each round.
You're right it's 1 minute in the real 2E, although according to the BG manual it's 6sec per round because of time reduction.
I like your explanation and I guess HP represents the corrolary. A high level warrior is not more resistant to wounds compared to level 1, he is just better able to deflect a killing blow into a minor injury.
You're right it's 1 minute in the real 2E, although according to the BG manual it's 6sec per round because of time reduction.
I like your explanation and I guess HP represents the corrolary. A high level warrior is not more resistant to wounds compared to level 1, he is just better able to deflect a killing blow into a minor injury.
Exactly, that was the explicit justification for hit points in the PnP rules. Each of those hits are just nicks and scratches that wear you down until you get into the 1HD range, then you're really getting hurt.
It's funny though, I always explain HP that way to my new players, but it doesn't quite work so well to explain healing ("why do I need such heavy healing if I still have 20 HP left?" " Well those 40 you lost really wore you out...")
It does make perfect sense in combat though. Otherwise we'd need some rule for diminished hitting power as you got injured or something. Abstractions are great for keeping the system fairly simple, but sometimes the justification gets tricky.
>Otherwise we'd need some rule for diminished hitting power as you got injured or something. <
There's an MMORPG I play where this exact thing happens. Too much blood loss and your attack rating drops; too much damage to a limb and you can lose the use of it. Damage occurs to one of 12 body parts, and you can aim an attack to try to hit a specific area, provided you have trained well enough in the relevant skills. (An axe or maul hit to the head is often an instant kill; an arrow to the eye is even more deadly).
There are, of course, armors designed to prevent such things from happening; padded helms and the like. But if you are really, really, really good, you can stick something like a misericorde through the helm's visor slits.
The whole HP abstraction also prevents the "trapping a giant by its foot and stab him in the thumb with a dagger repeatedly until he runs out of HPs and dies."
On a similar topic however I did some archery and I can say that 2 or 3 arrows in a round is totally unrealistic. Even when they were used in combat, six per minute was a fast rate. Even 1 arrow/round is pushing the limits of realism. They should reduce the rate of fire but make them more deadly.
2-3 ARP with a bow in six seconds is indeed quite unrealistic But if it's like @atcDave says, and one round is 6 seconds practically but reflects 60 seconds of "actual" time, I'd say 2-3 APR is quite low for a skilled archer.
Here's an example of fast shooting. I guess the accuracy and armor penetration would be very low using this tecnique, but still, getting the arrows in the air is indeed possible at a very high rate. Doing this with a proper longbow though, that is another story And heavy crossbows ofc cannot be reloaded that quick
Regarding dual weilding:
Here's schola gladiodoria's opinion on the matter (8 min's, ~3 minutes in). Summary, dual wield was not used for actual battle but may have been used for classroom fencing etc (europe). It was used in parts of asia, like katana+wakizashi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNZyhNFSaE
Here's lindybeige's opinion on the matter. To be frank, I'm not sure about his background but most of the stuff he posts seem to be based on his reenactment and also just common sense and logic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
There's many others as well, all quite interresting but none I've found so far that supports the idea of higher APR with two weapons.
Well, as I also previously stated, there is no evidence whatsoever that this would be case when dual weilding. No reenactors, HEMA practitoners or those studying old combat manifests have ever (AFAIK) been able to support that notion.
I have no competence in the field, so I'll check the videos when I have some time.
On a similar topic however I did some archery and I can say that 2 or 3 arrows in a round is totally unrealistic. Even when they were used in combat, six per minute was a fast rate. Even 1 arrow/round is pushing the limits of realism. They should reduce the rate of fire but make them more deadly.
Uh, maybe you're just a bad archer? Six arrows per minute is dang slow
I think that the best items should be sold (or created by smiths) rather than found. It acually feels more like an accomplishment to go out, kill, pillage and plunder until you have enough gold to buy that one, specific item, than just going out to a field and digging up the best armor in the game. Sure, finding Carsomyr on the carcass of a slain dragon is indeed epic, but to much great gear can be found too easily.
I think that the best items should be sold (or created by smiths) rather than found. It acually feels more like an accomplishment to go out, kill, pillage and plunder until you have enough gold to buy that one, specific item, than just going out to a field and digging up the best armor in the game. Sure, finding Carsomyr on the carcass of a slain dragon is indeed epic, but to much great gear can be found too easily.
