[4E] "Your turn?"

[Kromm]

GURPS is set up so that wizards casting one-second, non-Missile spells are no worse off than warriors swinging swords at close range. It takes a second and an Attack to strike with a sword. It takes a second and a Concentrate to fire off a one-second Regular or Area spell. A warrior who dislikes this reality has many options and, probably, most of the advantages. Notably:

• The warrior needs good DX and HT anyhow (notice how IQ and Magery, at 20 and 10 points per level, parallel DX and HT?), so he ought to have the better Basic Speed and act first in any event. If the wizard is close, the warrior can hit him and either take him out or injure him, giving him a penalty to cast, before he even gets his turn. If the wizard is distant, the warrior can back off even more, making the wizard's range penalty intolerably large.
  
  
• The warrior can just shoot the wizard with a missile weapon if he prefers not to spend the turn charging. In fact, the warrior has the edge if he stays distant, because the wizard is at -1 per yard to cast non-Missile spells while the warrior uses standard range penalties! At 10 yards, the wizard is at -10 while the warrior is only at -4. The wizard can try for parity by casting a (fatiguing, easily dodged) Missile spell, but while the spell is cast in one second, the wizard can't attack with it until his next turn (with an Attack maneuver). This gives the warrior an extra chance to attack the wizard . . . who's holding a Missile spell that could get dangerously out of control!
  
  
• Non-Missile spells useful in combat are generally Resisted in any event. The warrior already has a good HT for resisting some spells, and can if he chooses invest in a bit of Will -- at half the cost of Magery, and 1/4 the cost of IQ -- to resist most of the rest. Given that the range penalty of -1 per yard affects the wizard's effective skill in the Quick Contest, the warrior's odds are excellent.
  
  
• Most of the really powerful spells -- including those that circumvent some of these other drawbacks -- take more than a second to cast, giving the warrior additional chances to attack the wizard.

Built on the same points, it's very unlikely that the wizard will have magical abilities and a high Basic Speed -- and if he does, then the point level is probably high enough that the warrior should have legendary HT, Basic Speed, and missile weapon skills. It's actually quite balanced. The problem arises when the warrior does something stupid, like charge the wizard just in time to be at close range when the wizard casts a multi-second spell, or when the warrior neglects important elements of his vocation, like missile weapon skills and a good HT.

The key thing to remember is that, unlike in That Other Game, it's wizards who want their enemies up close and warriors who have the means to rain down death from afar. Yes, warriors are most deadly at melee range . . . but wizard-slaying is a special situation, and calls for the same caution, distance, and respect as hunting a basilisk, life-sucking vampire, venomous wyrm, etc. Where some games make warrior vs. wizard something like infantry vs. artillery, GURPS makes it more like rifleman vs. flamethrower.

[Philomath]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

in reality faster people get the advantage of setting the flow, but slower people get to respond to what the faster people do.

that's the point of the wait manoeuvre, let's fast person take advantage of the speed, while also gaining the advantage responding to slower people choices

and rules at written P1 does not care about P2 All out defence. because it hasn't happen yet. until their first action they are considered to be "do nothing"

Did someone hack your account or did you hire a secretary? I didn't have to use my decoder ring for this post!

[roguebfl]

nope, only switched to firefox and an upgraded version of spellbound.

[Stephane_Theriault]

Originally Posted by DaRKBeTo

I have to say that, Lowest sequence declares, highest goes first... it's a better way to handle it because when the fastest gets to act you (The GM) already know which kind of defenses the slower player has (acording to the manuver chosen by him) otherwise turns get blurry...

- GM: P1 what do you do?
- P1: I attack P2 (6.0)
- GM: Ok, when P1 attacks P2... wait, what where you doing P2?, casting a spell?
- P2: mmm... no, All Out Defence :D (5.0)
- GM: P3 what do you do?
- P3 Well since P2 is on a All Out Defence I will ready my Flail [to smash him on my next turn ;)] (5.5)

Not exactly. P2 can only declare an All-Out defense on his turn. When P1 attacks him, unless he has used AoD the turn before, he is stuck with his normal defense.

