Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 87 of 91 1 2 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
I've tried both turn-based and realtime games and consistently prefer the former. Real-time games, even with pause, tend to just feel like chaos to me - things move a little faster, but they aren't fun.

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
more than a little tbh

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Guerric
As someone who has played pretty much every DnD CRPG out there and is also a PnP player all I'm going to say is turn-based, turn-based, and only turn-based is the way to go. RTwP seemed like an annoying accommodation we always had to make to fans of shooter games in order to earn the privilege of playing something resembling real Dungeons and Dragons on the computer. It was not invented by Larian for DoS. Successful implementation of great turn-based combat in DoS by Larian simply qualified Larian uniquely to finally give us what we've always wanted, namely, real Dungeons and Dragons on the computer. Finally. I recently was considering purchasing Pathfinder: Kingmaker. Once I learned it was RTwP I wasn't going to purchase it, but then I found out that turn-based had been implemented and I bought it and had a great time. I can never go back. I realize that others may have different opinions and I respect that, but I couldn't not make my case.

And I respect your preference, because I also reject any RPG that is turn-based as being complete crap that I will not waste my time playing. The only reason I am still engaged with this game is PURELY because it is titled "Balder's Gate," and if I ever did buy this game I would still very harshly criticize it and review it poorly for the TB combat part of it.

Joined: Feb 2021
P
addict
Offline
addict
P
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Guerric
As someone who has played pretty much every DnD CRPG out there and is also a PnP player all I'm going to say is turn-based, turn-based, and only turn-based is the way to go. RTwP seemed like an annoying accommodation we always had to make to fans of shooter games in order to earn the privilege of playing something resembling real Dungeons and Dragons on the computer. It was not invented by Larian for DoS. Successful implementation of great turn-based combat in DoS by Larian simply qualified Larian uniquely to finally give us what we've always wanted, namely, real Dungeons and Dragons on the computer. Finally. I recently was considering purchasing Pathfinder: Kingmaker. Once I learned it was RTwP I wasn't going to purchase it, but then I found out that turn-based had been implemented and I bought it and had a great time. I can never go back. I realize that others may have different opinions and I respect that, but I couldn't not make my case.

And I respect your preference, because I also reject any RPG that is turn-based as being complete crap that I will not waste my time playing. The only reason I am still engaged with this game is PURELY because it is titled "Balder's Gate," and if I ever did buy this game I would still very harshly criticize it and review it poorly for the TB combat part of it.

XCOM 2 is an awesome turn based RPG, actually its mechanics are better than this game. Personally I would prefer they stay with turn based rather than RTWP. I reserve RTWP for RPGs like Mass Effect, or DA:I. With this games mechanics, I just don't see enjoying it that way.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Guerric
As someone who has played pretty much every DnD CRPG out there and is also a PnP player all I'm going to say is turn-based, turn-based, and only turn-based is the way to go. RTwP seemed like an annoying accommodation we always had to make to fans of shooter games in order to earn the privilege of playing something resembling real Dungeons and Dragons on the computer. It was not invented by Larian for DoS. Successful implementation of great turn-based combat in DoS by Larian simply qualified Larian uniquely to finally give us what we've always wanted, namely, real Dungeons and Dragons on the computer. Finally. I recently was considering purchasing Pathfinder: Kingmaker. Once I learned it was RTwP I wasn't going to purchase it, but then I found out that turn-based had been implemented and I bought it and had a great time. I can never go back. I realize that others may have different opinions and I respect that, but I couldn't not make my case.

And I respect your preference, because I also reject any RPG that is turn-based as being complete crap that I will not waste my time playing. The only reason I am still engaged with this game is PURELY because it is titled "Balder's Gate," and if I ever did buy this game I would still very harshly criticize it and review it poorly for the TB combat part of it.

XCOM 2 is an awesome turn based RPG, actually its mechanics are better than this game. Personally I would prefer they stay with turn based rather than RTWP. I reserve RTWP for RPGs like Mass Effect, or DA:I. With this games mechanics, I just don't see enjoying it that way.
My point was that boycotting games cuts both ways. People can boycott games because they won't play RTwP games. But I also get to do the same thing by boycotting TB games.

