6 second rounds too short.

[Tanarii]

Anyone else find it helps their believability if they say a round is, say ten seconds long, instead of six? I mean, in terms of game mechanics, if you rule 1 min spells are now 10 round spells, I don't think there's any mechanical effects.

I'm talking purely about verisimilitude. Over time, I have had a couple of players tell me outside of session it's stupid how much a PC can do in a 6 second round. I've responded with "it's just a round, don't worry about it" and "yeah but who cares" and even "wizards did it". But I recently had a player comment during a session when a TWF Fighter moved 30ft, made 3 attacks, then got an OA. And everyone at the table kinda chimed in about yeah it's stupid how short rounds are. And when an entire table of players agrees on something I only care about as a gamist rule, I perk up a bit. The I come running here to find out what you guys think. :smallwink:

Can anyone think of anything besides Spell durations I'd have to change to 10 rounds instead of 1 minute? Because if this happens again I may just say "assume it's longer then". But I just know I'll get a bunch of pushback if I'm not prepared to tell them why it doesn't actually matter mechanically. :smallbiggrin:

[Potato_Priest]

Class ability durations would also need to be changed.

You could let players get away with 66% more banter with teammates and NPCs on a given turn.

I can't think of anything else.

[DarkKnightJin]

You're the DM. You could have each round be 15 seconds and it wouldn't make any difference mechanically, if you don't want it.

I'm pretty sure they went with 6 second rounds for narrative flavor. Because outside of the spell durations, nothing else I can think of in combat really cares a lot about time.

[Malifice]

I want them 3 seconds long personally. That sounds a lot more believable to me.

[Provo]

Anyone else find it helps their believability if they say a round is, say ten seconds long, instead of six? I mean, in terms of game mechanics, if you rule 1 min spells are now 10 round spells, I don't think there's any mechanical effects.

I'm talking purely about verisimilitude. Over time, I have had a couple of players tell me outside of session it's stupid how much a PC can do in a 6 second round. I've responded with "it's just a round, don't worry about it" and "yeah but who cares" and even "wizards did it". But I recently had a player comment during a session when a TWF Fighter moved 30ft, made 3 attacks, then got an OA. And everyone at the table kinda chimed in about yeah it's stupid how short rounds are. And when an entire table of players agrees on something I only care about as a gamist rule, I perk up a bit. The I come running here to find out what you guys think. :smallwink:

Can anyone think of anything besides Spell durations I'd have to change to 10 rounds instead of 1 minute? Because if this happens again I may just say "assume it's longer then". But I just know I'll get a bunch of pushback if I'm not prepared to tell them why it doesn't actually matter mechanically. :smallbiggrin:

I actually feel like people could do more. 30ft per round is around 3 mph. Most people run between 10 and 15 mph. Already the game looks funky. Even if somebody uses the dash action, they are basically jogging in the real world.

So in your example, the character would spend 1.5-2 seconds running. The remaining four would be spent hitting. A second is pretty slow. You can definitely hit four times in 4 seconds with something light (dagger or punches). I'm not saying they would be good hits, but this is a two-weapon fighting D&D character. I expect them to hit fast.

Note: Movement speed is particularly unrealistic. You have to dash twice just to run at a normal human speed (aka only monks and rogues are as fast as average people)

[Tanarii]

I actually feel like people could do more. 30ft per round is around 3 mph. Most people run between 10 and 15 mph. Already the game looks funky. Even if somebody uses the dash action, they are basically jogging in the real world.

So in your example, the character would spend 1.5-2 seconds running. The remaining four would be spent hitting. A second is pretty slow. You can definitely hit four times in 4 seconds with something light (dagger or punches). I'm not saying they would be good hits, but this is a two-weapon fighting D&D character. I expect them to hit fast.

Note: Movement speed is particularly unrealistic. You have to dash twice just to run at a normal human speed (aka only monks and rogues are as fast as average people)In terms of simulation, I'm actually with the players.

Movement is FAR too fast. 30 ft in 3 seconds, or half a round, is 7 mph. I can maintain that for 30 min, so it's not wind sprints. But with a 50lb backpack on, in combat, while trying to prep for your two effective attacks in the next 3 seconds? No way.

(Edit: A Dash is just jogging for 6 seconds instead of 3. If you a a Rogue or a Monk though, using your bonus action to Dash, it'd be a sprint of almost 14 mph over 3 or so seconds.)

And then 3 Great sword attacks in the other 3 seconds? (Don't forget your OA.) Also unreasonable IMO.

The reason I don't care is because it's just a slice of game time for resolving things. If I was concerned about simuation, I'd probably want a combat system like WFRP, with loading taking several rounds for powerful ranged weapons, and reading your heavy weapon for another swing taking an action. Or something.


You could let players get away with 66% more banter with teammates and NPCs on a given turn. Sold! :smallamused:

[Sigreid]

Well, rounds used to be one minute.

That being said, 6 seconds is a really long time in a real fight between people who know what they are doing. Lets look at it.

In 6 seconds:


A normal person can attack once and scramble 30 feet.
A wizard can cast one spell
A skilled fighter can strike 1-2 times (barb, ranger, paladin)
An exceptional fighter can strike 3-4 times 8 if they push it (11+ fighter)
Anyone can exploit an opening from a careless opponent (AOO)
A precision fighter can strike one devistating shot against an opponent who can't focus just on him (rogue)


Doesn't seem that out of line to me. I mean yeah, I am not going to be able to strike two or more times with a real chance of success in 6 seconds after walking 30 feet but I've known people who could.

That's another thing, the base movement is for walking at a comfortable pace. 3-4 mph is pretty close.

[Tanarii]

Actually I reflected on it for 5 minutes, and I guess I don't even have a problem with a 7mph jog for a 3 seconds out of a 6 second combat round, in full combat gear. That's just hustling. And it's not like PCs move the full 30ft every round in the typical combat. At least, IMX.

[Malifice]

Well, rounds used to be one minute.

That being said, 6 seconds is a really long time in a real fight between people who know what they are doing. Lets look at it.

In 6 seconds:


A normal person can attack once and scramble 30 feet.
A wizard can cast one spell
A skilled fighter can strike 1-2 times (barb, ranger, paladin)
An exceptional fighter can strike 3-4 times 8 if they push it (11+ fighter)
Anyone can exploit an opening from a careless opponent (AOO)
A precision fighter can strike one devistating shot against an opponent who can't focus just on him (rogue)


Doesn't seem that out of line to me. I mean yeah, I am not going to be able to strike two or more times with a real chance of success in 6 seconds after walking 30 feet but I've known people who could.

That's another thing, the base movement is for walking at a comfortable pace. 3-4 mph is pretty close.


The fighter isnt striking once or twice. He's swinging multiple times, plus parries and thrusts and feints.

One might land. Two from 5th. And so on.

[Tanarii]

The fighter isnt striking once or twice. He's swinging multiple times, plus parries and thrusts and feints.

One might land. Two from 5th. And so on.Does that assumption still hold true in 5e, with 6 second combat rounds. I assume the parries and feints (and blocks) at least, must. As well as some basic dodging (not to be confused with the Dodge action).

(I assume you're talking about the AD&D assumption for why there was only a single attack in a 5 second rounds.)

[Provo]

Anyway, while we have conflicting views about a round length, it is just a game. It breaks down in a lot of places.

If 10 seconds feels more appropriate to you and your player, I can't think of anything besides spell durations that will be effected much.

If the limit is more that a minute or two, don't even bother adjusting duration.

[Zene]

Rounds seemed about right at 6 seconds to me, just as a gut feeling.

Then I came to this thread, read the examples —and 6 seonds seems even more right, now. :)

[Tanarii]

If the limit is more that a minute or two, don't even bother adjusting duration.
That was basically my thought. Anything that says 1 minute is 10 rounds (almost always 1 combat). Anything that says 10 minutes it doesn't matter.

Something to note is 5e durations are almost all 1 min, 10 min, or 1+ hrs. I assume this was very intentional.

[Knaight]

Actually I reflected on it for 5 minutes, and I guess I don't even have a problem with a 7mph jog for a 3 seconds out of a 6 second combat round, in full combat gear. That's just hustling. And it's not like PCs move the full 30ft every round in the typical combat. At least, IMX.

I've run that fast in full armor, and running speed isn't exactly a physical strength. As for attack speed, if anything D&D skews pretty low - skirmishes often involve a greater rate of hits than duels, and even in the context of duels getting more than one hit in in six seconds is hardly implausible.

[pwykersotz]

I personally find that caring about the actual length of time is pretty immaterial. Nitpicking time is something that neither me nor my players really do. So our table understands that 6 seconds is the baseline, but otherwise the round takes as long or as short as needed to perform the necessary actions, that it's not always in universal increments. This might not work for all tables though.

[smcmike]

I personally find that caring about the actual length of time is pretty immaterial. Nitpicking time is something that neither me nor my players really do. So our table understands that 6 seconds is the baseline, but otherwise the round takes as long or as short as needed to perform the necessary actions, that it's not always in universal increments. This might not work for all tables though.

I've never had a character with a wristwatch, anyways.

[SiCK_Boy]

From a verisimiltude perspective, I think it's best to assume that rounds are just of variable duration. You don't need to tell that to the players (or at least make it clear that, mechanically, a round is 6 seconds), but when retelling the story, you should be able to refluff the round durations to match whatever happened.

I think the main reason as to why they shortened the round duration is because of ranged attacks. As long as players are hacking at each other with swords, you could have 1 minute round if you wanted, and simply explain it by the fact that people are feinting, blocking, positioning themselves and the one attack roll represents a solid hit attempt against the enemy. But once bows enter the equation, how would you explain that 1 arrow fired in a minute? Thus, the shorter round...

