D&D General I Do Declare! Do you? (POLL)

[Lanefan]

Oddly enough, "losing" an action has never played in all my years of gaming with always declaring actions. At worst, character might have had to change targets for an attack or spell if the original target was dead or out of sight, but that's about it.

Ah, then you're using modified declarations; as in 1e by the book you also had to pre-declare your target.

That said, your way makes tons more sense.

I don't have any issue with using declarations as it makes sense to me from playing this way for so long. Our biggest reason in trying NOT using it was to see if things sped up, which so far it seems to have done so.

We don't use them but I wouldn't mind getting back to them at least at a general level: "I'm casting a spell this round" is your declaration and commits you to a spell but not until your turn do you have to decide what that spell is or where it's going; "I'm attacking with my mace" commits you to melee but not to a specific target; "I'm keeping a lookout, sword in hand" commits you to doing nothing other than keeping watch unless melee comes to you; and so forth.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

We don't use them but I wouldn't mind getting back to them at least at a general level: "I'm casting a spell this round" is your declaration and commits you to a spell but not until your turn do you have to decide what that spell is or where it's going; "I'm attacking with my mace" commits you to melee but not to a specific target; "I'm keeping a lookout, sword in hand" commits you to doing nothing other than keeping watch unless melee comes to you; and so forth.

Doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose though? It makes sense to me that if you are being locked into an action it is because the spell has already begun, or the weapon has started to be swung (which makes sense with 1e casting times and weapon speeds). And if that's the case, it seems that if your target becomes invalid (or heck, really if they even move somewhere you weren't planning for), that you should lose your action. The whole point is that you are acting throughout the round and not able to wait because you have to start acting immediately in order to get anything done.

But, I've always hated declared initiative anyway, so there may be something I just "don't get" overall.

 

[Big J Money]

It doesn't defeat the purpose if said purpose is to speed up combat. The "declare ahead" style of turn action meets more than one purpose:

• It can speed up combat
• It can simulate the chaos of battle
• It lets all players pay attention to all of the combat, not just their turn
• It can reduce (unneeded, IMO) combat complexity
• It's slightly more realistic to have action resolving simultaneously than in a freeze-frame, turn-based system

I use "declare ahead" for all of the above reasons, but someone could pick a subset if they wanted.

 

[Lanefan]

Doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose though?

Not at all.

Declaration, the way I'd like to see it done, would only lock you into a general action as noted in examples above; but it would determine what you had in hand ready to use (spell components, or a melee weapon, or a bow, or a potion, etc.) and to change this would cost you your action...or, more accurately, would become your action when your init. came around.

It makes sense to me that if you are being locked into an action it is because the spell has already begun, or the weapon has started to be swung (which makes sense with 1e casting times and weapon speeds). And if that's the case, it seems that if your target becomes invalid (or heck, really if they even move somewhere you weren't planning for), that you should lose your action. The whole point is that you are acting throughout the round and not able to wait because you have to start acting immediately in order to get anything done.

Oddly enough, pre-declaration makes far more sense in 3e-4e-5e than it does in 1e; simply because the rounds are so short (just a few seconds, as opposed to a minute in RAW 1e) there's not enough time to change what you're holding anyway unless that's all you do for the round.

But, I've always hated declared initiative anyway, so there may be something I just "don't get" overall.

I'm not a fan of the type of declaration that commits you to attacking the third goblin on the right even if that goblin is dead or fled long before your turn comes up; that's the sort of thing that leads to the many quite-valid objections seen in this thread. But I do like the idea of a bit of pre-commitment in a general sense, if only to avoid a character changing what's in its hands three times before finally doing something, all within the same round.

I'm also not in any way a fan of cyclic initiative nor a host of other aspects of how 3e-4e-5e do initiative, but that's a different topic.

 

[jasper]

Our table never declares until their turn. I just wish they declare faster.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I voted never, since we've never used declaration in 5e.

Back in the day, however, I did play in one or two 2e games that used it.

 

[Hriston]

We generally declare actions before rolling initiative in the first round of combat. This is because combat is usually kicked off by either the DM or one of the players declaring an action that requires combat to begin. At that point, I’ll go around the table and ask everyone what they do in response before asking for initiative. After that, we go to declare and resolve on your turn.

 

[Beleriphon]

The closest I ever got was inverse initiative. Basically the slowest guy says what he does first, but gets resolved last. Did that briefly, didn't really work.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The closest I ever got was inverse initiative. Basically the slowest guy says what he does first, but gets resolved last. Did that briefly, didn't really work.

That is actually how some other games work. IIRC, Shadowrun was one of them I think.

 

[Beleriphon]

That is actually how some other games work. IIRC, Shadowrun was one of them I think.

Shadowrun kind of does that, but also has an initiate tier. So with wired reflexes and other stuff you could be acting, three or four times easily. Getting upwards of eight actions per initiative count was entirely possible compared to some characters one action.