BG has a good mix (unlike the elder scrolls games), you can buy pretty good stuff (Rynn's +4, hill giant belt, etc. ) but you dont have the funds, or the gold is needed elsewhere.
Sure, with all your meta knowledge, you already know where to get the best loot so you may skip those. But still, those games had it right. So did F1+2
On a similar topic however I did some archery and I can say that 2 or 3 arrows in a round is totally unrealistic. Even when they were used in combat, six per minute was a fast rate. Even 1 arrow/round is pushing the limits of realism. They should reduce the rate of fire but make them more deadly.
Uh, maybe you're just a bad archer? Six arrows per minute is dang slow
Six arrows a minute is the pace of a unit of longbow archers firing volleys. They would take it slower to keep everyone firing together and so they wouldn't tire out too fast.
On a similar topic however I did some archery and I can say that 2 or 3 arrows in a round is totally unrealistic. Even when they were used in combat, six per minute was a fast rate. Even 1 arrow/round is pushing the limits of realism. They should reduce the rate of fire but make them more deadly.
2-3 ARP with a bow in six seconds is indeed quite unrealistic But if it's like @atcDave says, and one round is 6 seconds practically but reflects 60 seconds of "actual" time, I'd say 2-3 APR is quite low for a skilled archer.
Here's an example of fast shooting. I guess the accuracy and armor penetration would be very low using this tecnique, but still, getting the arrows in the air is indeed possible at a very high rate. Doing this with a proper longbow though, that is another story And heavy crossbows ofc cannot be reloaded that quick
Regarding dual weilding:
Here's schola gladiodoria's opinion on the matter (8 min's, ~3 minutes in). Summary, dual wield was not used for actual battle but may have been used for classroom fencing etc (europe). It was used in parts of asia, like katana+wakizashi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNZyhNFSaE
Here's lindybeige's opinion on the matter. To be frank, I'm not sure about his background but most of the stuff he posts seem to be based on his reenactment and also just common sense and logic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
There's many others as well, all quite interresting but none I've found so far that supports the idea of higher APR with two weapons.
Both those guys are great. Lindy and schola.. Another is skallagrim.
2-3 ARP with a bow in six seconds is indeed quite unrealistic But if it's like @atcDave says, and one round is 6 seconds practically but reflects 60 seconds of "actual" time, I'd say 2-3 APR is quite low for a skilled archer.
Longbows used in battle had a lot more pull than modern competition bows (100 pounds or more while modern Olympic athletes rarely use more than 50 lb). For a medieval soldier, shooting 3 arrows in a minute was like lifting 100 pounds and holding it very carefully three time. While it is possible to shoot faster, with a 100lb bow you would tire very quickly and after a few volleys your aim would be all over the place.
2-3 ARP with a bow in six seconds is indeed quite unrealistic But if it's like @atcDave says, and one round is 6 seconds practically but reflects 60 seconds of "actual" time, I'd say 2-3 APR is quite low for a skilled archer.
Longbows used in battle had a lot more pull than modern competition bows (100 pounds or more while modern Olympic athletes rarely use more than 50 lb). For a medieval soldier, shooting 3 arrows in a minute was like lifting 100 pounds and holding it very carefully three time. While it is possible to shoot faster, with a 100lb bow you would tire very quickly and after a few volleys your aim would be all over the place.
True, but a longbow was most of the times used to fire volleys to an area, not a single target. So extremely accurate aim wasn't really needed. IMHO, using a longbow as in BG/IWD isn't very likely since it's not its forte. A longbow in BG/IWD is just like the longswords, a lot smaller/shorter than they were in real life so we can't really apply real life usage on the in-game versions unfortunately. I guess we have to interpret longbows as just slightly larger bows than shortbows rather than a real life longbow.
Perhaps the most unpopular opinion of all... I've never had any, nor have I ever understood, fondness towards the shorty races. Maybe it's because I'm a rather tall guy and proud of it, but I've never played a PC halfling, dwarf or gnome.
I also can't ever play a truly evil PC. It just sickens me. On the off-chance I actually play an evil Bhaalspawn, they always have standards or redeeming features. I love anti-villains.
I think it was 3rd edition where "cinematic" became the watchword. Dual-wielding is awesome because Hollywood and Hong Kong say it's awesome. Now get out there and fire your crossbow one-handed while swinging from the chandelier!
