On page 204 of the book, it reads "Rounds can represent roughly a minute or so in time, although the elapsed time is deliberately not specified."

Personally, I choose to GM a 5-10 second round since it far, far, far better represents the maximum 2 maneuvers any PC can perform in any single round.

But my question is this: Why did this version of the role playing game have text saying "one minute"? All the previous books had a very specific time: 6 seconds.

Why do I think this a problem? Because while it's true that some actions in combat (especially some that involve the Force) should take a complete minute (or longer) to perform, most of the other actions/maneuver can easily be accomplished multiple times in that same time span.

Example: Run to the end of a football field. The average person can do so in about 30 seconds while an Olympic athlete can do it in just over 10 seconds (for men, 11 seconds for women). In this game, I would judge a football field, from one end to another, to be about 3 range bands. And yet, a PC cannot run half that distance in one minute (one Round)!

Another place this comes up is when we talk about parry and reflect. Virtually everyone agrees that, since reflects do not... umm... reflect (at least the way we see them do it in the movies), the idea is that the baddies shot multiple times and they reflected most but not all of the bolts... OK..... When I control the baddies and I don't use multi-shot, when I only target one person, or I use an aimed shot or a sniper shot, nobody at the table then believes that the bad guy shot multiple times over the course of one minute. He shot once. Once. So, reflect either reflects it away or it doesn't. Wait!! You are saying the bolt DID reflect but then reflected BACK into the Force user! OK... What if the PC has Improved Reflect??? In that case, he reflects the shot into himself which then bounces off himself and hits the bad guy?

You see my issue.... If rounds were set at 5-10 seconds, we now rightly believe, one shot, one reflect. If the round was 5-10 seconds, the 2 maneuver limit makes a lot more sense.

In this forum, I see far too many GMs sticking solidly to a one minute round when the book doesn't even suggest it. It itself says "the elapsed time is deliberately not specified." So, even though I run my games at 5-10 second combat rounds, it seems I'm not the norm and most are sticking to 1 minute.

So, I would like to hear from you guys. Why, oh why, was the 6 second combat rule canned and why do so many GMs appear to use 1 minute combat rounds? Thanks!

I'm AFB right now, but I think you're confusing "rounds" and "turns". A round is how long it takes for everybody to get a turn. A turn is what each PC does. There's nothing to stop you from deciding a turn is 6 seconds, which means a round is 6 seconds * number of participants.

Just MHO, I think the time is not specific because, first, they want to encourage the idea of not sweating those details; and second, to include the idea that turns might overlap somewhat. If a hacker starts slicing into a computer while the rest of the team provides cover fire, his turn can more easily be narrated as taking most of the round (hacking in 6 seconds is ridiculous), while those providing cover fire might represent shorter periods. This saves time and space because it means the game system doesn't have to get into defining all activities in terms of # of turns. I've seen those tables in other games (Shadowrun perhaps?) and I'm glad to be rid of them. With this system they don't matter anymore.

Ok this is a complex question.

First of no attack is a single shot, even Aiming isn't.

The best way to think about a Manoeuvre is that it's your character choosing to focus more of their time on that task, all while they do many other small tasks at the same time, dodging and weaving, talking, observing, shooting

Moving means your making an effort to cover ground... but your not JUST moving.

Aiming means your making EXTRA effort to target your foe instead of doing other things. You need to understand that Characters are ALWAYS trying their best to hit, but if they are moving they have less time to focus on that task.

So why do we stick to 1 minute? It's not exact, but it's a nice round number that everyone can easily conceptualise but still provides enough time to keep the flexibility of the narrative system.

Given the rane bands 6 seconds would be way too short given that would mean in 1 round you could cover the same distance that a blaater pistol can be effectively fired. So new speed records for sprinting.