So P1 attacks, and P2 defends normally. Then P3 attacks, and P2 defends normally. Then P2 can do whatever he wants: AoD, cast a spell, etc.

[Kromm]

It's pretty clear that at least some confusion comes from the perception that there's a universal "turn" and that everyone acts during this "turn" in order of some "initiative number." Basically, that's wrong. Combat is a series of turns taken in order of Basic Speed, and each person's turn is unique to him. When a person gets his next turn . . . it simply means that a second has passed since he last acted. Effects that started on one of his previous turns mark another second, but there's no "universal turn clock" to which such things answer. If he did an All-Out Attack on his turn, then he's defenseless until his next turn, not until the slowest guy has his turn and the sequence starts over again with the fastest guy. If he casts a spell that lasts 10 seconds on another guy, it ends ten turns down the road for for him, the caster -- not ten seconds from now on some "turn clock."

Turns flow in a continuous cycle: 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .. The time from 1 to 1, from 2 to 2, from 3 to 3, or from 4 to 4 is always one second. All other pairs -- from 1 to 2, from 1 to 3, etc. -- have indeterminate lengths less than one second. Nothing special happens between 4 and 1, either; {1, 2, 3, 4} is no more or less important than {2, 3, 4, 1}, {3, 4, 1, 2}, or {4, 1, 2, 3}.

When people do assume that there's a universal turn during which each person acts, and that each cycle {1, 2, 3, 4} has a definite beginning and end for everyone, all at the same time, misconceptions arise. One misconception is that it's possible to reorder actions within the sequence. It isn't. If you decide via some house rule that next turn, {1, 2, 3, 4} will become {4, 2, 3, 1}, then you'll end up with 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 1, and fighter 4 will get two actions without interruption while poor fighter 1 has to wait for all of his enemies pound on him twice before he can do a darn thing. Maneuvers such as All-Out Attack assume that all of your foes will get a turn during which they may attack you; defenses are set up so that foes won't get two turns in which to saturate your defenses before you can act again. Reordering is also unwise because it plays hob with effect durations. To use my reordering example, the time from 1 to 1 clearly isn't the same as the time from 4 to 4. In short, things break -- badly.

Another misconception is that because there's a universal turn, fighters are required to declare their actions before it begins, and then perform their actions in some order. Then a new turn begins. This, too, is broken. Fighter 2 is acting a little bit after 1, and responding to him; 3 is acting a little bit after 2, and responding to 1 and 2; and so on. Fighters can't declare because they're in mid-action until their next turn. Only fighter 1 has fully resolved his action and started a new one when 1 comes up again. Fighter 2 is still doing something else.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Another misconception is that because there's a universal turn, fighters are required to declare their actions before it begins, and then perform their actions in some order. Then a new turn begins. This, too, is broken. Fighter 2 is acting a little bit after 1, and responding to him; 3 is acting a little bit after 2, and responding to 1 and 2; and so on. Fighters can't declare because they're in mid-action until their next turn. Only fighter 1 has fully resolved his action and started a new one when 1 comes up again. Fighter 2 is still doing something else.

Though in the Case of Wait Fighter 2 can do something that Triggers Fighter 1 already started Wait action

[Bruno]

... I keep looking for a way to mod Kromms posts up as "insightful".

Any place we can get these archived somewhere? In the FAQ, perhaps? We certainly get this kind of question popping up periodically.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Bruno

... I keep looking for a way to mod Kromms posts up as "insightful".

Any place we can get these archived somewhere? In the FAQ, perhaps? We certainly get this kind of question popping up periodically.

Well 3e had the "Kromm notes"

the FAQ is one place for some of this, someone could [with Kromm's permission] also post them to the GURPS Wiki...

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Though in the Case of Wait Fighter 2 can do something that Triggers Fighter 1 already started Wait action

Sure. Wait is the explicit, system-supported, and balanced way to handle the fact that turns overlap and can in principle interact and interrupt.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

nope, only switched to firefox and an upgraded version of spellbound.

Wow.. Looks good! Maybe I'll have to switch over.