But how is that 'River is always flowing forward' is handled within the D&D rule framework?  We are talking about actual rule effect here.  Not a fluff text.

Initiative wise...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm



No two combatant acts simultaneously.

-K

Hmmmm.  Odd.  I don't see the problem with people going simultaneously.  Didn't people do that in 2nd edition?

Sorry for the spam, but...
777th post!  Har har!

Anyway, when I was playing with my Dad this summer, he was kind of miffed about the nonsimultaneous action as well.  He wanted to slide down a rope with at least two people at a time going down together, but I couldn't see how it would work.  He also was annoyed how sometimes he couldn't make an attack every round, if he was busy doing something else.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:52, Thu 06 Dec 2007.

OK, how about Counterspelling?  I have seen that described as simultaneous casting, and they cancel each other out.  You have a contingent action and start casting the spell to counter at the same time as your opponent is casting his.

Counterspelling still requires some turn-based combat, because in order to do it you have to ready an action.  The way I always saw it is that someone casts a spell, and the other chap reacts and casts his counterspell, and they meet in midair and cancel out.

Actually, in general, you almost never want things to happen simultaneously.  It creates whole new layer of rules intricacy just to deal with 'what happens when two/three things happen at the same time' issues.  If you note, Mt:G also has the same 'Nothing happens simultanously' rule, and everything is stacked one after another, and resolved sequentially.

However, D&D is not Mt:G and non-simultanaity issue is not as explicit, and one wonders if there are cases where things happen simultanously...

-K

Sure.  You ready an action to later do something simultaneously.  What you described is simultaneous casting of spells meeting in the air--and the person casts his spell at the same time as someone makes their CS roll.  That seems simultaneous to me.

Also, all other opposed rolls would also be simultaneous actions.  You hide at the same time someone attempts to spot, etc.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/comb...iveActions.htm#ready



In short, readied action doesn't occur simultaneously to the triggered action.  It's "stacked on top", sort of like casting instant-speed spells in response in a game of Mt:G during opponents' turn.  Just like Mt:G individual spells do not occur simultaneously, these actions are resolved in sequential order, last in, first out.

Hiding, also, is another matter.  It's not actually an action, and often called "non-action" in D&D term.  It's sort of like paying Mana in Magic during the casting of a spell.  It's a part of another action/spell.

-K

But Counterspelling is special, yes?  You can't counterspell something before it is cast!  It has to be cast to be CS'd, it seems logically to me.

Nope, D&D counter spell, just like Mt:G counter spell, simply denies the target spell that is going to happen next, from happening, since D&D counter spell is an readied action (And Mt:G has the stacking rule).

-K

Hmm.  I guess so.  You are countering a spell that hasn't been cast.  It doesn't make much logical sense to me.  I guess that's how the rule reads.  It should be renamed, "Deny spell and wipe it from memory before it is cast" or something. :)

Yeah, I should have noted that.  A spell is only considered to be 'cast' if its effects manifest.  Like if you fail a Concentration or Spellcraft check, depending on the situation; you call forth the energy of the spell, but it doesn't go through and actually work.  I believe the sages of Candlekeep call the effect, a fizzle.

Yeah, also remember that all of this is the underlying mechanics of the D&D game.  It doesn't necessarily have to much completely with "how things are presented" (fluff).  You could easily say "The two events are technically not simultaneous, but it is so unperceptibly close together, they are observed happening together." or some such.

We are picking apart the rule here, as a thought excersize, and whether as a rule, simultaneity exist in D&D rule.  I understand Special Relativity, but that doesn't mean I walk around thinking, "Hey, this car is travelling at .0000000000000000001th of the speed of light.  THe clock on this car will be shifted relative to the clock at home.  I'll have adjust it later."

-K

Yes, I agree.  I would personally describe it simultaneously, but you have the better argument on how the rule reads.  Even Counterspell says, "when someone attempts to cast a spell..." which implies it is not ever cast.

Zyphen, (going back before the Simultaneity discussion) my recollection was that when the people involved were in melee the -4 penalty applied (and could be negated by Precise Shot) but when they were otherwise between you and the target it blocked line of sight.

In part I was being lazy, in part I think the -4 penalty is ridiculously lenient and on the whole it was an arbitrary decision to impose a 50-50 luck roll.  I hereby invoke my GM's privilege to be right :)

BTW, my wife is a physicist (and physics teacher) - and a chemist (yes, she's standing behind me), who would be interested in the OOC discussion and in playing.  She's already on OOC as PC draco2075, so I'm going to put together a cloistered cleric for her to play - just as soon as I check to see that the variant class is allowed.

It is allowed.

That's cool.  Welcome to your wife!  (I wish I could get mine to play!  She is an avid Pastel Paladin fan, but shows no interest in D&D otherwise....)

Actually, most commonly played way, I think is that when you have someone involved in melee, it's -4, as described in the rule.  But also, when that someone else (or for anyone else in the way in that matter) is in the line of shot, they count as "light cover", and impose further -4 penalty to hit, and end up giving -8 penalty (Here, assuming the melee combatants line up in the melee position so that the non-target melee combatant provide some cover to the target melee combatant).

I often ignore that rule though...I like my combat...bloody (so it works on both ways ::laugh::)  My perfectly designed combat will involve at least half the party member down and dying at the end of the combat *laugh*

-K

Yeah, agreed.  And then Precise Shot eliminates the -4 from the melee-combat thing, and Improved Precise Shot eliminates the +4 AC the target receives from the "soft cover" of other melee combatants that are in LOS.

I always envision it like in the movies, when two people are punching each other or something and a 3rd person wants to shoot one of the two.  Sometimes they stand there and look indecisive--those are the dudes that don't have either Precise Shot or Improved Precise Shot.  They would have a -8 to hit, effectively!  Then there are the people who try to move around for a good angle and shoot the badguy.  Those people have Precise Shot!  Then there are the absolute badasses that just bring their gun to their shoulder and fire, killing the badguy dead, no sweat, no circling around or waiting for a good angle.  THOSE guys have Improved Precise Shot! :)

Hmm, will a Cure Minor Wounds spell stabilize someone?

Yeah, *any* amount of healing should stabilize a person who is dying.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/comb...haractersandRecovery



In fact, it's sort of exactly what Cure Minor Wounds is for...;)

-K

Unless you just like to spam orisons to heal 5 or 6 points of damage...

I'm still under half HP and the bandit gets the cure moderate wounds? You better get him to agree to tank for you next encounter!

Yeah...  And maybe we should have tied them up first, unless someone's good at intimidation.

Doh, I meant Minor Wounds, rather then Moderate ...  I don't even have Moderate wounds memorized ><