Try to imagine that dragon having 3-4 attacks, plus 3 legendary actions, all in the span of 6 seconds... it just defy reality.

Having a flexible round duration also allows explaining why some "use an item" actions (like drinking a potion of healing) takes as long as swinging a sword, for example.

[lebefrei]

I take it as an average of combat time, not that every person is taking six seconds. Casting a power word spell (one word) or readying an attack doesn't take as long as moving and then making multiple attacks, and we aren't supposed to assume it does.

[Sigreid]

The fighter isnt striking once or twice. He's swinging multiple times, plus parries and thrusts and feints.

One might land. Two from 5th. And so on.

Yes, experienced martial characters will find 2 or more openings that they might be able to exploit. Might be worth mentioning that back when a round was a minute a fighter got 1 attack per level against opponents of either under 1 HD or 1 HD or less (sorry, don't remember clearly).

[Jophiel]

As anyone who has ever played a rousing game of "The Microwave Is A Bomb" can tell you, ten seconds is a surprisingly long period of time. Six second rounds seem fair to me on average. Some action combos might stretch credibility a little but I think ten second rounds would go the other way (you could be doing significantly more) and I don't feel like doing the minute/hour math for eight second rounds.

[Slipperychicken]

Try to imagine that dragon having 3-4 attacks, plus 3 legendary actions, all in the span of 6 seconds... it just defy reality.

Yes, the flying, school-bus-sized, fire-breathing magical lizard only really defies reality when it flails about as fast as a frightened animal.

But break it down: It bites, digs its front claws in, strikes with its tail (1 legendary action), and flaps its wings hard (2 legendary actions). That's pretty easy to visualize as the dragon completely engulfing its target, especially once you realize all of those can be done at once. It's not much different from what predatory birds can do.

[imanidiot]

It isn't meant to be realistic. It is cinematic action. I have played "realistic" tabletop rpgs and they are, without exception, terrible.

[imanidiot]

Yes, the flying, school-bus-sized, fire-breathing magical lizard only really defies reality when it flails about as fast as a frightened animal.

But break it down: It bites, digs its front claws in, strikes with its tail (1 legendary action), and flaps its wings hard (2 legendary actions). That's pretty easy to visualize as the dragon completely engulfing its target, especially once you realize all of those can be done at once. It's not much different from what predatory birds can do.

I also do not assume that dragons move as slowly as typical animals. Dragons are supernaturally fast. It's an animal the size of a larger dinosaur that moves like a small cat.

[Lombra]

It's an abstraction. They can see it however they want it, it's not gonna have a gameplay impact. Nowhere in the mechanics there are time variables that can be affected by how long do you make a round, because most things are based on rounds, regardless of how long you want it to be. Just keep the original time unit for spells that have minutes in duration or casting time.

How many times does one cast a ritual during a fight where the time left to complete the ritual is relevant to the fight anyways?

[imanidiot]

As anyone who has ever played a rousing game of "The Microwave Is A Bomb" can tell you, ten seconds is a surprisingly long period of time. Six second rounds seem fair to me on average. Some action combos might stretch credibility a little but I think ten second rounds would go the other way (you could be doing significantly more) and I don't feel like doing the minute/hour math for eight second rounds.

Looking at the scorecard of the most recent high profile boxing match Maywether v McGregor is interesting I think.
Maywether threw a total of 320 punches and landed 111. Assuming and equal distribution across 10 rounds is 32 / 11.1 punches per 3 minute round (boxing round).
3 minutes divided by 6 seconds is 30 D&D rounds, in which Maywether threw an average of 1.067 punches per D&D round.

Of course there were lots of times during ebb and flow of the fight where he would throw no punches whatsoever for many "rounds" and others where he threw many punches in a second or less. The combat in D&D is not literal it is an abstraction. And as an abstraction it is fairly accurate.

[Trampaige]

Keep in mind that theoretically, everything is happening in 6 seconds.

The fighter is charging in and attacking, the goblins are firing arrows, the wizard is casting a spell, etc.

A 1 minute spell is 10 rounds of everyone's action, not 10 individual turns (which would be up in two or three rounds if turns were sequential instead of simultaneous.)

It's an abstraction.

edit: argh, terminology. in 5e a round is everyone's action, a turn is individual action, right? The reverse of 3rd edition.

[Tanarii]

It's an abstraction. They can see it however they want it, it's not gonna have a gameplay impact. Nowhere in the mechanics there are time variables that can be affected by how long do you make a round, because most things are based on rounds, regardless of how long you want it to be. Just keep the original time unit for spells that have minutes in duration or casting time. Most things are not based in a number of rounds.

So if I were to do that, and "officially" make rounds 10 seconds, there will be times 1 minute duration spells cast on the first, or even second, round of combat expire. As opposed to few. I have plenty of combats fall into 6-8 rounds. Some go 10+ rounds but that's more rare. That's why I specifically mentioned converting 1 min spells to 10 rounds. (And other class feature durations, thank you Potato_Priest )

anyway, I'm going to go with my first instinct of talking any player that is complains "assume it's longer then", and just add "and assume 1 min durations are 10 round durations". Easy enough.

[smcmike]

"Six long seconds pass...."

[Tanarii]

"Six long seconds pass...."
Hahahahahaha :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Beelzebubba]

Does that assumption still hold true in 5e, with 6 second combat rounds. I assume the parries and feints (and blocks) at least, must. As well as some basic dodging (not to be confused with the Dodge action).

(I assume you're talking about the AD&D assumption for why there was only a single attack in a 5 second rounds.)

I hate to be That Guy™, but...

you mean a 1-minute AD&D round, right?

[ZorroGames]

From a verisimiltude perspective, I think it's best to assume that rounds are just of variable duration. You don't need to tell that to the players (or at least make it clear that, mechanically, a round is 6 seconds), but when retelling the story, you should be able to refluff the round durations to match whatever happened.

I think the main reason as to why they shortened the round duration is because of ranged attacks. As long as players are hacking at each other with swords, you could have 1 minute round if you wanted, and simply explain it by the fact that people are feinting, blocking, positioning themselves and the one attack roll represents a solid hit attempt against the enemy. But once bows enter the equation, how would you explain that 1 arrow fired in a minute? Thus, the shorter round...

Try to imagine that dragon having 3-4 attacks, plus 3 legendary actions, all in the span of 6 seconds... it just defy reality.

Having a flexible round duration also allows explaining why some "use an item" actions (like drinking a potion of healing) takes as long as swinging a sword, for example.

Magic Dragons, etc., defy reality. Seriously, games need functional segments for playing. YMMV.

[Tanarii]

I hate to be That Guy™, but...

you mean a 1-minute AD&D round, right?
Yeah. No idea where my brain went that I managed to type that. I was defining thinking 1 minute, I assure you ... :smallredface:

[Unoriginal]

This is full "the Figher shouldn't be able to do X, real people can't do that. Now I want my Wizard to shoot fire from his fingers".

First, an actual real fight is faster than one can expect. Second, D&D is not realism-based, for good reasons.

Third, even not counting how it is not attempting to be realistic, martial adventurers are not restrained by the limits of the average person.

Even at level 1, a Fighter has mastered every kind of armors and every kind of weapons in the world, can kill your average civilian with one slap, and can survive being hit at point-blank by a crossbow bolt while naked.

It should be enough to show how powerful martials are in comparison to real life human.

[Zorku]

Movement is FAR too fast. 30 ft in 3 seconds, or half a round, is 7 mph. I can maintain that for 30 min, so it's not wind sprints. But with a 50lb backpack on, in combat, while trying to prep for your two effective attacks in the next 3 seconds? No way.

Keeping your backpack on while you fight seems really weird to me, outside of getting ambushed (where the surprise round basically serves as the penalty for that, albeit not smoothly over the course of the whole fight.)


The fighter isnt striking once or twice. He's swinging multiple times, plus parries and thrusts and feints.

One might land. Two from 5th. And so on.
With a light weapon you swing and get parried a lot. With something like a great sword, well, when you actually connect with those things you just tear your opponents head off of their shoulders so more likely you swing it exactly as many times as you have attacks and the rolls that beat AC deal hp damage via the opponent's stamina getting wrekt.

-

You should be fine making the length of a round however long you want. In gamist terms, a 1 minute spell or effect simply lasts for 1 combat. We don't say it that way, thanks to the reception of 4e, but that's what it really means. Something that lasts 10 minutes can probably be cast before you're in combat and be trusted to last through the combat, but it is unlikely that a careful team of spelunkers would get into another combat before that expired (though a group defending a town against raiders might actually get through half of an "adventuring day" in that little time, if they picked the right moment to start the spell.) Everything else is meant to have durations that apply to long distance travel.

You can tell that these numbers are actually just code for "you can get through 1 combat" because there are no spells that last 5 minutes, 20 minutes, or 30 seconds. You shouldn't even be able to keep precise track of time anyway (excluding setting that skew steampunk where you might reasonably find a pocket watch on every third person's wrist.) These exact numbers that we've got are really just fluff that obscures the plain game mechanics and makes us feel like there's more to it than "lasts for the rest of this encounter."

[Citan]

Anyone else find it helps their believability if they say a round is, say ten seconds long, instead of six? I mean, in terms of game mechanics, if you rule 1 min spells are now 10 round spells, I don't think there's any mechanical effects.