As noted this isnt a system where one roll is one discrete action it could be several. A melee combqt check for example. Could be narrated as, "you sneak up behind your oppoent and plant your vibroblade carefully in your enemies weak spot doing massive damage from that single hit, you pull back for a more defensice stance as your opponent turns angrily, and in pain to face you, the colour draining from his face due to blood loss, or the sqme combqt check coukd be narrated - you make several fients and parries as you and your opponent do the dance of death , each taking a small advantage here and there, whike keeping yourself safe, you manage several smaller cuts until you land a more significant hit to his thigh, you csn see that your opponent is tiring and you take the time to settle into a more defensive stance as your opponent goes on the offensive.

The first of these was perhaps 10 seconds total, the last could have been 2 minutes for all we know.

Just MHO, I think the time is not specific because, first, they want to encourage the idea of not sweating those details; and second, to include the idea that turns might overlap somewhat. If a hacker starts slicing into a computer while the rest of the team provides cover fire, his turn can more easily be narrated as taking most of the round (hacking in 6 seconds is ridiculous), while those providing cover fire might represent shorter periods. This saves time and space because it means the game system doesn't have to get into defining all activities in terms of # of turns. I've seen those tables in other games (Shadowrun perhaps?) and I'm glad to be rid of them. With this system they don't matter anymore.

I completely agree with this. As of now, after many, many sessions with my players, the timing of a round has never come up (I bring it up because I'm curious about why they did this) . This system definitely does a good job of helping the players forget using time as a specific mechanic as other systems did. However, a one minute round is a massive change from the previous 6 seconds (of course, the previous games were Wizards of the West Coast, so not FF system). This game is very, very unforgiving about a PC ever only doing two maneuvers in any round while at the same time allowing for a very large amount of time to take place within that given round.

Ok this is a complex question.

First of no attack is a single shot, even Aiming isn't.

The best way to think about a Manoeuvre is that it's your character choosing to focus more of their time on that task, all while they do many other small tasks at the same time, dodging and weaving, talking, observing, shooting

Moving means your making an effort to cover ground... but your not JUST moving.

Aiming means your making EXTRA effort to target your foe instead of doing other things. You need to understand that Characters are ALWAYS trying their best to hit, but if they are moving they have less time to focus on that task.

So why do we stick to 1 minute? It's not exact, but it's a nice round number that everyone can easily conceptualise but still provides enough time to keep the flexibility of the narrative system.

If a PC or an NPC is using a slug-thrower with one bullet left, it is a single shot. Also, neither myself or my players ever role-play firing multiple shots unless they use multi-fire. Aiming, in most cases, implies even more strongly a PC or NPC is taking a single shot since, as we see in the movies, when the characters are firing quickly they miss a lot but the few times you see them stop and aim, they mostly take a single shot. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong but I can't find anywhere in the source book where it describes making an attack is normally (via role-playing, not mechanics) multiple shots. Perhaps you can point me the right direction.

In the case of maneuvers, I agree that in a combat situation where a player is being peppered by fire, he is going to take a bit longer to get to his destination. But what about the case where a PC runs away and his pathway is free from all combat? In that case, the two maneuver rule makes very little sense since, as I pointed out, even us fat, non-heroic people can cover twice that distance inside of the possible one minute round.

It just makes me confused about why they even mentioned one minute. If they had just said, "A round can be anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes. It depends on the situation and the GM," it would have made things so much easier. But by simply mentioning "one minute", we now have GMs in forums touting this as "law" when it appears to have only been a guideline. And then you have confused players wondering why they can't move behind cover, pull a weapon off their belt, aim it, and fire it, because after all, they have one minute to do that.... its just really odd. I could mimic that right now and it would take me less then 20 seconds.

Please understand, I do not think the two maneuver rule is bad, its the one minute combined with the two maneuver rule that gets my head aching....

Perhaps let's look at it another way, both Time and Space are fluid, but their relationship is linked. As time segments get longer the range bands get larger. So if you decide an encounter has short time segments then the ranges will get shorter. But if time segments are longer in the next encounter the so is range.