Joined: Mar 2021
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Mar 2021
I'm probably pretty late to this thread, but here it goes anyway...

I love Baldur's Gate, I've been playing them since I was 10, and I have probably dumped a combined 10,000 hours into NWN and its sequels. I love these games. But the complaint I've had with them from the beginning, is that while DnD rules can be translated to real time with pause, DnD was designed with the assumption that you would have enough HP, spells, abilities, etc. for a couple of fights in a play session. Because combat is resolved so quickly, Bioware had no choice but to throw more fights at the player. Starting BG1 as a wizard with 4 hit points and 2 spells is objectively ridiculous. The NWN method of "rest whenever" and get all your spell slots back in between every encounter is also ridiculous. The only solution is to go back to basics and make combat slower.

I love that combat encounters feel more epic, because I'm not slogging through a dungeon full of 30,000 kobolds like I'm threshing wheat.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Guerric
As someone who has played pretty much every DnD CRPG out there and is also a PnP player all I'm going to say is turn-based, turn-based, and only turn-based is the way to go. RTwP seemed like an annoying accommodation we always had to make to fans of shooter games in order to earn the privilege of playing something resembling real Dungeons and Dragons on the computer. It was not invented by Larian for DoS. Successful implementation of great turn-based combat in DoS by Larian simply qualified Larian uniquely to finally give us what we've always wanted, namely, real Dungeons and Dragons on the computer. Finally. I recently was considering purchasing Pathfinder: Kingmaker. Once I learned it was RTwP I wasn't going to purchase it, but then I found out that turn-based had been implemented and I bought it and had a great time. I can never go back. I realize that others may have different opinions and I respect that, but I couldn't not make my case.

Ressembling real D&D ?
Are we talking about BG3 ? grin

Guess it's subjective.

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Originally Posted by Gassygunslinger
I'm probably pretty late to this thread, but here it goes anyway...

I love Baldur's Gate, I've been playing them since I was 10, and I have probably dumped a combined 10,000 hours into NWN and its sequels. I love these games. But the complaint I've had with them from the beginning, is that while DnD rules can be translated to real time with pause, DnD was designed with the assumption that you would have enough HP, spells, abilities, etc. for a couple of fights in a play session. Because combat is resolved so quickly, Bioware had no choice but to throw more fights at the player. Starting BG1 as a wizard with 4 hit points and 2 spells is objectively ridiculous. The NWN method of "rest whenever" and get all your spell slots back in between every encounter is also ridiculous. The only solution is to go back to basics and make combat slower.

I love that combat encounters feel more epic, because I'm not slogging through a dungeon full of 30,000 kobolds like I'm threshing wheat.

I'm sure I've posted this earlier in the thread, but I might as well say it again. BG1/2 were based on 2e rules, which were NOT turn-based. They were simultaneous movement, with initiative-based combat/action resolution. Turn-based was introduced in a late-2e optional expansion, and then in 3e.

So for BG1/2 RTwP was a good facsimile of the rules at the time, but NWN was not. I guess they continued with RTwP from what had been a successful product.

Personally, I do not find TB to be epic in the slightest in videogames; waiting 2 minutes doing nothing while 20 goblins wander around the BG3 temple taking potshots is about as exciting as watching paint dry. It's OK as long as there are no more enemies than party characters, but large groups of enemies are astonishing dull.

TB combat was probably implemented best in XCOM/XCOM2 by rarely having larger groups, and spreading them out so they appeared in waves, rather than all at once; but even with XCOM, I have never felt inclined to play the games again. I think I will always prefer a well implemented RT system ( that would be one that doesn't require 30,000 kobolds ).

Joined: Jul 2009
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Jul 2009
Trash mobs are only bad in Turn based boring combat.
In Real Time combat when Minsc yells and your 2-3 Melees threshing wheat with street robbers you laugh and say
"Thanks for the coins".