I'm talking purely about verisimilitude. Over time, I have had a couple of players tell me outside of session it's stupid how much a PC can do in a 6 second round. I've responded with "it's just a round, don't worry about it" and "yeah but who cares" and even "wizards did it". But I recently had a player comment during a session when a TWF Fighter moved 30ft, made 3 attacks, then got an OA. And everyone at the table kinda chimed in about yeah it's stupid how short rounds are. And when an entire table of players agrees on something I only care about as a gamist rule, I perk up a bit. The I come running here to find out what you guys think. :smallwink:

Can anyone think of anything besides Spell durations I'd have to change to 10 rounds instead of 1 minute? Because if this happens again I may just say "assume it's longer then". But I just know I'll get a bunch of pushback if I'm not prepared to tell them why it doesn't actually matter mechanically. :smallbiggrin:
I totally agree with you on the fact that it's incredible and sometimes borderline stupid. But hey, we are talking about wannabee or full-fledged heroes here, do you know many heroes in movies/comics/books that are actually deprived of any supernatural ability? There are some, but that's really not the majority is it? ;)

Now, my usual players? I don't think they ever really thought about it. XD

But indeed, if you have players that like fantasy worlds but have trouble immersing into their characters if those would be too "superheroical" to their taste, sure, 10 sec a round would be fine.
It wouldn't change much around balance either...

Spells that last 1 hour or more won't even feel any difference (because you obviously woulnd't apply a round to time conversion for such long durations).
Rituals and spells that require time to cast base on 1/10 mn would be just a tad more difficult to use in hostile environment, but this also means all spells during 1mn would now last more than one and a half minute, so all those social/exploration spells would be better actually.

Really, feel free to adjust. ;)


I actually feel like people could do more. 30ft per round is around 3 mph. Most people run between 10 and 15 mph. Already the game looks funky. Even if somebody uses the dash action, they are basically jogging in the real world.

So in your example, the character would spend 1.5-2 seconds running. The remaining four would be spent hitting. A second is pretty slow. You can definitely hit four times in 4 seconds with something light (dagger or punches). I'm not saying they would be good hits, but this is a two-weapon fighting D&D character. I expect them to hit fast.

Note: Movement speed is particularly unrealistic. You have to dash twice just to run at a normal human speed (aka only monks and rogues are as fast as average people)
If we are really tackling the question "does feel D&d close enough to reality" then you are missing the point.
The big problem is:
- movement is unaffected by any non-magical effect unless you are encumbered.
- weapon attack speed or accuracy is unaffected by whatever weight your weapon has or even some conditions like Grappled that would normally affect you.
- actions are unaffected by whatever movement you may have made before (which is certainly one of the reasons they used this kind of base speed).

So as long as you take some precise examples, such as "unarmored Monk darting daggers in an out a creature that was already near him", imagining three hits in 6 seconds is easy enough.
Even if he used his whole speed (at level 2 it would be 40 feet so ~12m) you could still conceive it, after all he is a seasoned warrior.

Now, take a GWM Fighter (level 20) who has to run his whole speed while lifting his 30kg plate before unleashing a full 4-attack chain with his 4,5kg maul (-I expected it to be heavier but whatever- ^^).
Sure, with 20 STR he can carry up to 135 Kg.
Have you run with ~1/4 of the maximum weight you could carry before being heavily slowed?
He is a trained warrior, so obviously he's used to it, but if you are wanting something more realistic, you would probably expect him to take more time to move and make 4 attacks with that than the aforementioned monk.

On another hand, I feel a bit sad (although it's good for us) that there are so many spells, including high-level ones, that take as little time to cast as cantrips. Or that any check would require always the same amount of time.
But that's the kind of dumbing down that is strictly necessary to give a proper standard for everyone, it does not prevent us as DM to narrate it otherwise after all (especially when out of combat). :)

[Tanarii]

This is full "the Figher shouldn't be able to do X, real people can't do that. Now I want my Wizard to shoot fire from his fingers".When Wizards had real limitations on shooting fire from their fingers, Superhuman Fighters weren't necessary. It's Wizards that can shoot fire out of their fingers with a 1/2 Segment single gesture & word, completely uninterruptable even in the thick of melee, that require Superhuman Fighters to keep up. (Of course, at high level D&D, everyone has always been super-human.)


Keeping your backpack on while you fight seems really weird to me, outside of getting ambushed (where the surprise round basically serves as the penalty for that, albeit not smoothly over the course of the whole fight.) Spending the action to take off your backpack when you're not over your encumberance limits (or slowed down in variant encumberance) seems really weird to me. Of course, if you have time and know the combat is coming, it's a different matter.



You should be fine making the length of a round however long you want. In gamist terms, a 1 minute spell or effect simply lasts for 1 combat. We don't say it that way, thanks to the reception of 4e, but that's what it really means.Yes, but if you change the time of a combat round to 10 seconds without thinking and realizing that 1 minute = 1 combat, it no longer is true. The majority of one combat, but you could suddenly end up bereft of your spell in a crucial last few rounds after the minions have been wiped out and you're trying to take down the BBEG. Or whatever. 6-8 combat rounds aren't exactly rare IMX.

[Citan]

You should be fine making the length of a round however long you want. In gamist terms, a 1 minute spell or effect simply lasts for 1 combat. We don't say it that way, thanks to the reception of 4e, but that's what it really means. Something that lasts 10 minutes can probably be cast before you're in combat and be trusted to last through the combat, but it is unlikely that a careful team of spelunkers would get into another combat before that expired (though a group defending a town against raiders might actually get through half of an "adventuring day" in that little time, if they picked the right moment to start the spell.) Everything else is meant to have durations that apply to long distance travel.
Hey, I think you nailed this one pretty good. ^^

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, but if you change the time of a combat round to 10 seconds without thinking and realizing that 1 minute = 1 combat, it no longer is true. The majority of one combat, but you could suddenly end up bereft of your spell in a crucial last few rounds after the minions have been wiped out and you're trying to take down the BBEG. Or whatever. 6-8 combat rounds aren't exactly rare IMX.
Yeah, we've had quite a few long combats.
Have you considered breaking things down into segments? :smallbiggrin: (Oh dear, did I just say that?)

[Unoriginal]

When Wizards had real limitations on shooting fire from their fingers, Superhuman Fighters weren't necessary. It's Wizards that can shoot fire out of their fingers with a 1/2 Segment single gesture & word, completely uninterruptable even in the thick of melee, that require Superhuman Fighters to keep up. (Of course, at high level D&D, everyone has always been super-human.)

First of all, what does it have to do with the subject? My point is that 5e martials are not bound by real human limitations, not the reasons why the designers went with it.

Note that a lvl 1 adventurer can still lose in 1 vs 1 against a goblin or a regular town guard, so it's not like 5e suddenly made everything Exalted tier.

Second, I'm pretty sure that back then the default for your everyman NPC was "make them count as a weak Fighter", so to speak, which means that the adventuring Fighter was always above the regular folks.

[Tanarii]

First of all, what does it have to do with the subject? My point is that 5e martials are not bound by real human limitations, not the reasons why the designers went with it.And my point was the reason D&D has gone that direction is ultimately because all the limitations on magic being hard to use were dropped.


Second, I'm pretty sure that back then the default for your everyman NPC was "make them count as a weak Fighter", so to speak, which means that the adventuring Fighter was always above the regular folks.Yes, but there's a difference between an extremely skilled fighter that doesn't need to worry too much about quite a large number of commoners or guards, and one not bound by real human limitations.

I mean, I accept that it is what it is, because game. But I recognize why it came about historically, that D&D has shifted to superhuman martials instead of highly skilled martials.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And my point was the reason D&D has gone that direction is ultimately because all the limitations on magic being hard to use were dropped.

Yes, but there's a difference between an extremely skilled fighter that doesn't need to worry too much about quite a large number of commoners or guards, and one not bound by real human limitations.

I mean, I accept that it is what it is, because game. But I recognize why it came about historically, that D&D has shifted to superhuman martials instead of highly skilled martials.

Define real human limitations. Any mapping is fraught with peril--to what are you comparing? Modern olympic athletes (the best comparison for a level 5+ martial) can do some crazy stuff compared to "normal" people. And we're not even sure that D&D's humans are the same as modern humans (or that the physical parameters of the universe are the same).

More importantly, D&D (especially 5e) is not a simulation. The rules of the game are not the rules of the underlying universe. They're a game UI, with mapping values and units chosen for convenience of play with a rough, hand-wavey, "close enough" nod to realism. I have yet to see a rule-set improved by importing one person's idea of what is "realistic." You add exponentially-increasing complexity and gain...something that hits the uncanny valley of realism. You can't get close enough to be real, so you inevitably end up with something that shows all the warts and seams and compromises of making it playable and has all the extra complexity. That's lose-lose for me (although YMMV).

[Unoriginal]

Yes, but there's a difference between an extremely skilled fighter that doesn't need to worry too much about quite a large number of commoners or guards, and one not bound by real human limitations.

Really? Find me one melee fighter bound by real human limitations that can fight a dragon and win.

[Tanarii]

Really? Find me one melee fighter bound by real human limitations that can fight a dragon and win.
With magic armor and a magic sword?

Because that's the difference right there, between D&D as it was, and D&D as it is. Magic items vs inherent superpowers.

[Unoriginal]

With magic armor and a magic sword?

Because that's the difference right there, between D&D as it was, and D&D as it is. Magic items vs inherent superpowers.

Magic items are not something someone bound by real life human limitations can have.

Also, are you saying that in the past, the only way to beat a dragon for a martial was to use magic?

[Tanarii]

Magic items are not something someone bound by real life human limitations can have.No. But that wasn't the point. The point is superhuman martials. Not martials with magic items. Stop trying to shift the goalposts.

