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
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.