A manoeuvre therefore is not a measurement of how long something takes, but instead how much of your time RELATIVE TO THOSE AROUND YOU that you dedicate to a particular task.

Performing 2 Maneuvers and an Action in a single round therefore represents you pushing yourself to do more than others, by spending Strain.

Is that more help? Or am I just confusing it?

I can run from one end of a football field to the other pretty fast. Never timed it, but I have a good sprint on me. Funny thing, though, when my boy drags me out to play Airsoft, a hundred yards suddenly becomes a lot farther. Rather than a mad dash from one end to the other, I find myself sprinting twenty yards or so, then diving behind cover as i hear those BB's ricochet all around me. Covering that hundred yards might take me a couple minutes, even if I keep moving, rather than engaging in a firefight. If I try to run that whole distance all at once, I just get covered in welts and have to take a long walk back.

So yeah, sometimes a single round is only a few seconds, like in a chase. Sometimes, though, it will be a little longer.

Regarding the idea that people tend to think "one attack roll equals one blaster shot." I get that. As the GM, it's kinda on you to help break that idea. Say something along the lines of "the Stormtroopers open fire. You dive for cover from the barrage of blaster bolts, but one grazes your flak jacket, causing 8 points of damage." When your players roll Threat and you want to hit them with Strain, near-misses are a great excuse. "You lean out from behind the stone column, firing away with your pistol. One of the Stormtroopers falls to the ground, but their return fire blasts into the column, spraying you with shards of rock and blistering hot gas. Take 3 Strain."

Also Malagus you asked why FFG didn't describe rounds as being "anywhere from 6sec to multiple minutes"

I think the answer could be that they wanted to set a precedent. They wanted to make a point that this system is different.

I completely agree with this. As of now, after many, many sessions with my players, the timing of a round has never come up (I bring it up because I'm curious about why they did this) . This system definitely does a good job of helping the players forget using time as a specific mechanic as other systems did. However, a one minute round is a massive change from the previous 6 seconds (of course, the previous games were Wizards of the West Coast, so not FF system). This game is very, very unforgiving about a PC ever only doing two maneuvers in any round while at the same time allowing for a very large amount of time to take place within that given round.

Just to mention it again, rounds and turns are different things. A turn is what your actions in the round is. The round is the time it takes for everyone involved to have a turn. Your turn might be several seconds, but if there are several individual PCs, individual NPCs, and groups of NPCs all taking their turns in a single round, that round is going to be nebulously long - maybe "roughly a minute or so in time."

The rules are very strict in that no one gets more than two Maneuvers in their turn. However, the rules also allow you to have extra Maneuvers in a given round outside of your turn. These extra Maneuvers are usually at the purview of the GM, but can also come from other rules, Talents, or special abilities.

One way to get an extra Maneuver is if you end up rolling Vigilance (instead of Cool) for initiative and roll a Triumph. Another way is to run an Iktochi character; they also get that bonus when rolling initiative (Vigilance or Cool), and they can give that extra Maneuver to an ally in Short range if they like. Another way is the GM simply saying you may have another Maneuver this round for whatever reason she cites.

Also of note, the Explorer career signature ability Unmatched Mobility allows you a third maneuver during your turn for a couple two to five rounds. Powerful ally...

And of course, unless you are encumbered, the first Maneuver you use in a round is free. Using a second or third or more Maneuver in a round scores you some Strain. Unless you're playing a Xexto or Besalisk; they get an additional free Maneuver per turn.

Reminds me of a story...

Soooo... I'm a Xexto bounty hunter (with the Explorer career). I just got ambushed by my quarry, one deadly and unpredictable ugnaught who loves fire. (I'm not very good at bounty hunting it seems.) I rolled Vigiliance for initiative and got a Triumph. (Yay me!) The initiative order is finalized with a PC slot first and an NPC slot second, and there are no other combatants in this fight. (Yay me again!)