In Real Time Combat you are the Leader and give orders.
In Turn based combat you posses the people and make them follow your throughs.

For "follow" your throughs i have single player games.
Party games without party interaction has no value for me because they play like a hive mind controlling drones.

Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Minnesota, USA
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Minnesota, USA
I know I am late to the discussion. However, I really like the combat system the way it was released with EA. I only played for 30 or so hours. And most of that was replaying various encounters trying different tactics. It would be nice to have an option for full AI players or select players. I would not use that often, but for small encounters I would let the AI take over.

Joined: Apr 2021
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Apr 2021
Gonna add my opinions here

Should this game be RTWP
I would say Yes it should have been and the reason is simple Baldurs Gate 3 Not D:OS 3 tabletop does not come into this because they made a statement this was a successor to the franchise so that comes with some expectations and one of those would be a playstyle
But it would have been = acceptable to include both

To be honest I don't think Larian Engine was the right to create a spiritual successor to BG franchise I actually think Owlcat games would have fitted the bill more as their unity engine with their modifications is what I consider to be a modern take on infinity engine.
All tho who to say if Larian Engine can be changed but until I see Larian engine as an RTWP this is only a hypothesis

I am not knocking Larian here as the game they're making could have been a new franchise on its own for Larian but they brought Franchise name to Baldurs Gate and that comes with certain expectations.

But again This game I do feel has the potential to be a masterpiece of its own and I actually think the name they took damages it.

Last edited by ShimmerUK; 15/04/21 11:45 AM.
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by etonbears
I'm sure I've posted this earlier in the thread, but I might as well say it again. BG1/2 were based on 2e rules, which were NOT turn-based. They were simultaneous movement, with initiative-based combat/action resolution. Turn-based was introduced in a late-2e optional expansion, and then in 3e.

lol...no 2nd edition was very much "turn-based", it just used different syntax to describe the "rounds" of combat. Functionally, it was still turn-based combat.

If an encounter escalates into a combat situation, the time scale of the game automatically goes to rounds (also called melee rounds or combat rounds). Rounds are used to measure the actions of characters in combat (or other intensive actions in which time is important).

A round is approximately one minute long. Ten combat rounds equal a turn (or, put another way, a turn equals 10 minutes of game time). This is particularly important to remember for spells that last for turns, rather than rounds.

PHB CH9 The Combat Round

In real life, combat is one of the closest things to pure anarchy. Each side is attempting to harm the other, essentially causing disorder and chaos. Thus, combats are filled with unknowns--unplanned events, failed attacks, lack of communication, and general confusion and uncertainty. However, to play a battle in the game, it is necessary to impose some order on the actions that occur. Within a combat round, there is a set series of steps that must be followed. These steps are:

1.The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including casting spells (if any).
2.The players indicate what their characters will do, including casting spells (if any).
3.Initiative is determined.
4.Attacks are made in order of initiative.

These steps are followed until the combat ends--either one side is defeated, surrenders, or runs away.

PHB Ch9 The Combat Sequence

Furthermore, BG 1/2, both very much used turn-based mechanics behind the scenes to process attacking and spell-casting.

Combat is divided in rounds and turns. One round equals 6 real seconds, and one turn equals 10 rounds or 1 real minute.

1 round = 6 real seconds = 72 game seconds
1 turn = 1 real minute = 12 game minutes
1 game hour = 5 real minutes = 5 turns
8 game hours = 40 real minutes = 40 turns
1 game day = 2 real hours = 120 turns

Baldur's Gate Time System

Combat is based on rounds. Rounds are periods that last for six seconds. The Speed Factor of a weapon determines when within those six seconds a creature wielding that weapon hits. The lower the number, the earlier the hit. A Speed Factor of 0 means that the creature hits at the start of the round. A Speed Factor of 10 means the creature hits at the end of the round.

Attack animations take 1 second to display. If a character attacks with a two handed sword (Speed Factor 10), the game starts the attack animation 5 seconds into the round so that it finishes (and the hit is delivered) just at the end of the round.