[Slipperychicken]

Now, take a GWM Fighter (level 20) who has to run his whole speed while lifting his 30kg plate before unleashing a full 4-attack chain with his 4,5kg maul (-I expected it to be heavier but whatever- ^^).
Sure, with 20 STR he can carry up to 135 Kg.
Have you run with ~1/4 of the maximum weight you could carry before being heavily slowed?
He is a trained warrior, so obviously he's used to it, but if you are wanting something more realistic, you would probably expect him to take more time to move and make 4 attacks with that than the aforementioned monk.

Yeah, the thing to bear in mind is that actual mauls more closely resemble claw-hammers (the kind you might find in your toolbox), but with very long handles. The purpose is to have a very small surface area to counter the force-distributing effect of plate armor. The "cinderblock on a stick" look is for artists to peddle to an audience so overexposed to cartoonish fictional violence that they can't imagine a weapon actually hurting someone unless it's at least five times the width of the victim's arm.

Also, most concerns about encumbrance in 5e are immediately resolved by using the optional rule on the very same page. Under it, people start taking speed penalties at 1/3rd and 2/3rd their encumbrance limit. But it seems that when most people actually look at it, they realize they never really wanted realistic encumbrance at all.


When Wizards had real limitations on shooting fire from their fingers, Superhuman Fighters weren't necessary. It's Wizards that can shoot fire out of their fingers with a 1/2 Segment single gesture & word, completely uninterruptable even in the thick of melee, that require Superhuman Fighters to keep up. (Of course, at high level D&D, everyone has always been super-human.)

Seconding this.

[Unoriginal]

No. But that wasn't the point. The point is superhuman martials. Not martials with magic items. Stop trying to shift the goalposts.

I'm not shifting the goalposts. Not having magic items is a limitation real humans have, and so it should be applied to the hypothetical bound-by-real-human-limitations dragon slayer. The same way you couldn't say "a martial bound by real life limitations can beat a dragon, if they have an hypogriff mount."

But let's say that the Fighter who has to fight a dragon has access to magic items. Are you saying that in the past editions, the only way for a Fighter to kill a dragon and survive was to use magic weapons and armor?

[Tanarii]

I'm not shifting the goalposts.Yes. You are. Because humans doing magical things in a magical universe by using magic, either inherent or through magical items, makes perfect 'sense'.

Humans doing magical things in a magical universe that are explicitly NOT using magic, but rather inherent super-powers that definitely aren't magic even though they have magical-like results ... are either problematic, or something you have to write off as "it's just a game". Or even "meh, wizards/magic". Even though it's specifically not supposed to be magic, for some reason.

Edit: Or, just, yknow, inexplicable inherent super-powers. Which is basically the same as saying "magic", but from some source other than the magic that casters and magic items use. Like Monks Ki. Or Barbarians channeling primary power in 4e.

[Citan]

Also, most concerns about encumbrance in 5e are immediately resolved by using the optional rule on the very same page. Under it, people start taking speed penalties at 1/3rd and 2/3rd their encumbrance limit. But it seems that when most people actually look at it, they realize they never really wanted realistic encumbrance at all.

XD. I sooo agree. ^^
Only people wanting some hard-core or "realistic experience" (as false as this may sound in a game with magic) would probably ask for this one. ^^

Especially since so many people already complain with normal encumberance rules. :)

[Unoriginal]

Yes. You are. Because humans doing magical things in a magical universe by using magic, either inherent or through magical items, makes perfect 'sense'.

Humans doing magical things in a magical universe that are explicitly NOT using magic, but rather inherent super-powers that definitely aren't magic even though they have magical-like results ... are either problematic, or something you have to write off as "it's just a game". Or even "meh, wizards/magic". Even though it's specifically not supposed to be magic, for some reason.

Edit: Or, just, yknow, inexplicable inherent super-powers. Which is basically the same as saying "magic", but from some source other than the magic that casters and magic items use. Like Monks Ki. Or Barbarians channeling primary power in 4e.

So, just to be clear, you think that a warrior being very strong, very tough, very fast and/or more way more trained than regular folks without being magic is problematic?

Also, how is that shifting the goalposts? You talked about fighters being bound by real human limitations, and not having magic is one of the limitations of real life humans.

But apparently you only wanted to talk about the physical, bodily limitations of the real human that the martials were supposedly bound to before. In that case, fine, we'll talk about those limitations.

Which leads me to repeating my question: according to you, did the fighter of past editions requires magic weapons and armor to be able to fight a dragon in melee and win because they were bound by the physical limitations of real humans, or was it possible for them to kill a dragon in melee even without magic weapons and armor?

[90sMusic]

The flipside is at level 1, if you are a martial, you could take one swing at an enemy then just stand there like an idiot for the remaining duration of the round doing nothing at all.

Also if you have ever seen a REAL fight of any sort, but especially something like fencing, you would know how many strikes you can take in the span of 6 seconds. It is a lot. Would be harder to make the wide, arching swings with a battleaxe or greatsword as quickly, but you have to make allowances for game balance.

6 second rounds are fine. 10 second rounds would get way too silly from a martial fighting perspective when you can only attack once or twice then just stand there like a dolt for more than half your round. Occasionally being able to do a little too much in one round is certainly better than doing too little and spending most of your turns doing nothing at all.

But seriously, I recommend you and your players watch some actual fights of any kind and see how rapidly things go. 6 seconds is a lifetime.

[rhouck]

FWIW, I believe the first shift from AD&D's 1 minute rounds was in Player's Option: Combat & Tactics that switched rounds to "10 to 15 seconds", which matches what OP is leaning towards. Notably, even though the combat round was about 1/5th it's previous length, spell durations listed in rounds were to be treated the same for balance.

During that time, "a typical swordsman will make about three to six swings. Most characters and monsters can only make one effective attack in this time; the rest of the swings are feints, parries, or just for show. Higher-level characters with multiple attacks are able to make more of these swings count. Parries are followed up with ripostes. Feints suddenly become attacks when an opening presents itself. WIth time and practice, a skilled swordsman can make every swing of his sword a potentially lethal attack."

[Zorku]

Spending the action to take off your backpack when you're not over your encumberance limits (or slowed down in variant encumberance) seems really weird to me. Of course, if you have time and know the combat is coming, it's a different matter.So, reverse order of the same thing I said? Carrying a bunch of junk around while it's your job to fight off any attackers doesn't really make sense to me in general. We only lack a bunch of carrying-specialist hirelings these days because people don't want to think about encumbrance in general. With your old school treasure haul you might end up with everyone carrying as much gold as they can while they're on the trip home, but you're going to have to be able to put some of that down if you wanna fight. The encumbrance rules make this make enough sense (although they don't explicitly mention movement in combat it seems like you'd cut that by thirds if you felt your game needed that to make baseline sense.)



Yes, but if you change the time of a combat round to 10 seconds without thinking and realizing that 1 minute = 1 combat, it no longer is true. The majority of one combat, but you could suddenly end up bereft of your spell in a crucial last few rounds after the minions have been wiped out and you're trying to take down the BBEG. Or whatever. 6-8 combat rounds aren't exactly rare IMX.
Seems my point went right over your head.

Let's just picture a hypothetical combat where we haven't changed the length of the rounds, but we've engineered it to last 30 rounds somehow. Because the spells say they last one minute, you're thinking that they wear off after the 10th round. This is fine; the spells do say that they only last 1 minute after all... BUT this is not a natural sort of combat. The developers basically said "combat isn't going to last more than 10 rounds" and then stamped the "1 minute" duration into the book so that they wouldn't have to say "1 encounter." If you just didn't pay attention to when these 1 minute spells were cast, and you let them stay in effect for all 30 rounds of this combat, that would work as intended. They last for 1 minute, and this was clearly 3 minutes, but the game balance doesn't ****ing care about that. You cannot hurt the underlying math by ignoring this fluff.

If your rounds are 10 seconds long, and that is the only thing you've changed, then the least intrusive way to have your players deal with this is to find and replace "1 minute" with "1 minute 40 seconds." If you've been paying attention then you can already think of 3+ other ways you could get results that were effectively the same, especially if you made sure to design encounters that don't present edge cases.

So pick whatever is easiest or the most interesting or the most empowering to players or whatever you care about the most.


No. But that wasn't the point. The point is superhuman martials. Not martials with magic items. Stop trying to shift the goalposts.

Everyone is supposed to have magical items by certain levels in this edition. You can deprive them of those kinds of things, but the CR math won't match character level anymore. The book hands out a bunch of weapon skills at high levels, and I see why you would think that this means that it's purely physical stuff innate to the character, except for the very objection you have raised about it not making sense. High level abilities are all the result of mastery over magic, either as spells or as owned items, because that's what makes sense. If you're going to allow a fighter to reach level 18 without that having anything to do with magical items, then it is your own fault that your world doesn't make sense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Everyone is supposed to have magical items by certain levels in this edition. You can deprive them of those kinds of things, but the CR math won't match character level anymore. The book hands out a bunch of weapon skills at high levels, and I see why you would think that this means that it's purely physical stuff innate to the character, except for the very objection you have raised about it not making sense. High level abilities are all the result of mastery over magic, either as spells or as owned items, because that's what makes sense. If you're going to allow a fighter to reach level 18 without that having anything to do with magical items, then it is your own fault that your world doesn't make sense.

I don't actually agree with this. The math doesn't seriously break down unless a) the party is mostly spell-less martials and b) you're only fighting things that resist non-magical BPS. Many such things don't even resist all non-magical BPS (just non-magical BPS that isn't adamantine or silver in many case). Even so, magical weapons can be as simple as an eversharp blade (that counts as magical) but gives no other bonuses.

I personally don't like that style, but it exists and the game is not broken. Or get a paladin/wizard to cast magic weapon on your blade. Either way.