Before my turn begins, I ask the GM to let me use my extra Maneuver this round I gained from my initiative roll Triumph. It's my first for the round, so it's free. I use it to grab my blaster rifle from where I laid it down very close by. It is now my turn in the round. As an incidental, I spend Destiny Points to activate the Unmatched Mobility ability, and I'll get three Maneuvers each turn for the next two rounds. (XP well spent a couple sessions ago!)

Since I'm a Xexto, I get an extra free Maneuver each turn. On my first Maneuver, I use it to roll behind a nearby boulder that will hopefully give me some partial cover against his flame thrower. (There's my freebie Xexto Maneuver.) Then I collect 2 Strain to Aim. Then I'll spend my third Maneuver to rack up a second Aim at the cost of 2 more Strain, of course. I'll use my sole Action to shoot my 40-watt range phased blaster rifle and.... miss. (Gah. I'm gettin' too old for this poodoo. But hey, at least I got four Maneuvers this round!)

On page 204 of the book, it reads "Rounds can represent roughly a minute or so in time, although the elapsed time is deliberately not specified."

Personally, I choose to GM a 5-10 second round since it far, far, far better represents the maximum 2 maneuvers any PC can perform in any single round.

But my question is this: Why did this version of the role playing game have text saying "one minute"? All the previous books had a very specific time: 6 seconds.

Why do I think this a problem? Because while it's true that some actions in combat (especially some that involve the Force) should take a complete minute (or longer) to perform, most of the other actions/maneuver can easily be accomplished multiple times in that same time span.

Example: Run to the end of a football field. The average person can do so in about 30 seconds while an Olympic athlete can do it in just over 10 seconds (for men, 11 seconds for women). In this game, I would judge a football field, from one end to another, to be about 3 range bands. And yet, a PC cannot run half that distance in one minute (one Round)!

Another place this comes up is when we talk about parry and reflect. Virtually everyone agrees that, since reflects do not... umm... reflect (at least the way we see them do it in the movies), the idea is that the baddies shot multiple times and they reflected most but not all of the bolts... OK..... When I control the baddies and I don't use multi-shot, when I only target one person, or I use an aimed shot or a sniper shot, nobody at the table then believes that the bad guy shot multiple times over the course of one minute. He shot once. Once. So, reflect either reflects it away or it doesn't. Wait!! You are saying the bolt DID reflect but then reflected BACK into the Force user! OK... What if the PC has Improved Reflect??? In that case, he reflects the shot into himself which then bounces off himself and hits the bad guy?

You see my issue.... If rounds were set at 5-10 seconds, we now rightly believe, one shot, one reflect. If the round was 5-10 seconds, the 2 maneuver limit makes a lot more sense.

In this forum, I see far too many GMs sticking solidly to a one minute round when the book doesn't even suggest it. It itself says "the elapsed time is deliberately not specified." So, even though I run my games at 5-10 second combat rounds, it seems I'm not the norm and most are sticking to 1 minute.

So, I would like to hear from you guys. Why, oh why, was the 6 second combat rule canned and why do so many GMs appear to use 1 minute combat rounds? Thanks!

All three core books describe rounds as roughly a minute. They all have the same text in the same section. Which books refer to a 6 second round? Or are you referring to previous editions by other companies?

But by simply mentioning "one minute", we now have GMs in forums touting this as "law" when it appears to have only been a guideline.

That's not FFG's fault. I don't know who those GMs are, but they must have the attention span of a gnat. It's clearly a guideline, because the second half of the paragraph is "...the elapsed time is deliberately not specified", and it's clarified even further in the next paragraph. The "one minute" note is meant to provide general context and boundaries. Basically, it isn't 6 seconds, where each swing of your arm or pull of the trigger is accounted for. And it's not 5 minutes where an entire duel back and forth is accounted for in a single roll. It's somewhere in the middle.

I don't get why it's a problem.

The reflect question can be answered by, when you reflect you don't reflect all of the bullet

It's also because, like hit points, wounds don't have to (and often dont) represent noteworthy damage, or even any real damage at all. It's your nicks, cuts, bumps, bruises and plot armor. It's the crits that are actual registered injuries that show up on screen.