The game also rolls a random initiative factor each round so that even with a worse speed factor, attack can come first.

Baldur's Gate Speed Factor

So interrupting your melee fighter or your spell caster, didn't allow them to immediately make a new action in that combat "round", they had to wait depending on the round initiative, and the casting or weapons speed before they could attack again since the combat was still being processed in terms of combat rounds.

Joined: Jan 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2021
I say just have it toggleable.

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by etonbears
I'm sure I've posted this earlier in the thread, but I might as well say it again. BG1/2 were based on 2e rules, which were NOT turn-based. They were simultaneous movement, with initiative-based combat/action resolution. Turn-based was introduced in a late-2e optional expansion, and then in 3e.

lol...no 2nd edition was very much "turn-based", it just used different syntax to describe the "rounds" of combat. Functionally, it was still turn-based combat.

If an encounter escalates into a combat situation, the time scale of the game automatically goes to rounds (also called melee rounds or combat rounds). Rounds are used to measure the actions of characters in combat (or other intensive actions in which time is important).

A round is approximately one minute long. Ten combat rounds equal a turn (or, put another way, a turn equals 10 minutes of game time). This is particularly important to remember for spells that last for turns, rather than rounds.

PHB CH9 The Combat Round

In real life, combat is one of the closest things to pure anarchy. Each side is attempting to harm the other, essentially causing disorder and chaos. Thus, combats are filled with unknowns--unplanned events, failed attacks, lack of communication, and general confusion and uncertainty. However, to play a battle in the game, it is necessary to impose some order on the actions that occur. Within a combat round, there is a set series of steps that must be followed. These steps are:

1.The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including casting spells (if any).
2.The players indicate what their characters will do, including casting spells (if any).
3.Initiative is determined.
4.Attacks are made in order of initiative.

These steps are followed until the combat ends--either one side is defeated, surrenders, or runs away.

PHB Ch9 The Combat Sequence

Furthermore, BG 1/2, both very much used turn-based mechanics behind the scenes to process attacking and spell-casting.

Combat is divided in rounds and turns. One round equals 6 real seconds, and one turn equals 10 rounds or 1 real minute.

1 round = 6 real seconds = 72 game seconds
1 turn = 1 real minute = 12 game minutes
1 game hour = 5 real minutes = 5 turns
8 game hours = 40 real minutes = 40 turns
1 game day = 2 real hours = 120 turns

Baldur's Gate Time System

Combat is based on rounds. Rounds are periods that last for six seconds. The Speed Factor of a weapon determines when within those six seconds a creature wielding that weapon hits. The lower the number, the earlier the hit. A Speed Factor of 0 means that the creature hits at the start of the round. A Speed Factor of 10 means the creature hits at the end of the round.

Attack animations take 1 second to display. If a character attacks with a two handed sword (Speed Factor 10), the game starts the attack animation 5 seconds into the round so that it finishes (and the hit is delivered) just at the end of the round.

The game also rolls a random initiative factor each round so that even with a worse speed factor, attack can come first.

Baldur's Gate Speed Factor

So interrupting your melee fighter or your spell caster, didn't allow them to immediately make a new action in that combat "round", they had to wait depending on the round initiative, and the casting or weapons speed before they could attack again since the combat was still being processed in terms of combat rounds.


Well that was a lot of pointless quoting just to let us know that you don't understand what is being discussed wink

Yes, the operation of DnD on tabletop has always been broken up into time-slices, which get shorter in combat ( 2e and before ). But for 2e and earlier, the resolution of movement was NOT turn-based, it was up to the DM to decide how everyone's stated intent was realized.

So, if you said you were moving up to the nearest goblin to hit it, but that goblin was retreating, you probably don't get to hit it. The DM would usually offer you the option to modify your intent ( maybe use ranged attack instead ). These were 60 second rounds supposed to represent a significant amount of activity, and used ( depending on version ) several different ways to calculate initiative, and modifiers such as spell casting time, weapon speed etc.

Ultimate landing of blows/actions was according to the modified inititative order, assuming your original stated action was possible, given the simultaneous movement.