[Zorku]

I don't actually agree with this. The math doesn't seriously break down unless a) the party is mostly spell-less martials and b) you're only fighting things that resist non-magical BPS. Many such things don't even resist all non-magical BPS (just non-magical BPS that isn't adamantine or silver in many case). Even so, magical weapons can be as simple as an eversharp blade (that counts as magical) but gives no other bonuses.

I personally don't like that style, but it exists and the game is not broken. Or get a paladin/wizard to cast magic weapon on your blade. Either way.

The game is not broken, but creatures of a given level are actually a higher CR that written if the party does not generally have a +2 to AC from roughly level 10 to level 12. Bounded accuracy is approximately expecting a rolled 10 or better for attacks to connect (more like an 8 for creatures using their primary stat,) but the attack bonus on creatures out of the MM grows out of that range if you lack magical bonuses.

The dice don't shatter and the table doesn't melt into a lump of protoplasm, but being a level 18 front liner without around +5 AC and +3 to hit from items if going to make medium encounters brutal. Now, the wizard is still pulling his weight by polymorphing things or otherwise taking enemies out of the fight so you can divide and conquer, but we're talking about martials and the martials are in a really ugly position when they've already maxed out their primary stat and have no other means of growth.

*Given how much we all talk about bounded accuracy I don't think I need to go into the boring details for why combat has a target value on the dice that stays fairly constant as you level, but if I actually do need to go over that, in order for this argument to be clear, then let me know and I can dump a bunch of text out of my fingers relating to that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The game is not broken, but creatures of a given level are actually a higher CR that written if the party does not generally have a +2 to AC from roughly level 10 to level 12. Bounded accuracy is approximately expecting a rolled 10 or better for attacks to connect (more like an 8 for creatures using their primary stat,) but the attack bonus on creatures out of the MM grows out of that range if you lack magical bonuses.

The dice don't shatter and the table doesn't melt into a lump of protoplasm, but being a level 18 front liner without around +5 AC and +3 to hit from items if going to make medium encounters brutal. Now, the wizard is still pulling his weight by polymorphing things or otherwise taking enemies out of the fight so you can divide and conquer, but we're talking about martials and the martials are in a really ugly position when they've already maxed out their primary stat and have no other means of growth.

*Given how much we all talk about bounded accuracy I don't think I need to go into the boring details for why combat has a target value on the dice that stays fairly constant as you level, but if I actually do need to go over that, in order for this argument to be clear, then let me know and I can dump a bunch of text out of my fingers relating to that.

This is highly off topic, so this will be my only response.

Your math requires a particular set of questionable assumptions about monsters encountered. Specifically, it requires that average CR ~ average party level and that you're primarily fighting solos or at most duos. This is a completely a-textual assumption that has no relationship to the actual guidance provided. It is also necessary for the result. I did a calculation based on the UA: Encounter Building guidelines--it turns out that the attack/defense numbers (assuming standard array and reasonable builds) stay basically constant if the average number of monsters is approximately equal to, but no higher than twice, the number of player characters. This leads to average CRs of



Level
Average CR


1
0.4


5
3.1


9
4.7


13
7.5


17
9.2



This includes the solo/duo encounters, but since they're weighted at a low rate, the averages stay much lower than expected.

This also fits the oft-stated goal that lower level creatures remain a threat for the whole game--that is, instead of only being able to fight a narrow band centered around CR >~ APL, each successive level widens the array of possible monsters to fight. This is also clear from the guidance that action economy is king--it's the origin of legendary resistances and legendary/lair actions. Under these assumptions, a standard-array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) party with no feats stays in nice lockstep with the average offenses and defenses of level-appropriate monsters. Since this is an assumption that a) fits the design, b) fits the guidance, c) gives reasonable numbers, and d) matches subjective experience, I think it's a much better assumption to base the numbers on than the one your numbers rely on.

Yes, if you fight a solo without any items at all, it will be difficult. That's by design. But not from a pure numbers standpoint, and not so as to break the game.

I can post the spreadsheet I used to calculate this upon request. It assumes a 4 person (but can be modified for more or less) party of basic rules characters without feats or any +X items.

[Tanarii]

The game is not broken, but creatures of a given level are actually a higher CR that written if the party does not generally have a +2 to AC from roughly level 10 to level 12. Bounded accuracy is approximately expecting a rolled 10 or better for attacks to connect (more like an 8 for creatures using their primary stat,) but the attack bonus on creatures out of the MM grows out of that range if you lack magical bonuses.
No it doesn't. You just have to assume CR = party level-3 instead of CR = party level. In other words, a realistic assumption.

Magic items are not assumed in 5e. The devs had said this, and at a cursory, but not too cursory, glance the system math backs this up. (Also not needing a 20 in your primary stat, but that's a digression.)

Besides, you missed my point. Using magic items to be magical is just magic. Having it built into what is typically viewed as explicitly non-magical? That's inexplicable super-hero powers. For some people that fits the genre, for others it's a distinct change in recent editions.

Also I did miss your point on the duration 1 minute thing. You're saying 1 minute already means "one encounter" despite the name. Groovy. If that's how you interpret it, I'm not gonna disagree. That's certainly easier to track than 1 minute or 10 rounds or whatever, provided the encounters don't get stupidly complicated to where it's unreasonable to allow a one minute spell to continue.

But I'm not sure that's the dev intent. I think it's quite likely, given Mearls was heavily involved at the end of 4e, and translating a lot of good concepts from that edition to this one. But I'm curious if they've ever made comment that makes that clearly their intent.

Edit: to be clear, I think that's the way to view it. So good call, and thank you very much for pointing it out and clarifying your point. I'm just idly curious about dev intent.

[Zorku]

-bonuses in more of a 4 creature encounter-



Magic items are not assumed in 5e. The devs had said this, and at a cursory, but not too cursory, glance the system math backs this up. (Also not needing a 20 in your primary stat, but that's a digression.)


I like having more opponents in encounters anyway, so I'm inclined to agree, but then why isn't the game broken when the party gets +4AC and +2 to hit from magic items?


Besides, you missed my point. Using magic items to be magical is just magic. Having it built into what is typically viewed as explicitly non-magical? That's inexplicable super-hero powers. For some people that fits the genre, for others it's a distinct change in recent editions.
I don't see how the archetype adventuring group that's decked out in vaguely magical equipment has explicit super powers built into their own bodies. They perform really well because they're constantly putting themselves in weird magical situations and they've mastered something other than their own bodies in the process.

The typical level breakdown has you topping out at a greater level of power than all similar class people in multiple dimensions from any time in living memory. Why would we expect that to merely be the same thing as olympic athletes or whatever real world analog we're trying to use for reference? The greatest X on Earth is more like a level 10 character, or maybe a bit lower than that.


Also I did miss your point on the duration 1 minute thing. You're saying 1 minute already means "one encounter" despite the name. Groovy. If that's how you interpret it, I'm not gonna disagree. That's certainly easier to track than 1 minute or 10 rounds or whatever, provided the encounters don't get stupidly complicated to where it's unreasonable to allow a one minute spell to continue.

But I'm not sure that's the dev intent. I think it's quite likely, given Mearls was heavily involved at the end of 4e, and translating a lot of good concepts from that edition to this one. But I'm curious if they've ever made comment that makes that clearly their intent.
Yeah, I'm reading between the lines a bit. Whatever way you slice it, the devs had more than enough awareness of how 4e worked, simply because you have to understand that stuff if you're going to go about taking the best elements of it but presenting them in a more palatable form.

I already know what I think, and I'm entrenched in it enough that it's hard for me to legitimately answer this question, but maybe you'll fare better; what other sorts of balance things could the 1 minute duration actually mean?

*Just because we can't come up with some other appealing answer doesn't mean that there isn't one, but generally the rules of this game are meant to be fairly intuitive and forums seem to be good at breaking them down into their base elements, even if that's not directly confirmed.

Since most of our dev intent resource is dinky yes/no answers in twitter that don't touch on the impact of house rules, I can't really picture circumstances where they would come out and express this exact intention.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like having more opponents in encounters anyway, so I'm inclined to agree, but then why isn't the game broken when the party gets +4AC and +2 to hit from magic items?


Because, unlike earlier editions, the math in 5e is very flexible and forgiving. There's nothing really to break. Effectively, giving magic items (especially +X items) moves the party up in levels. In extreme cases (a +3 item at level 1), it makes things harder to balance than it should--they still can't take a hit from a CR 3 creature very well, and even with a +3 AC they can still be hit. As a result, things get real swingy (one bad hit is a death). At higher levels (especially 10+), it means that the average CR they can fight goes up by 1 or 2. Not a big deal.

The scaling of opponent ATK and AC is very slow with levels. About +1 for every 2-3-ish CR at best. And that caps pretty early--except for dragons, most high CR monsters are so because they're beefy and hit hard, not because they're hard to hit. Players should be hitting most (>50%) of the time anyway unless they dumped their attack stat or have disadvantage a lot. Or, like one of my players, just rolls like crap on attack rolls. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

I like having more opponents in encounters anyway, so I'm inclined to agree, but then why isn't the game broken when the party gets +4AC and +2 to hit from magic items? If they're powerful enough, they kinda do. Intentionally. The devs have started they wanted magic items to make a difference. The only way that can happen is to allow them to break the default system math a little.