It seems like a lot of the difference is in your narration style. If you and your players narrate more of the things that they're doing in a round, then a longer time period is more appropriate. If you're only narrating each combat check as a single pull of the trigger or swing of a weapon, then I could see a shorter round making sense to you. As far as movement, it's intentionally fuzzy, but it's important to remember the difference between narrative play and structured play.

Outside of structured gameplay, your characters can cover any distance in "plot" amount of time. Range bands are still relevant, but only in abstract fashion. Inside structured gameplay, don't be afraid to adjust range bands to suit the situation; short range on a well-lit plain is going to be different than short range in a snowstorm. To use your own example, there's no reason that a PC can't cover more distance running down a hallway when no-one is shooting at him/her. In that case, the range bands for that PC, in that situation, are different than they are for rest of the party that's defending a bunker doorway against two squads of stormtroopers.

My point is that in the narrative system everything is relative. It's all geared toward re-creating a cinematic experience and you don't need to hold to hard-and-fast rules interpretations. You don't even need to interpret the same situation the same way the next time it arises if the context leads you in a different direction. In that respect, it's a lot like the Whose Line Is It, Anyway? tagline: "the rules are made up and the points don't matter." That's an imperfect comparison, of course, but I hope you take my meaning.

Los of awesome responses. Thanks to all of you! Myself and two of my players have been playing star wars rpg systems going back a decade and I think that is why we think in terms of combat rounds being single actions/maneuvers. As was pointed out, FFG has gone to great lengths to differentiate their game from others. If you embrace their system, combat flows so much easier but if you start thinking in terms of 5-10 second combat rounds, it feels odd or even wrong. As you have all pointed out, you really do need to embrace the spirit they are trying to come up with; a flowing, dynamic system that is built more on narrative play (from both players and GM) rather than a more mechanical system that the d20 embraced.

Personally, I will now be working on adjusting my GM style to be more in line worth with what FFG has outlined. It will be far better for the players that way. Thanks for the assistance and I'll let you know later how it's gone. Thanks again!

Just to mention it again, rounds and turns are different things. A turn is what your actions in the round is. The round is the time it takes for everyone involved to have a turn. Your turn might be several seconds, but if there are several individual PCs, individual NPCs, and groups of NPCs all taking their turns in a single round, that round is going to be nebulously long - maybe "roughly a minute or so in time."

The rules are very strict in that no one gets more than two Maneuvers in their turn. However, the rules also allow you to have extra Maneuvers in a given round outside of your turn. These extra Maneuvers are usually at the purview of the GM, but can also come from other rules, Talents, or special abilities.

One way to get an extra Maneuver is if you end up rolling Vigilance (instead of Cool) for initiative and roll a Triumph. Another way is to run an Iktochi character; they also get that bonus when rolling initiative (Vigilance or Cool), and they can give that extra Maneuver to an ally in Short range if they like. Another way is the GM simply saying you may have another Maneuver this round for whatever reason she cites.

Also of note, the Explorer career signature ability Unmatched Mobility allows you a third maneuver during your turn for a couple two to five rounds. Powerful ally...

And of course, unless you are encumbered, the first Maneuver you use in a round is free. Using a second or third or more Maneuver in a round scores you some Strain. Unless you're playing a Xexto or Besalisk; they get an additional free Maneuver per turn.

Reminds me of a story...

Soooo... I'm a Xexto bounty hunter (with the Explorer career). I just got ambushed by my quarry, one deadly and unpredictable ugnaught who loves fire. (I'm not very good at bounty hunting it seems.) I rolled Vigiliance for initiative and got a Triumph. (Yay me!) The initiative order is finalized with a PC slot first and an NPC slot second, and there are no other combatants in this fight. (Yay me again!)