BG1/2 compressed the 60 second rounds into a short period, allowed simultaneous movement, but implemented casting time, and initiative order when resolving actions; similar to the actual 2e rules in spirit, which is why RTWP worked well.

What we have now is the 5e rules concept of turn-based which use 6 second combat rounds, with each entity both moving and acting within that 6 second slot in an order determined by initiative order; everyone else is frozen in place, but can have a reaction to the turn of another entity. The whole action/bonus/reaction economy has been introduced and everything has been serialised.

As an amusing side-note, the early DnD versions actually allowed for tied initiative ( no longer possible), meaning two protagonists could perform their actions simultaneously, theoretically killing each other; it was even noted in the PHB ( or was it DMG? ). I'm sure you can find it if you look.

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by etonbears
I'm sure I've posted this earlier in the thread, but I might as well say it again. BG1/2 were based on 2e rules, which were NOT turn-based. They were simultaneous movement, with initiative-based combat/action resolution. Turn-based was introduced in a late-2e optional expansion, and then in 3e.

lol...no 2nd edition was very much "turn-based", it just used different syntax to describe the "rounds" of combat. Functionally, it was still turn-based combat.

If an encounter escalates into a combat situation, the time scale of the game automatically goes to rounds (also called melee rounds or combat rounds). Rounds are used to measure the actions of characters in combat (or other intensive actions in which time is important).

A round is approximately one minute long. Ten combat rounds equal a turn (or, put another way, a turn equals 10 minutes of game time). This is particularly important to remember for spells that last for turns, rather than rounds.

PHB CH9 The Combat Round

In real life, combat is one of the closest things to pure anarchy. Each side is attempting to harm the other, essentially causing disorder and chaos. Thus, combats are filled with unknowns--unplanned events, failed attacks, lack of communication, and general confusion and uncertainty. However, to play a battle in the game, it is necessary to impose some order on the actions that occur. Within a combat round, there is a set series of steps that must be followed. These steps are:

1.The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including casting spells (if any).
2.The players indicate what their characters will do, including casting spells (if any).
3.Initiative is determined.
4.Attacks are made in order of initiative.

These steps are followed until the combat ends--either one side is defeated, surrenders, or runs away.

PHB Ch9 The Combat Sequence

Furthermore, BG 1/2, both very much used turn-based mechanics behind the scenes to process attacking and spell-casting.

Combat is divided in rounds and turns. One round equals 6 real seconds, and one turn equals 10 rounds or 1 real minute.

1 round = 6 real seconds = 72 game seconds
1 turn = 1 real minute = 12 game minutes
1 game hour = 5 real minutes = 5 turns
8 game hours = 40 real minutes = 40 turns
1 game day = 2 real hours = 120 turns

Baldur's Gate Time System

Combat is based on rounds. Rounds are periods that last for six seconds. The Speed Factor of a weapon determines when within those six seconds a creature wielding that weapon hits. The lower the number, the earlier the hit. A Speed Factor of 0 means that the creature hits at the start of the round. A Speed Factor of 10 means the creature hits at the end of the round.

Attack animations take 1 second to display. If a character attacks with a two handed sword (Speed Factor 10), the game starts the attack animation 5 seconds into the round so that it finishes (and the hit is delivered) just at the end of the round.

The game also rolls a random initiative factor each round so that even with a worse speed factor, attack can come first.

Baldur's Gate Speed Factor

So interrupting your melee fighter or your spell caster, didn't allow them to immediately make a new action in that combat "round", they had to wait depending on the round initiative, and the casting or weapons speed before they could attack again since the combat was still being processed in terms of combat rounds.

Well that was a lot of pointless quoting just to let us know that you don't understand what is being discussed wink

Yes, the operation of DnD on tabletop has always been broken up into time-slices, which get shorter in combat ( 2e and before ). But for 2e and earlier, the resolution of movement was NOT turn-based, it was up to the DM to decide how everyone's stated intent was realized.