I don't see how the archetype adventuring group that's decked out in vaguely magical equipment has explicit super powers built into their own bodies. They perform really well because they're constantly putting themselves in weird magical situations and they've mastered something other than their own bodies in the process. So what you're saying is even 'martial' class prowess is actually mastering magic? Not training and inherent skill? That doesn't sit well with many people. And it requires some tinkering with the mechanics to match that fluff. What happens if for some reason all their magical times are taken away and they have to fight with non-magical Chainmail/Longsword or Rapier/Leather. Does the Champion Fighter suddenly lose Extra Attack and Indomitable? Does the Thief Rogue suddenly lose Reliable Talent and Fast Hands? Do their Str and Dex drop to 16 instead of 20?


The typical level breakdown has you topping out at a greater level of power than all similar class people in multiple dimensions from any time in living memory. Why would we expect that to merely be the same thing as olympic athletes or whatever real world analog we're trying to use for reference? The greatest X on Earth is more like a level 10 character, or maybe a bit lower than that.Levels are a terrible way to emulate anything other than a way to gain power in the D&D world. But that doesn't change the way martials end up gaining clear super-powers. Magic that isn't magic, as opposed to something that could feasibly be the result of skill and training of their non-magical body.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So what you're saying is even 'martial' class prowess is actually mastering magic? Not training and inherent skill? That doesn't sit well with many people. And it requires some tinkering with the mechanics to match that fluff. What happens if for some reason all their magical times are taken away and they have to fight with non-magical Chainmail/Longsword or Rapier/Leather. Does the Champion Fighter suddenly lose Extra Attack and Indomitable? Does the Thief Rogue suddenly lose Reliable Talent and Fast Hands? Do their Str and Dex drop to 16 instead of 20?

Levels are a terrible way to emulate anything other than a way to gain power in the D&D world. But that doesn't change the way martials end up gaining clear super-powers. Magic that isn't magic, as opposed to something that could feasibly be the result of skill and training of their non-magical body.

On topic, I'm totally comfortable with martials being "magical" (in quotes because it's very different magic than that of spell-casters). In my setting, the same energy that enables magical spells (which are resonances in the ambient anima field) is also what everything is made of. A soul that focuses on training the body actually incorporates this anima into themselves and thus can do "superhuman" things. A soul that focuses on training the spirit-equivalent (the nimbus) can interface better and resonate better with the ambient anima, making spells more effective. This produces results that are beyond what a real world human can do, but that's been part of D&D since forever. Commoners cap out at like 6 HP, after all.

Magic items are gravy on top of that, if they occur. They're not common in my setting, nor are they easily made.

[Tanarii]

On topic, I'm totally comfortable with martials being "magical" (in quotes because it's very different magic than that of spell-casters).I can actually wrap my head around it just fine, if I haven't already got some other pre-supposition in place for the particular game.

Also I tend to just not worry about it in modern D&D. The reason the character can do awesome and amazing things A, B, and C is the rules say they can. But I'm arguing a philosophical point here dammit. :smallwink:

[Unoriginal]

I can actually wrap my head around it just fine, if I haven't already got some other pre-supposition in place for the particular game.

Also I tend to just not worry about it in modern D&D. The reason the character can do awesome and amazing things A, B, and C is the rules say they can. But I'm arguing a philosophical point here dammit. :smallwink:

Well, the thing is, with your philosophical point, would you say it's a problem that Conan is able to accomplish feats and survive trials no regular human could? Or that the Links in Legend of Zelda are able to beat up monsters several time their size with a sword?

Sure, you can say "Conan and Link aren't level 1", but they were, at some point. I'm pretty sure Howard wrote Conan's first "big adventure" ("The Tower of the Elephant", I think), where he was certainly less formidable than later in his career, but still way above your average human, and most of the Links start their journey as kids/teens with little experience and with a mundane weapon.

You could also argue that Conan just got lucky with Cimmerian genetics and that Link is a Chosen One, and so their powers are explained, but Conan's incredible even by his people's standards, and in general Link specifically doesn't have any special power until he goes through the trials that show he is worthy of getting the divine powers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can actually wrap my head around it just fine, if I haven't already got some other pre-supposition in place for the particular game.

Also I tend to just not worry about it in modern D&D. The reason the character can do awesome and amazing things A, B, and C is the rules say they can. But I'm arguing a philosophical point here dammit. :smallwink:

The issue seems to be making unwarranted assumptions. That's what causes problems generally. 5e is its own game and should be treated as such. Carrying over assumptions from previous editions only causes pain. This seems to be a theme generally...maybe they should put that on a sticker on the PHB--"abandon all previous assumptions, ye who enter here" or something like that.

[Tanarii]

The issue seems to be making unwarranted assumptions. That's what causes problems generally. 5e is its own game and should be treated as such. Carrying over assumptions from previous editions only causes pain. This seems to be a theme generally...maybe they should put that on a sticker on the PHB--"abandon all previous assumptions, ye who enter here" or something like that.
For sure. Some assumptions, like 3e & 4e & 5e martials being super-humans, you need to either write off as "meh it's a game" or embrace.

I started in AD&D / BECMI. I embraced the 2E C&T change to battlemat play, atomic actions, attacks being actual attacks not just one successfully attack in many that don't have a chance, etc. Because game. But even at the time I recall many comments about how suddenly all martials were superhumans*, and wizards suddenly were super-speed casters. 3e pretty much cemented all that. :smallbiggrin:

(*in some cases not superhuman enough, see 3e Fighters)

[PhoenixPhyre]

For sure. Some assumptions, like 3e & 4e & 5e martials being super-humans, you need to either write off as "meh it's a game" or embrace.

I started in AD&D / BECMI. I embraced the 2E C&T change to battlemat play, atomic actions, attacks being actual attacks not just one successfully attack in many that don't have a chance, etc. Because game. But even at the time I recall many comments about how suddenly all martials were superhumans*, and wizards suddenly were super-speed casters. 3e pretty much cemented all that. :smallbiggrin:

(*in some cases not superhuman enough, see 3e Fighters)

Whenever I try to get more detailed and "realistic", I find myself trapped and making things worse--every change decreases the realism because it shines light on all the necessary compromises to have a game. I feel that way about encumbrance--it shouldn't be the same for all characters: that halfling's gear doesn't weigh the same as that goliath's gear, even if it's the same type of gear. And then I find myself rewriting everything and ending up with a total mess as rule changes cascade and recurse (and I end up re-cursing myself for even trying).

I feel the same about movies. I'm fine with movies playing fast and loose with science if and only if they don't try to act like they're doing it seriously. For example, Star Wars is basically science fantasy. Scientifically, there's tons of inconsistencies. And I'm fine with that, until they start to try to explain things seriously (as in the prequel midichlorians thing). If you claim to be "period accurate" or "hard science" and mess up, I'm going to judge you much more (and break suspension of disbelief much quicker) than if you claim to be "heroic adventure" or comedy.

[Unoriginal]

Did you put me on your ignore list, Tanarii?

I apologize if I offended you, it was not my intention.



For example, Star Wars is basically science fantasy.

Star Wars is actually Space Fantasy people have calling "science fiction" incorrectly due to the aesthetic.

[Tanarii]

Oops. Let me circle back to your last one:

Well, the thing is, with your philosophical point, would you say it's a problem that Conan is able to accomplish feats and survive trials no regular human could? Or that the Links in Legend of Zelda are able to beat up monsters several time their size with a sword?I don't consider that Conan is able to accomplish feats and survive trials no regular human could. Unlike high level D&D martials. OTOH I'm far more familiar with movie Conan than book Conan.

Link is a cartoon. Like Mario, I have no expectation that he should conform to human norms in any way.

[Unoriginal]

Oops. Let me circle back to your last one:
I don't consider that Conan is able to accomplish feats and survive trials no regular human could. Unlike high level D&D martials. OTOH I'm far more familiar with movie Conan than book Conan.

Conan fought with a sword and won against serpents as wide as a man's body, packs of apes, and giant demon-gods, was once hit by a spell that insta-killed other fighters and only got dazed by it, and he survived being nailed to a cross and left in the middle of the desert for hours (and managed to walk away as soon as someone cut down the cross).



Link is a cartoon. Like Mario, I have no expectation that he should conform to human norms in any way.

Well excuuuuuse me princess :smallwink:

[Tanarii]

Conan fought with a sword and won against serpents as wide as a man's body, packs of apes, and giant demon-gods, was once hit by a spell that insta-killed other fighters and only got dazed by it, and he survived being nailed to a cross and left in the middle of the desert for hours (and managed to walk away as soon as someone cut down the cross).But did he walk on clouds (3e Acrobatics), make 6 attacks in 3 seconds with his greatsword after jogging 30ft in 3 seconds (5e Fighters at 20), or survive a 1000 ft fall into lazy lava then swim out? :smallwink: (Last one any edition with enough hit points and making any required 'save or die' checks, although I'd have to go back and check AD&D 1e's Wilderness Survival Guide to be sure.)


Well excuuuuuse me princess :smallwink:I do have an expectation that Link & Mario will come save me ... :smallbiggrin:

[Zorku]

If they're powerful enough, they kinda do. Intentionally. The devs have started they wanted magic items to make a difference. The only way that can happen is to allow them to break the default system math a little.Well no, if you expect a certain magic item progression then the difference that the items make is "you can handle this opponent/encounter that it more powerful than what you could handle without magical items." It's only breaking the system if it... breaks the system. Character combat stats grow along this fairly linear course if you assume a few magic items, or they peak at this oddly early level and then martials just get a few abilities and more hp after that.

Seems weird man.


So what you're saying is even 'martial' class prowess is actually mastering magic? Not training and inherent skill? That doesn't sit well with many people. And it requires some tinkering with the mechanics to match that fluff.It's a world full of magic, even moreso than previous editions. Hunters-friggin-mark is a spell now, and there's lots of magic that is not casting spells.