I absolutely never use Haste, Stoneskin,PfMW,mantle, absolute immunity, spell triggers, time stop, project image and simulacrum; as I find these ‘cheap'
I absolutely HATE Minsc and have never taken him. He's annoying and deserves to be killed on sight; with a hot fiery itchy death... Or a backstab.. That works well too.
I'm never really sure what the boundaries are here. I've gotten away with a pretty heavily erotic description of the final battle with Irenicus in my Phase Spider run, and a lot of more subtle innuendo from my other runs and posts.
Granted, most of my innuendo is metaphorical or implied, rather than explicit or graphic, but then we have the other stuff, like the
@DragonKing, Viconia, and Phaere tentacle rod session
or the
Pai'Na, Dorn, @Buttercheese, Blackrazor, @Dee, Big Metal Unit, Yxunomei, and @Blackraven Oil of Speed-boosted Slayer form no-reload cuddle puddle
Comments
But one attack per round was never meant to mean only one swing of the sword. It means in a minute of melee, most non-warriors will get one opportunity to strike an effective blow. Most of the round will be spent in ineffective thrust and parry, looking for an opening. A warrior, especially a weapon specialist, doesn't really swing their sword any faster, they just have more opportunities to find openings each round.
I like your explanation and I guess HP represents the corrolary. A high level warrior is not more resistant to wounds compared to level 1, he is just better able to deflect a killing blow into a minor injury.
It does make perfect sense in combat though. Otherwise we'd need some rule for diminished hitting power as you got injured or something.
Abstractions are great for keeping the system fairly simple, but sometimes the justification gets tricky.
There's an MMORPG I play where this exact thing happens. Too much blood loss and your attack rating drops; too much damage to a limb and you can lose the use of it. Damage occurs to one of 12 body parts, and you can aim an attack to try to hit a specific area, provided you have trained well enough in the relevant skills. (An axe or maul hit to the head is often an instant kill; an arrow to the eye is even more deadly).
There are, of course, armors designed to prevent such things from happening; padded helms and the like. But if you are really, really, really good, you can stick something like a misericorde through the helm's visor slits.
Yeah, I've seen this.
Here's an example of fast shooting. I guess the accuracy and armor penetration would be very low using this tecnique, but still, getting the arrows in the air is indeed possible at a very high rate. Doing this with a proper longbow though, that is another story
Regarding dual weilding:
Here's schola gladiodoria's opinion on the matter (8 min's, ~3 minutes in). Summary, dual wield was not used for actual battle but may have been used for classroom fencing etc (europe). It was used in parts of asia, like katana+wakizashi.
Here's lindybeige's opinion on the matter. To be frank, I'm not sure about his background but most of the stuff he posts seem to be based on his reenactment and also just common sense and logic.
There's many others as well, all quite interresting but none I've found so far that supports the idea of higher APR with two weapons.
I think that the best items should be sold (or created by smiths) rather than found. It acually feels more like an accomplishment to go out, kill, pillage and plunder until you have enough gold to buy that one, specific item, than just going out to a field and digging up the best armor in the game. Sure, finding Carsomyr on the carcass of a slain dragon is indeed epic, but to much great gear can be found too easily.
Sure, with all your meta knowledge, you already know where to get the best loot so you may skip those. But still, those games had it right.
So did F1+2
Doesn't mean I'm not faster AND cooler 8-)
I like Khalid. His stuttering voice and personality are not annoying at all to me. And he's a versatile Fighter.
Perhaps the most unpopular opinion of all... I've never had any, nor have I ever understood, fondness towards the shorty races. Maybe it's because I'm a rather tall guy and proud of it, but I've never played a PC halfling, dwarf or gnome.
I also can't ever play a truly evil PC. It just sickens me. On the off-chance I actually play an evil Bhaalspawn, they always have standards or redeeming features. I love anti-villains.
Also I hope the new DnD game follows dark alliance's formula.
I absolutely never use Haste, Stoneskin,PfMW,mantle, absolute immunity, spell triggers, time stop, project image and simulacrum; as I find these ‘cheap'
And imagine
The rest of this post has been removed, as it violates the site's PG-13 policy. Keep it clean, folks.
IF ONLY I HAD CHECKED THE FORUMS EARLIER QQ
Edit: also shorty races are great because they are tiny and adorable.
Granted, most of my innuendo is metaphorical or implied, rather than explicit or graphic, but then we have the other stuff, like the