So, if you said you were moving up to the nearest goblin to hit it, but that goblin was retreating, you probably don't get to hit it. The DM would usually offer you the option to modify your intent ( maybe use ranged attack instead ). These were 60 second rounds supposed to represent a significant amount of activity, and used ( depending on version ) several different ways to calculate initiative, and modifiers such as spell casting time, weapon speed etc.

Ultimate landing of blows/actions was according to the modified inititative order, assuming your original stated action was possible, given the simultaneous movement.

BG1/2 compressed the 60 second rounds into a short period, allowed simultaneous movement, but implemented casting time, and initiative order when resolving actions; similar to the actual 2e rules in spirit, which is why RTWP worked well.

What we have now is the 5e rules concept of turn-based which use 6 second combat rounds, with each entity both moving and acting within that 6 second slot in an order determined by initiative order; everyone else is frozen in place, but can have a reaction to the turn of another entity. The whole action/bonus/reaction economy has been introduced and everything has been serialised.

As an amusing side-note, the early DnD versions actually allowed for tied initiative ( no longer possible), meaning two protagonists could perform their actions simultaneously, theoretically killing each other; it was even noted in the PHB ( or was it DMG? ). I'm sure you can find it if you look.

Lol...please...I played 2nd edition for over a decade. You're just bizarrely trying to push some agenda, by attempting to obfuscate the reality of the fact that 2e combat, was resolved in turns, whether you used miniatures, place markers, an old Battletech hex mat, or nothing but the DM's description, didn't change the fact that combat was still resolved in rounds with the players and the DM taking turns to act as combat was played out.

BG 1/2, regardless of your belief, still processed combat, according to a turn-based order, with initiative, weapon speed, and casting time, all taken into account for character actions. You can choose not to believe it, but that won't change the fact, that you are wrong.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
It was already in an interview that they are not adding real time with pause and plan to keep the game turn based which is something that personally I dont mind and think is a good option to the game. There are crpgs that do use realtime with pause. For those that are interested in real time combat. But real time combat isnt what DnD is meant to play as. Which was the concept behind what balders gate 3 was always intended to be which was stated before the game was released. If they added it for people who wanted it I personally wouldnt complain but honestly the combat system would be garbage to using tactics when you use real time with pause at that point why not just play a hack and slash game or an MMo. As the concept is basically the same.

This is just an opinion but real time with pause in terms of DnD based combat completely defeats the entire idea behind it being a DND based game. Ive had no issues getting through even large combat sequences quickly even when your talking 10 + goblins its not hard to thin the numbers quickly enough to make the npc turns fly by fast enough that its not annoying in slightest. If its taking you an hour to get through a combat sequence your probably not doing the fight in a tactically sound way and you can find more efficient ways to do the fight. Currently this patch the most difficult fight ive had overall was the minotaurs which took twice as long as previous patches but other fights like spider matriach ended in 2 rounds of combat or less. Generally just taking an efficient approach to how you initiate the combat is sufficient to make the fights short. Either by thinning enemy numbers quickly or focus firing more threatening targets down quickly you can generally clear most of the fights taking little to no damage to the point you shouldnt need a long rest for 3-4 fights even unless your using a caster heavy party.

I'm glad larian has decided to stick with turn based combat as a game and wish more companies were designing games with turn based combat options for games in mind.

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by etonbears
I'm sure I've posted this earlier in the thread, but I might as well say it again. BG1/2 were based on 2e rules, which were NOT turn-based. They were simultaneous movement, with initiative-based combat/action resolution. Turn-based was introduced in a late-2e optional expansion, and then in 3e.

lol...no 2nd edition was very much "turn-based", it just used different syntax to describe the "rounds" of combat. Functionally, it was still turn-based combat.

If an encounter escalates into a combat situation, the time scale of the game automatically goes to rounds (also called melee rounds or combat rounds). Rounds are used to measure the actions of characters in combat (or other intensive actions in which time is important).

A round is approximately one minute long. Ten combat rounds equal a turn (or, put another way, a turn equals 10 minutes of game time). This is particularly important to remember for spells that last for turns, rather than rounds.