Before my turn begins, I ask the GM to let me use my extra Maneuver this round I gainede

Just to mention it again, rounds and turns are different things. A turn is what your actions in the round is. The round is the time it takes for everyone involved to have a turn. Your turn might be several seconds, but if there are several individual PCs, individual NPCs, and groups of NPCs all taking their turns in a single round, that round is going to be nebulously long - maybe "roughly a minute or so in time."

The rules are very strict in that no one gets more than two Maneuvers in their turn. However, the rules also allow you to have extra Maneuvers in a given round outside of your turn. These extra Maneuvers are usually at the purview of the GM, but can also come from other rules, Talents, or special abilities.

One way to get an extra Maneuver is if you end up rolling Vigilance (instead of Cool) for initiative and roll a Triumph. Another way is to run an Iktochi character; they also get that bonus when rolling initiative (Vigilance or Cool), and they can give that extra Maneuver to an ally in Short range if they like. Another way is the GM simply saying you may have another Maneuver this round for whatever reason she cites.

Also of note, the Explorer career signature ability Unmatched Mobility allows you a third maneuver during your turn for a couple two to five rounds. Powerful ally...

And of course, unless you are encumbered, the first Maneuver you use in a round is free. Using a second or third or more Maneuver in a round scores you some Strain. Unless you're playing a Xexto or Besalisk; they get an additional free Maneuver per turn.

Reminds me of a story...

Soooo... I'm a Xexto bounty hunter (with the Explorer career). I just got ambushed by my quarry, one deadly and unpredictable ugnaught who loves fire. (I'm not very good at bounty hunting it seems.) I rolled Vigiliance for initiative and got a Triumph. (Yay me!) The initiative order is finalized with a PC slot first and an NPC slot second, and there are no other combatants in this fight. (Yay me again!)

Before my turn begins, I ask the GM to let me use my extra Maneuver this round I gainede

For info 4 armed races don't get an extra free maneuver. They get an additional free maneuver, meaning that they can use a second maneuver without paying 2 strain.

Which is how I used it in my example story. The Xexto ended up having 4 Maneuvers in that first round of combat and took on Strain for the third and fourth. The first was free because your first Maneuver in a round is free (unless you are encumbered.) The second, his first in his turn, was free because of Xexto. The third was not free; it was his second Maneuver for the turn. The final Maneuver, which was the third in his turn, came from the Unmatched Mobility signature ability. He took on two more Strain from that.

But, you are correct. I should have used the word "additional" when relaying the story instead of "extra." Two paragraphs up, when I first mentioned the Xexto and Besalisk special abilities, I did say additional. I bolded it in the quoted bit.

It goes to show, though, this game uses very specific terminology and language in its rules and mechanics. Additional and extra maybe similar words, but does not always mean the same thing in the rules. Same with round and turn.

Thanks!

Which is how I used it in my example story. The Xexto ended up having 4 Maneuvers in that first round of combat and took on Strain for the third and fourth. The first was free because your first Maneuver in a round is free (unless you are encumbered.) The second, his first in his turn, was free because of Xexto. The third was not free; it was his second Maneuver for the turn. The final Maneuver, which was the third in his turn, came from the Unmatched Mobility signature ability. He took on two more Strain from that.

The Xexto's "free" second maneuver still counts towards the maximum number of maneuvers allowed per turn, which is still 2. All it means is a Xexto can max out maneuvers without Strain. The final maneuver should have been his third from Unmatched Mobility.

Which is how I used it in my example story. The Xexto ended up having 4 Maneuvers in that first round of combat and took on Strain for the third and fourth. The first was free because your first Maneuver in a round is free (unless you are encumbered.) The second, his first in his turn, was free because of Xexto. The third was not free; it was his second Maneuver for the turn. The final Maneuver, which was the third in his turn, came from the Unmatched Mobility signature ability. He took on two more Strain from that.

The Xexto's "free" second maneuver still counts towards the maximum number of maneuvers allowed per turn, which is still 2. All it means is a Xexto can max out maneuvers without Strain. The final maneuver should have been his third from Unmatched Mobility.