What happens if for some reason all their magical times are taken away and they have to fight with non-magical Chainmail/Longsword or Rapier/Leather. Does the Champion Fighter suddenly lose Extra Attack and Indomitable? Does the Thief Rogue suddenly lose Reliable Talent and Fast Hands? Do their Str and Dex drop to 16 instead of 20?
No, I'm not saying that your last extra attack is some effect that's granted by the weapon, I'm saying that using magical equipment is the only way to train like that. It's sort of like how you couldn't really be a body builder the way that some people are now before anyone had access to whey protein shakes. That somewhat grotesque musculature isn't something that people get just from working hard, they have to work in very specific ways to make it happen. Or we can turn our gaze to a more uncomfortable aspect of modern training: when an athlete takes steroids they gain muscle faster, and after a point, they gain more muscle than their body would have ever allowed them to. If you take away the daily steroid injections (or however frequently you dose that stuff,) they're still going to have that muscle mass, and if they use it, it's going to stick around for a long time. I'm not entirely sure if you atrophy fast if you go cold turkey on anabolic steroids, or if you just lose strength in the way that everyone does as they age, but you will remain very strong if you continue to train and generally make full use of your muscle but never take the steroids again.

Now, don't go acting like I've said that ambient magic is steroids. This comparison is only useful in as far as it establishes that your body can change in ways other than pure training and whatever talent propelled you into adventure to begin with. What happens is ultimately up to the setting (maybe 1/10th of every monster soul binds to your party when you kill it and you're now tapping whatever source of power enabled those abominations to exist in the first place,) but I am saying that the very high level performance makes more sense if you think of it as being enabled by magic.


Levels are a terrible way to emulate anything other than a way to gain power in the D&D world. But that doesn't change the way martials end up gaining clear super-powers. Magic that isn't magic, as opposed to something that could feasibly be the result of skill and training of their non-magical body.
Oh, I can fix this for you.

"Levels are a terrible way to emulate anything."
Yeah, pretty much, but they're easy to keep track of and enable some very simple math for getting a ballpark estimate on how many creatures should be part of an encounter, whether that's math that the DM explicitly uses in encounter design or simply math that the players learn to intuit to figure out if they should gtfo when they see a pit fiend show up and take an interest in them.

But more to the argument you actually made: I hope the "magic that influences the way you're able to train, instead of magic that just puts an effect on you and falls back off of you in an antimagic field" thing I just described basically serves to answer this for you. I get that it's not really a way that the book uses the term "magic," but the book doesn't really like to define how anything works at this level of detail. Really the only bit that touches on anything about god tier powers is that underworked boon system that the DMG drops on the table in front of you when you try to progress past level 20. That stuff is described as being some of the early steps towards becoming a demigod, and it takes the place of levels, yet something about it probably sits much more easily with you, under the category of "magic." If we rolled up a setting where you don't gain any abilities when you level past 5, but you got boons, from some indeterminate origin, that gave you all of the same abilities at the same levels, what would really be different about that?


The reason the character can do awesome and amazing things A, B, and C is the rules say they can. But I'm arguing a philosophical point here dammit. :smallwink:Oh. So your position is more "level ups seem to be the result of training, and I don't want to change that unless there's a line of text that explicitly states otherwise" and my position is more "getting superpowers looks like the result of magic, and last I checked only One Punch Man and whatever that eyebrows character from Naruto is named ever got super powers from magic-less training."

You might want to make it clearer when you're arguing for the sake of making me explain myself clearly vs arguing because you can't understand what ideas I'm expressing.


that halfling's gear doesn't weigh the same as that goliath's gear, even if it's the same type of gear.
That problem had been trying to coalesce in my head for the Lamentations of the Flame Princess thing I wanna do with encumbrance for awhile now. No idea why I didn't put together that I could make the armor weigh half as many stones...

[LordVonDerp]

I'm talking purely about verisimilitude. Over time, I have had a couple of players tell me outside of session it's stupid how much a PC can do in a 6 second round. I've responded with "it's just a round, don't worry about it" and "yeah but who cares" and even "wizards did it". But I recently had a player comment during a session when a TWF Fighter moved 30ft, made 3 attacks, then got an OA.

6 seconds is a long time in a fight.

[Crusher]

Looking at the scorecard of the most recent high profile boxing match Maywether v McGregor is interesting I think.
Maywether threw a total of 320 punches and landed 111. Assuming and equal distribution across 10 rounds is 32 / 11.1 punches per 3 minute round (boxing round).
3 minutes divided by 6 seconds is 30 D&D rounds, in which Maywether threw an average of 1.067 punches per D&D round.

Of course there were lots of times during ebb and flow of the fight where he would throw no punches whatsoever for many "rounds" and others where he threw many punches in a second or less. The combat in D&D is not literal it is an abstraction. And as an abstraction it is fairly accurate.

Right, because Mayweather went into the fight knowing it was entirely possible he'd have to do 20-30 minutes of actual fighting. D&D fighting in 5e simply isn't built for fights that long. I mean, imagine what kind of opponent you'd have to throw at a party to keep them actively engaged, yet not completely overwhelm their resources, for 200-300 rounds of combat. A fight that goes longer than 5-6 rounds is pretty much an eternity in 5e, and that's only 1/6 of the FIRST ROUND of Mayweather v McGregor.

As for "reality", I've done a substantial amount of various sorts of "real" fighting over the years, from fencing, to weapon-based martial arts, to Dagorhir and a round feels very reasonable to me. Obviously I have no experience with spell casting, but I've watched pretty carefully for exactly this purpose. If you're against a really skilled opponent, they can throw 3-4 actual attack attempts (in addition to multiple feints and measuring attacks) in 6 seconds, making it feel like a LONG time if you're effectively taking the Dodge action and just trying to survive.

And an intense fight with quick respawning participants (otherwise it either A) wouldn't be intense, or B) you'd run out of people really fast), gets exhausting for me after as little as ~3 minutes (in part because I'm not in great shape and in part because fighting hard is really tiring). Mayweather couldn't possibly go toe-to-toe with an opponent for 30 straight minutes. The endurance required would be superhuman, and there'd be nothing left of either fighter after the thousands of blows exchanged.

[supergoji18]

I've always been of the opposite opinion, that they are too long. The fact that it takes 6 seconds to move 30 feet (60 if you are dashing) is rather silly in an intense combat situation. When you work out the math to see how fast a person can run in a single round without the aid of magic (wood elf rogue who takes the dash option as both his action and bonus action that round, for a total of 105 ft of movement in 6 seconds) then you find that:

105 ft per 6 seconds = 1050 ft per minute = 63000 ft per hour = about 12 miles an hour. Considering that this is the absolute maximum speed that one can achieve without the aid of magic, that's really slow. That's a brisk jog at best. For comparison, the fastest recorded human running speed is 27.44 mph. I'm not saying everyone in d&d should be that fast, but they should be going faster than jogging speed when charging at an enemy.

But that's just my opinion.

That being said, I think changing the time per round would be more trouble than it's worth. 6 seconds/round is a good number since it makes keeping track of minutes easy for effects that have extended durations or if the party is racing against the clock. Also, increasing the speed of every character would probably break some of the balance of the game since issues like reach wouldn't be a thing anymore.

tldr: it's probably more trouble than it's worth to change it

[Kane0]

The length of a round doesn't really change much except their relation to minute-duration spells and effects. You can make them as long as you like really.

[furby076]

Anyone else find it helps their believability if they say a round is, say ten seconds long, instead of six? I mean, in terms of game mechanics, if you rule 1 min spells are now 10 round spells, I don't think there's any mechanical effects.

I'm talking purely about verisimilitude. Over time, I have had a couple of players tell me outside of session it's stupid how much a PC can do in a 6 second round. I've responded with "it's just a round, don't worry about it" and "yeah but who cares" and even "wizards did it". But I recently had a player comment during a session when a TWF Fighter moved 30ft, made 3 attacks, then got an OA. And everyone at the table kinda chimed in about yeah it's stupid how short rounds are. And when an entire table of players agrees on something I only care about as a gamist rule, I perk up a bit. The I come running here to find out what you guys think. :smallwink:

Can anyone think of anything besides Spell durations I'd have to change to 10 rounds instead of 1 minute? Because if this happens again I may just say "assume it's longer then". But I just know I'll get a bunch of pushback if I'm not prepared to tell them why it doesn't actually matter mechanically. :smallbiggrin:

I used to box competitively. 6 seconds is a whole lot of time in combat. You can easily sprint 30 feet, take a swing or 2 and try to get out of the way of a hit. Standing toe to toe? In 6 seconds i can take about 6 to 8 swipes at your head with my fists. 2 to 3 with a sword is believable.

But the question you gotta ask....whats the benefit to changing 6 sec round to 10? Will it really increase enjoyment? Thats my 1st litmus test to considering any rule change

[furby076]

Most people run between 10 and 15 mph.

Hm, no they dont. 15 mph comes to about a 4 minute mile. 10 mph is a 6 minute mile

Go on a treadmill, and set it for 10 mph, assuming it goes that high. Fyi. I aint paying your medical bills

[Tanarii]

105 ft per 6 seconds = 1050 ft per minute = 63000 ft per hour = about 12 miles an hour.
24 mph. Unless they're using the Dash action (and not as a bonus action), it's far more reasonable to assume that movement is 1/2 the round, not its entirety.

[Knaight]

Hm, no they dont. 15 mph comes to about a 4 minute mile. 10 mph is a 6 minute mile

Go on a treadmill, and set it for 10 mph, assuming it goes that high. Fyi. I aint paying your medical bills

A six minute mile is fairly impressive because that 10 mph was maintained for six minutes - and it's not really that impressive for highly active people anyways. Maintaining 10 mph for a six second sprint is something people can pretty typically do.