PHB CH9 The Combat Round

In real life, combat is one of the closest things to pure anarchy. Each side is attempting to harm the other, essentially causing disorder and chaos. Thus, combats are filled with unknowns--unplanned events, failed attacks, lack of communication, and general confusion and uncertainty. However, to play a battle in the game, it is necessary to impose some order on the actions that occur. Within a combat round, there is a set series of steps that must be followed. These steps are:

1.The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including casting spells (if any).
2.The players indicate what their characters will do, including casting spells (if any).
3.Initiative is determined.
4.Attacks are made in order of initiative.

These steps are followed until the combat ends--either one side is defeated, surrenders, or runs away.

PHB Ch9 The Combat Sequence

Furthermore, BG 1/2, both very much used turn-based mechanics behind the scenes to process attacking and spell-casting.

Combat is divided in rounds and turns. One round equals 6 real seconds, and one turn equals 10 rounds or 1 real minute.

1 round = 6 real seconds = 72 game seconds
1 turn = 1 real minute = 12 game minutes
1 game hour = 5 real minutes = 5 turns
8 game hours = 40 real minutes = 40 turns
1 game day = 2 real hours = 120 turns

Baldur's Gate Time System

Combat is based on rounds. Rounds are periods that last for six seconds. The Speed Factor of a weapon determines when within those six seconds a creature wielding that weapon hits. The lower the number, the earlier the hit. A Speed Factor of 0 means that the creature hits at the start of the round. A Speed Factor of 10 means the creature hits at the end of the round.

Attack animations take 1 second to display. If a character attacks with a two handed sword (Speed Factor 10), the game starts the attack animation 5 seconds into the round so that it finishes (and the hit is delivered) just at the end of the round.

The game also rolls a random initiative factor each round so that even with a worse speed factor, attack can come first.

Baldur's Gate Speed Factor

So interrupting your melee fighter or your spell caster, didn't allow them to immediately make a new action in that combat "round", they had to wait depending on the round initiative, and the casting or weapons speed before they could attack again since the combat was still being processed in terms of combat rounds.

Well that was a lot of pointless quoting just to let us know that you don't understand what is being discussed wink

Yes, the operation of DnD on tabletop has always been broken up into time-slices, which get shorter in combat ( 2e and before ). But for 2e and earlier, the resolution of movement was NOT turn-based, it was up to the DM to decide how everyone's stated intent was realized.

So, if you said you were moving up to the nearest goblin to hit it, but that goblin was retreating, you probably don't get to hit it. The DM would usually offer you the option to modify your intent ( maybe use ranged attack instead ). These were 60 second rounds supposed to represent a significant amount of activity, and used ( depending on version ) several different ways to calculate initiative, and modifiers such as spell casting time, weapon speed etc.

Ultimate landing of blows/actions was according to the modified inititative order, assuming your original stated action was possible, given the simultaneous movement.

BG1/2 compressed the 60 second rounds into a short period, allowed simultaneous movement, but implemented casting time, and initiative order when resolving actions; similar to the actual 2e rules in spirit, which is why RTWP worked well.

What we have now is the 5e rules concept of turn-based which use 6 second combat rounds, with each entity both moving and acting within that 6 second slot in an order determined by initiative order; everyone else is frozen in place, but can have a reaction to the turn of another entity. The whole action/bonus/reaction economy has been introduced and everything has been serialised.

As an amusing side-note, the early DnD versions actually allowed for tied initiative ( no longer possible), meaning two protagonists could perform their actions simultaneously, theoretically killing each other; it was even noted in the PHB ( or was it DMG? ). I'm sure you can find it if you look.

Lol...please...I played 2nd edition for over a decade. You're just bizarrely trying to push some agenda, by attempting to obfuscate the reality of the fact that 2e combat, was resolved in turns, whether you used miniatures, place markers, an old Battletech hex mat, or nothing but the DM's description, didn't change the fact that combat was still resolved in rounds with the players and the DM taking turns to act as combat was played out.

