Are there Rules for Talking during Combat?

[Edgerunner]

I am experienced as a Player only.
New GM and two new players at the table.

Last session one of new players used their Movement, Cast a spell and then went on a 3-4 paragraph statement to the enemy telepathically. Basically he started Monologueing in the enemy's head.

Is there a Rule I can point out about how much a character can Talk during their turn?
Does the fact that he did it telepathically make any difference?

[Raif]

I am experienced as a Player only.
New GM and two new players at the table.

Last session one of new players used their Movement, Cast a spell and then went on a 3-4 paragraph statement to the enemy telepathically. Basically he started Monologueing in the enemy's head.

Is there a Rule I can point out about how much a character can Talk during their turn?
Does the fact that he did it telepathically make any difference?

Technically, a turn is 6 seconds, so action + bonus action + movement + talking. How much can you talk in 6 seconds with doing all that?

I'm unsure if it's written exactly somewhere, but think of it this way. A spell that is 1 minute in duration lasts for 10 rounds, therefore 1 round = six seconds.

[FreddyNoNose]

That is too much imo.

I run 1st edition and while you don't have that specific situation spelled out I would say IN GENERAL: you are doing one thing or another. If you want to talk, you are talking. If you want to cast a spell you are doing that. If you are unsure of what you are going to do, you are using your turn to be unsure.

Someone might point out this or that: That might be an exception to the GENERAL case. Such as telepathy spell which is casting a spell and communicating which seems to violate the GENERAL. It is pretty much common sense and people who want to abuse it will try to pull some BS.

[Ganymede]

"Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move. You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

The rules are pretty clear that, on your turn, you can "communicate however you are able." This would include communication via telepathy if you are so capable.

The communication must be "brief," though. This is not defined concretely, so it is up to your DM to determine whether or not the communication your friend did was brief. You're always free to point out to your DM that a multi sentence statement doesn't seem brief (I certainly would), but he or she is the final arbiter when it comes to rulings like these.

[MaxWilson]

The communication must be "brief," though. This is not defined concretely, so it is up to your DM to determine whether or not the communication your friend did was brief. You're always free to point out to your DM that a multi sentence statement doesn't seem brief (I certainly would), but he or she is the final arbiter when it comes to rulings like these.

Note that you're also free to say, "Okay, you start to say all that, but it will take you three rounds to say it all." Then just run the next two rounds of combat with that monologue as the backdrop in the other guy's head.

[FreddyNoNose]

Note that you're also free to say, "Okay, you start to say all that, but it will take you three rounds to say it all." Then just run the next two rounds of combat with that monologue as the backdrop in the other guy's head.
Obviously someone can keep communicating on further rounds....

[Thrudd]

"Brief communication"- it would have to be no more than can be said in six seconds (I'd time it). If a spell with verbal component is being cast, speaking would be impossible, obviously. I'd debate whether the concentration required to cast any spell, even without verbal components, is great enough that no speaking could happen while casting is occurring.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The main rule of talking during combat is that you must call your attacks.

"Magical Splash Flare!" *kaboom*

[Elric VIII]

Couldn't he talk during other players' turns, too? Is that allowed?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Couldn't he talk during other players' turns, too? Is that allowed?

Not strictly by the rules, but there's always room for exceptions, e.g. Bob runs into the room on his turn and is going to use his action to cut the red or blue wire, Bill might be allowed to shout the colour to cut.

[Laserlight]

I'd debate whether the concentration required to cast any spell, even without verbal components, is great enough that no speaking could happen while casting is occurring.

You can cast instant spells while maintaining concentration on another spell -- and don't need to roll INT or anything to do so. In light of that, I doubt there's a convincing case to say that you can't manage the concentration to cast and talk.

As a DM, I might occasionally let a well done dramatic monologue take place in suspended time. If you're just trash talking the villain, then no, you get a short sentence or two.

[MaxWilson]

Obviously someone can keep communicating on further rounds....

The point is that you don't have to shut him down and say, "No, you can't do that, it's too long." You can say, "Yes, but..."

In this case, "Yes, but it will take multiple rounds."

Easy-peasey. Especially if you're using a better initiative system than the PHB one.

[FreddyNoNose]

The point is that you don't have to shut him down and say, "No, you can't do that, it's too long." You can say, "Yes, but..."

In this case, "Yes, but it will take multiple rounds."

Easy-peasey. Especially if you're using a better initiative system than the PHB one.

Once again. OBVIOUSLY.

[Thrudd]

Couldn't he talk during other players' turns, too? Is that allowed?