[supergoji18]

24 mph. Unless they're using the Dash action (and not as a bonus action), it's far more reasonable to assume that movement is 1/2 the round, not its entirety.

1 mile = 5280 feet
63000 feet/hour * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 11.931818 miles/hour which rounds up to 12. I already factored in the fact that they used both their action and their bonus action to dash, so there is no need to double it.

i'm not sure how you got 24 mph

[Tanarii]

1 mile = 5280 feet
63000 feet/hour * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 11.931818 miles/hour which rounds up to 12. I already factored in the fact that they used both their action and their bonus action to dash, so there is no need to double it.

i'm not sure how you got 24 mphI assumed you were talking about move & action, because that's what PCs (typically) do.

Yes, a normal Dash (using action, 6 seconds) is a speed of about 6.8mph for the round. So is moving without using your action (3 seconds). That's a decent jog, if you were moving in a straight line in a non-dangerous situation. While making turns, sudden reversals, etc. Rogues and Monks can bonus action dash, or flat out sprint 13.6 mph for 3 seconds ... From a standing start, while making turns, and even reversals.

So yeah, It's too slow for a flat out sprint in a straight line, but IMO it's okay for short bursts of speed in changing directions in a dangerous situation. Maybe even a tad fast.

Certainly I can see an argument for a Charge action like older editions, that allows you to move speed in a straight line. Assuming half the action was the sprint, that'd make it jogging at 6.8 followed by a 13.6 mph sprint to attack.

[Zorku]

A six minute mile is fairly impressive because that 10 mph was maintained for six minutes - and it's not really that impressive for highly active people anyways. Maintaining 10 mph for a six second sprint is something people can pretty typically do.

Just to pile onto this: Back before I knew wtf I was doing with timed miles (so basically all of high school's lazy gym teacher days,) I was regularly at the front of the pack right when the whistle blew, and things stayed like that for just about 100 yards when the thin cold air would start to really burn my little tar encrusted lungs. All of the people that were going to stay up there the whole time (because they were actually pacing themselves,) could have easily sprinted ahead of me if the goal was just to be the first to the 100 yard mark, but running has got a lot to do with pain management.

I do actually have an impressive(ish) pair of legs on me, so I can outrun a lot of mid-sized 4 legged animals (for reference: most of the people here probably cannot outrun a housecat, if you've even thought to try that,) but if I need to still have my breath under control when I get where I'm going then I am just not going to try to move that fast.

*I spent all of college sprinting to catch trains and buses with unfortunate timings that allowed people to watch the one that they wanted leave and then have to wait 20-60 minutes for the next one. I wasn't willing to wait if I didn't have to, and I caught a lot of buses that I shouldn't have been able to, but it's a good thing that I just had to flash my pass and then sit down when I got where I was sprinting to.

[Tanarii]

That's fine. How often do PCs and creatures move in a straight line? Almost never IMX.

Now we could simulate that by doubling movement ... Then adding facing, and charging movement for turning during a move. We could simulate the first 10 ft of movement costing double as you got up to speed. We could simulate moving within say 10 ft of a hostile opponent costing double. Moving through 'difficult terrain' costing 4x, or just x2 with an acrobatics check to not fall flat.

Or we could have a good long distance jogging speed, or use about half a very good flat out sprint speed, if it were on the flat with no hostiles after you're up to full speed in a straight line.

I've come to the conclusion: That's close enough for a game. :smallbiggrin:

[supergoji18]

I assumed you were talking about move & action, because that's what PCs (typically) do.

Yes, a normal Dash (using action, 6 seconds) is a speed of about 6.8mph for the round. So is moving without using your action (3 seconds). That's a decent jog, if you were moving in a straight line in a non-dangerous situation. While making turns, sudden reversals, etc. Rogues and Monks can bonus action dash, or flat out sprint 13.6 mph for 3 seconds ... From a standing start, while making turns, and even reversals.

So yeah, It's too slow for a flat out sprint in a straight line, but IMO it's okay for short bursts of speed in changing directions in a dangerous situation. Maybe even a tad fast.

Certainly I can see an argument for a Charge action like older editions, that allows you to move speed in a straight line. Assuming half the action was the sprint, that'd make it jogging at 6.8 followed by a 13.6 mph sprint to attack.

I was talking about a move, action, and bonus action all in one round, so a full 6 seconds. As a rogue, you can take your movement, then take the dash action, and then take the dash bonus action. So they're not sprinting 13.6 mph for 3 seconds, they're doing it over the course of all 6 seconds of their round. Also, this is a wood elf we're talking about , which naturally moves faster than the majority of other races.

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my original post.

But for what you're talking about (the average player's movement speed using 30 ft per 3 seconds as the guideline), lets see how fast that is:
30 ft/3 seconds = 10 ft/s = 36000 ft/hour = 6.28 mph
That's barely over twice the speed of a casual walking pace. In a combat situation, I would expect people to be moving MUCH faster than that, even in short bursts.


I've come to the conclusion: That's close enough for a game. :smallbiggrin:
that is something we can agree on

[Slipperychicken]

make 6 attacks in 3 seconds with his greatsword after jogging 30ft in 3 seconds (5e Fighters at 20)

He favored a "great sword", moved and struck like lightning, leaving great piles of bodies in his wake even as he rode straight through crowds.

I don't believe any of his battles were attended by an observer with a stopwatch and a tape measure, but that is absolutely something the cimmerian would be capable of.

[Tanarii]

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my original post. You were clear. I just didn't read it properly.


That's barely over twice the speed of a casual walking pace. In a combat situation, I would expect people to be moving MUCH faster than that, even in short bursts.I jog. That's a decent pace for jogging several miles, in a straight line, with no one trying to kill you, on good terrain, when you're already moving at speed.

I would not expect anyone moving in a combat situation to be able to do wind sprints, while moving not in a straight line during the running portion.

From a simulation perspective, as I said, we could instead assume a top speed of 'sprinting run' or double current movement. Then deduct for hostile nearby, each turn, and starting from standing instead of already moving. Or we can assume the 'jog' accounts for all that. In fact, given all that my initial reaction was the jog is a little too fast. But given its a game ...

(Note that many systems do exactly that. WHFRP has a Run move for faster movement, which has all sorts of restrictions on it.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I jog. That's a decent pace for jogging several miles, in a straight line, with no one trying to kill you, on good terrain, when you're already moving at speed.

I would not expect anyone moving in a combat situation to be able to do wind sprints, while moving not in a straight line during the running portion.

But what if you're an Olympian-level athlete?

Be careful of where you put the norm. Adventurers, even if they're not superhuman, are near or at the peak of human physical capabilities. That's what a score of 16+ means. A level 20 barbarian (CON/STR of 24) is literally beyond the scope of human ability. Even a score of 15 is probably in the top 10% or better. And that's a normal starting score without a racial bonus.

Yes, this breaks down a bit for those with normal physical scores, but the need for consistency in game rules is important as well.

[Tanarii]

Conversely tour typical wizard, sorcerer, rogue, monk, many warlocks, and some rangers have Str 8 or 10. Below or at the norm for commoners. Yet they can do the same thing.

If there were some bonus based on Str, the argument might make sense. But you're talking about a baseline, then trying to use above average scores to show the baseline is reasonable.

That said, I've come around to the baseline being pretty reasonable. :smallwink:

[JBPuffin]

Most of my groups have just run on "speed of cool" for combat, honestly. You want to do something awesome? Slow-mo it is!

[Knaight]

Conversely tour typical wizard, sorcerer, rogue, monk, many warlocks, and some rangers have Str 8 or 10. Below or at the norm for commoners. Yet they can do the same thing.

This is in the context of commoners largely being laborers who put in long hours at physical tasks - baseline strength there is higher than in a modern society.

[chiefwaha]

My problem with 6 second rounds isn't what can happen each round, sees reasonably decent abstraction into a game.

My problem is that from first contact to end of combat is usually less than 30 seconds. This feels far more off than 6 second rounds.

[Ionathus]

This is reminding me of my stage combat class back in college. Really useful for learning the difference between an actual fight and a fight for entertainment purposes. One very important consideration is that in a stage/film fight, the combat needs to be exciting...but it also needs to be understandable. Things move too quickly in a real fight for an audience to properly follow along and have all the reactions you want, which is how you get telegraphing and Flynning (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flynning). And that's not a bad thing! I have been disappointed by many action movies where the fight might be technically solid, but hard to narratively follow.

However, D&D is not a visual medium, it's an auditory one. That means we see the attacks and parries in our imagination, which changes the terms of how those attacks are presented. In a way, we can get the best of both worlds: all the speed and skill of a real fight, with all of the flashiness of a stage/film fight. It's fantasy, we can get away with it.

But we also run into a kind of cognitive dissonance when we try to get the best of both worlds like that. A skilled fighter could absolutely make several attacks in the span of 6 seconds, but they wouldn't be as flashy and cool as we imagine them. Trying to make both of them agree with each other can lead to some headaches if you think about it too hard. My own personal approach is to let it be high fantasy, where fighters can defy physics to do multiple cool attacks. But nothing says you can't change the time frame, if you prefer a less comic-book pacing.

ninja edit:

My problem with 6 second rounds isn't what can happen each round, sees reasonably decent abstraction into a game.

My problem is that from first contact to end of combat is usually less than 30 seconds. This feels far more off than 6 second rounds.

Real fights can absolutely last on the order of seconds, rather than minutes. [Citation: my short-lived fencing career]

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: was it not Shakespeare who say "6 seconds is too short, and yet 45 days too long, 'ere a thread Necromancied be."