BG 1/2, regardless of your belief, still processed combat, according to a turn-based order, with initiative, weapon speed, and casting time, all taken into account for character actions. You can choose not to believe it, but that won't change the fact, that you are wrong.

Good for you. I played original DnD, ADnD, and DnD2e before giving up on TT, and I know how we played them, according to our interpretation of the rules, and I can comprehend the difference between the way those early rules worked, and the more rigidly defined later rules and action economy.

Apparently, you are incapable of understanding those differences, or unwilling. In common with many of your other posts, you choose instead to offer supercilious critique of positions that others have not actually put forward.

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by etonbears
Good for you. I played original DnD, ADnD, and DnD2e before giving up on TT, and I know how we played them, according to our interpretation of the rules, and I can comprehend the difference between the way those early rules worked, and the more rigidly defined later rules and action economy.

Apparently, you are incapable of understanding those differences, or unwilling. In common with many of your other posts, you choose instead to offer supercilious critique of positions that others have not actually put forward.

Your entire erroneous argument is predicated on your belief that because 2e movement was "simultaneous", that is some how negates the fact the turn-based combat action sequence, was repeated until combat was resolved.

"They were simultaneous movement, with initiative-based combat/action resolution. Turn-based was introduced in a late-2e optional expansion, and then in 3e."

It didn't. Even if you were playing some sort of home-brew rule where whomever yelled out first got to attack first, there's literally nothing 'real-time' about DnD combat, it's always been some form of turn-based approximation, even back to the original Chainmail and DnD.

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by acatlas
It was already in an interview that they are not adding real time with pause and plan to keep the game turn based which is something that personally I dont mind and think is a good option to the game. There are crpgs that do use realtime with pause. For those that are interested in real time combat. But real time combat isnt what DnD is meant to play as. Which was the concept behind what balders gate 3 was always intended to be which was stated before the game was released. If they added it for people who wanted it I personally wouldnt complain but honestly the combat system would be garbage to using tactics when you use real time with pause at that point why not just play a hack and slash game or an MMo. As the concept is basically the same.

This is just an opinion but real time with pause in terms of DnD based combat completely defeats the entire idea behind it being a DND based game. Ive had no issues getting through even large combat sequences quickly even when your talking 10 + goblins its not hard to thin the numbers quickly enough to make the npc turns fly by fast enough that its not annoying in slightest. If its taking you an hour to get through a combat sequence your probably not doing the fight in a tactically sound way and you can find more efficient ways to do the fight. Currently this patch the most difficult fight ive had overall was the minotaurs which took twice as long as previous patches but other fights like spider matriach ended in 2 rounds of combat or less. Generally just taking an efficient approach to how you initiate the combat is sufficient to make the fights short. Either by thinning enemy numbers quickly or focus firing more threatening targets down quickly you can generally clear most of the fights taking little to no damage to the point you shouldnt need a long rest for 3-4 fights even unless your using a caster heavy party.

I'm glad larian has decided to stick with turn based combat as a game and wish more companies were designing games with turn based combat options for games in mind.

RTwP was a terrible system for BG1/2. It's a terrible system to use for any game that is attempting to adapt a turn-based tabletop system to a videogame.

That's why it works so well for Dragon Agae: Origins, that's probably the best implementation of RTwP. They were using their own game system, they were able to tailor combat mechanics to fit RTwP instead of trying to shoehorn in turn-based mechanics to fit a real-time system.

Last edited by Grudgebearer; 17/04/21 03:29 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Personally, I think RTwP worked really well for BG1+2 but I don't think it'd be that enjoyable for BG3, a lot of 5e's stuff predicates on having a hard turn based round system with limited actions while AD&D2 had turns being a little looser in the economy of actions with when and how you do things like being able to do something simultaneously with another player (while 5e only has held turns and actions) and therefor translated better to having things like Attacks per Round being Attacks over Time and spell casting times.

But uh that is opinion based on how I looked at the systems, I could be very wrong.

Page 87 of 91 1 2 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5