All the turns are basically supposed to be happening at the same time, separated only by split seconds. Otherwise a round would last a minute in a combat with ten participants. Six seconds is how long it takes for all participants to take their turns.

[Ronnocius]

Once again. OBVIOUSLY.
No harm in pointing out something, even if it is obvious.

[Asmotherion]

I am experienced as a Player only.
New GM and two new players at the table.

Last session one of new players used their Movement, Cast a spell and then went on a 3-4 paragraph statement to the enemy telepathically. Basically he started Monologueing in the enemy's head.

Is there a Rule I can point out about how much a character can Talk during their turn?
Does the fact that he did it telepathically make any difference?


Technically, a turn is 6 seconds, so action + bonus action + movement + talking. How much can you talk in 6 seconds with doing all that?

I'm unsure if it's written exactly somewhere, but think of it this way. A spell that is 1 minute in duration lasts for 10 rounds, therefore 1 round = six seconds.

This practically.

Was what he did contributing to the plot, or just "I'm going to spam information to the BBEG to Spotlight Steal the attention to me, and make this encounter take more of our valuable session time"?

If the former, just roll with it. No need to nitpick on rules with no good reason.

If the latter, cut him short at some point, and say "end of turn; If you want to add something to that, you'll have to do so on your next initiative".

You don't need rules. You are the DM. You are the rules. Take control of your table. You don't need a Book or a Random person on the Internet to tell you that. You're in charge of making a good story together with your players.

[Pex]

Talking is free. Don't abuse it, but some magnanimity is warranted if players are discussing tactics. The bad guys have perfect coordination and tactics. Why? One person controls them, the DM. The bad guys work with each other at the speed of thought. They know what to do in an instant. In addition, for planned encounters the DM planned their combat tactics. The DM knew there would be a combat, so the bad guys knew there would be a combat and can immediately carry out their plan, whatever the plan is the DM designed.

The party, however, is uncoordinated. They are individuals of separate minds thinking about what their own individual character will do. If they are to coordinate they can only do so at the speed of talk. They didn't know there would be a combat until it happens so have no plan to carry out. Granted that's not universally true. Sometimes the party has scouted a bad guy camp/stronghold and have a plan of attack purposely initiating the combat. In any case the party spends a lot of time together but you only play what's on camera. You don't play the game in real time every minute of every hour traveling or camping or whatever. To closely match the perfect speed of thought tactics of the bad guys, you can presume the party talks among themselves various strategies to synergize their abilities. That plays out as the players talking to each other during the combat. The fighter player isn't really asking the sorcerer player right there in combat to twin Haste on him and the barbarian. It was an idea the fighter, barbarian, and sorcerer have talked about off camera and the sorcerer player carries it out either on his own or the fighter character actually said "Plan H" when the fighter player said "Hey, Bob, how about twinning Haste on Fred and me" when sorcerer player Bob is thinking about what to do.

[Ganymede]

Talking is free. Don't abuse it, but some magnanimity is warranted if players are discussing tactics. The bad guys have perfect coordination and tactics. Why? One person controls them, the DM. The bad guys work with each other at the speed of thought. They know what to do in an instant. In addition, for planned encounters the DM planned their combat tactics. The DM knew there would be a combat, so the bad guys knew there would be a combat and can immediately carry out their plan, whatever the plan is the DM designed.


Wait, what?

Why would the fact that the DM is playing the roles of multiple NPCs imply that the DM is going to play them as some sort of hive mind or swarm? This is beyond absurd.

[Tanarii]

Wait, what?

Why would the fact that the DM is playing the roles of multiple NPCs imply that the DM is going to play them as some sort of hive mind or swarm? This is beyond absurd.
He's talking about the fact that it's a single person making decisions for all the enemies. So he knows what they can do.

Personally I prefer the opposite route, talking in combat means your characters are talking out loud. If you want to make a plan, do it in advance. But he's making a reasonable argument for being fair to the players given the DM's tactical advantage of being one person controlling multiple "characters".

Of course, the DM also has the disadvantage of the mental overhead of controlling multiple "characters", so I'm not sure how much of an advantage it really is.

[Ventruenox]

One of my fellow players is role-playing a GOOlock lawyer with a horrible stutter. The DM has started to let him talk or try to explain something for about 20 seconds real time then just stops him and says "OK, that was your action. Are you going to move at all?"