Right. But remember, he ended up with an extra, out of turn Maneuver from rolling a Triumph in his Vigilance initiative check. He used that prior to his turn, so it was his first Maneuver of the round. I suppose he could have taken Strain from that one and then had two free ones in the turn. Either way.

The effect of a Triumph on a Vigilance check on initiative is to give another free maneuver during your first turn (i.e. you can take 2 maneuvers on your first turn of the combat without taking any strain). It is specifically not out-of-turn. So a besilisk or xexto wouldn't get a bonus from that particular use of a triumph. The iktotchi special ability is specifically before the first round of combat, which does add up to three maneuvers (or four, with Unmatched Mobility) by the end of the first round.

There is the Pathfinders Quick Movement ability too, although that's limited to Move manoeuvres

The effect of a Triumph on a Vigilance check on initiative is to give another free maneuver during your first turn (i.e. you can take 2 maneuvers on your first turn of the combat without taking any strain). It is specifically not out-of-turn. So a besilisk or xexto wouldn't get a bonus from that particular use of a triumph. The iktotchi special ability is specifically before the first round of combat, which does add up to three maneuvers (or four, with Unmatched Mobility) by the end of the first round.

Because I'm paranoid about posting wrong information, I tend to double check rules. But, here is what the text under the Vigilance skill description says on page 119 of the EoE core and page 131 in the AoR core.

"[Triumph] may be spent to allow the character to take an extra maneuver during the first round of combat, as his keen awareness alerts him to a situation before it even arises. See page 200 [213 for AoR, 204 for FnD] for more information, and remember characters can only take a maximum of two maneuvers in their turn."

The FnD core (page 129) words it slightly differently, suggesting the extra maneuver can only be "used at the beginning" of the first round of combat, as opposed to any time during the first round.

Page EoE 200 [AoR 213, FnD 204], under Maneuvers Outside a Character's Turn, the rules state bonus maneuvers gained outside of the turn do not count towards the limit of two maneuvers per turn.

For me, putting those two things together is where I began to realize awhile ago that "round" and "turn" are different things. So, I'm sorry, but the extra maneuver granted from a Vigilance-based initiative check specifically is out of turn. Depending on which core you're using, the extra maneuver is either used at the beginning of the round before turns begin, or anywhere in the first round as long as it is not during your turn (and I would think, not during someone else's turn either; that could be rude and/or confusing).

I shouldn't post examples, I guess. Maybe it was confusing the issue more. My fictional Xexto anecdote was certainly not the focus of my post above (#9). Reiterating and expanding upon whafrog's comment in his post (#2) about the difference between rounds and actions is what I was posting.

I get sooo anxious about posting something wrong that every mechanic I post about gets double/triple checked before I click that button. The community here is super nice. Like, everyone is very cool (with a very few exceptions in the past), and there is a lot of helpful advice and answers everywhere you look. I love this community. I like darn-near all of ya. But... post something incorrect and you get swooped upon. ::shrug::

I don't know who's doing any swooping, I'm not seeing any hostile language. It's a simple misunderstanding and you clarified it. Turns out I was wrong and misunderstood what you were explaining, I read it too quickly and didn't catch everything.

No, no... No swooping in this case. I certainly do not feel swooped here. I'm just explaining why I check, double, and triple check anytime I post about mechanics or rules. Because I don't want to be wrong when I post about that.

Not to say I won't be wrong even after quadruple checking! But I definitely like to know that what I'm posting is accurate.

And, honestly, I thank Absol very much for her post above. It prompted me to look it all up again to make sure I had it down right. Every time I look something up is an opportunity to cement it in my head, but also it is an opportunity to learn some facet I didn't know before.

I still disagree - bringing up the limit on maneuvers per turn wouldn't be needed if the free maneuver could be used at any time during the round, but I'm glad we can be so cordial . In the end, it doesn't really matter - what works for my table and what works for yours is by necessity different, and that's okay!