Both he and your intricate monologue prone player are missing what could be an easy way to accomplish the intricacy they want, but in a realistic fashion. They could project a mental picture or GIF to describe their instructions. If they can announce beforehand the duration of the description, that signals some idea of expectations. ("I use telepathy to project this six second mental image to [Barbarian]: Barbarian goes down the corridor on his left 10 feet to a secret door that opens when he hits it on the rock shaped like Bill Cosby's nose at just over his shoulder height and... What's his movement again? Oh yeah, he'll have to activate that totem ability of his... And comes to the room with the machines I'm in and goes to the second space on this machine and turns the third crank by 270° clockwise. It needs to be him for raging strength advantage. I'll use my reaction to ready an action to try to ping him for my lowest damage when he gets here to keep his rage going")

[Coffee_Dragon]

Wait, what?

Why would the fact that the DM is playing the roles of multiple NPCs imply that the DM is going to play them as some sort of hive mind or swarm? This is beyond absurd.

Haha, my thought when reading that was literally "I can't possibly be the only DM who doesn't play enemies as a hive mind."

[Tanarii]

Both he and your intricate monologue prone player are missing what could be an easy way to accomplish the intricacy they want, but in a realistic fashion. They could project a mental picture or GIF to describe their instructions. If they can announce beforehand the duration of the description, that signals some idea of expectations. ("I use telepathy to project this six second mental image to [Barbarian]: Barbarian goes down the corridor on his left 10 feet to a secret door that opens when he hits it on the rock shaped like Bill Cosby's nose at just over his shoulder height and... What's his movement again? Oh yeah, he'll have to activate that totem ability of his... And comes to the room with the machines I'm in and goes to the second space on this machine and turns the third crank by 270° clockwise. It needs to be him for raging strength advantage. I'll use my reaction to ready an action to try to ping him for my lowest damage when he gets here to keep his rage going")
So the Barb gets a mental image of them raging, going into a room with some machines in it ... and his partymate attacking him?

I'm sure he'll do exactly what he sees. :smalltongue:

[Ventruenox]

Didn't say it was a good plan, just an example of a way that a player may use telepathy to convey a complicated set of instructions within reason and game mechanics. Pictures, thousand words, all that. I was role-playing the role of the player. Tell me you've never had a player present overly complicated, yet moronic ideas at your table.

[Galadhrim]

The point is that you don't have to shut him down and say, "No, you can't do that, it's too long." You can say, "Yes, but..."

In this case, "Yes, but it will take multiple rounds."

Easy-peasey. Especially if you're using a better initiative system than the PHB one.

This is good advice to allow a player to play the character they want without bogging down the game for everyone else, especially if this is something this guy wants to do recurrently.


Once again. OBVIOUSLY.

Obviously it was not obvious, as evidenced by the fact that the OP asked the question and got several very helpful responses and by the fact that you had to yell it a second time.


I am experienced as a Player only.
New GM and two new players at the table.

Last session one of new players used their Movement, Cast a spell and then went on a 3-4 paragraph statement to the enemy telepathically. Basically he started Monologueing in the enemy's head.

Is there a Rule I can point out about how much a character can Talk during their turn?
Does the fact that he did it telepathically make any difference?

In our games players can communicate simple ideas on their turn (ie attack the guy on the right, don't hit this guy right now, stop that goblin with the torch) but 3-4 sentences would not be allowed. Exceptions are sometimes made if the enemy is important to a particular Pc's storyline.
The only other thing I would add is just because you allowed it once doesn't mean you're stuck with that ruling. Explain your decision and why you made it and move on.

[Tanarii]

Tell me you've never had a player present overly complicated, yet moronic ideas at your table.Oh yeah. Heck, when I'm playing, that's usually my job.

Also I got your gist and I think it's pretty neat. I was just poking some fun. :smallwink:

Edit: Unfortunately, it looks like it won't work with a Warlock's Awakened Mind feature. That requires language.

[Pex]

He's talking about the fact that it's a single person making decisions for all the enemies. So he knows what they can do.

Personally I prefer the opposite route, talking in combat means your characters are talking out loud. If you want to make a plan, do it in advance. But he's making a reasonable argument for being fair to the players given the DM's tactical advantage of being one person controlling multiple "characters".

Of course, the DM also has the disadvantage of the mental overhead of controlling multiple "characters", so I'm not sure how much of an advantage it really is.

I will acknowledge that some DMs pull back on speed of thought tactics by randomly determine by die roll which PC a given monster attacks including when in melee with two or more PCs. Sometimes the monster will attack whoever damaged it the most last round. The DM is checking his own bias. I approve of this method and accept it doesn't have to apply for BBEG combat or with one of its Generals.