FormerlyHemlock
Hero
(deleted)
Last edited:
So what happens when they both roll well?
Simultaneous-when-it-doesn't-matter-and-ordered-by-speed-when-it-does is a bit of a mouth full. And still misses the main point of declaring your action being separate from the resolution.
It seems that you make conditional declaration. So you say "I shoot that goblin, or some other one".That's actually a great Segway to explain what I mean by not having a target. So say there are 2 goblins. An archer declares he is targeting the closer one. The closer goblin declares he is going to hide. The archer rolls a 20 on his attack. The goblin rolls a 20 on his stealth. The tiebreaker system is brought out. The goblin wins it. Does the goblin succeeding at his hiding before the archer attacks him invalidate the archers whole turn or is he free now to target the other goblin?
It seems that you make conditional declaration. So you say "I shoot that goblin, or some other one".
Thus if he hides before you shoot, you switch targets. Presumably with the same 20. Otherwise you just out of luck because you spent your time aiming at someone who ran away, which is realistic, and works both ways. If your smart and fast enough, you can easily get people to waste actions.
Only because you called it one thing then talked about another.I acknowledge though that the word "simultaneous" has created confusion. "Concurrent" might be better.
But what if the 4 h.p. puts you down. Did you get your swing in for the 7 in return or not, and if so did that 7 put the foe down?If you haven't rolled initiative for the round, it's because nobody cares what order things happened in. If I hit you and do 7 HP of damage, and you hit me and do 4 HP of damage, and we're both still alive--it doesn't matter who had higher speed. Conceptually someone still landed their blow first but it doesn't matter who. They happened at approximately the same time (concurrently).
I'd say yes; the goblin this time got lucky.That's actually a great Segway to explain what I mean by not having a target. So say there are 2 goblins. An archer declares he is targeting the closer one. The closer goblin declares he is going to hide. The archer rolls a 20 on his attack. The goblin rolls a 20 on his stealth. The tiebreaker system is brought out. The goblin wins it. Does the goblin succeeding at his hiding before the archer attacks him invalidate the archers whole turn
With his next shot, sure; but this one's left an arrow in a tree instead of in a goblin.or is he free now to target the other goblin?
Which is more or less how 1e did it, only with a boatload of fiddly rules on top which very few people (including me) ever fully used.Hemlock said:Yes, separating action from resolution is the key point. Everything else is just an optimization for speed or an elaboration for additional fun. If you're a DM looking for ideas to steal, the big idea I'd recommend to you is "separate action declaration from action resolution." That's where 70-80% of the gains come from.
Or maybe the change in action IS your reaction...you're reacting to the change in situation. Makes sense...Rather than allowing conditional declarations I would consider allowing a change in action, but at disadvantage or perhaps at the cost of your reaction - maybe both. The idea is that you want there to be a cost for having to make last minute adjustments.
You could simply have it beThere should be three possible answers:
- the 7 got the foe first, he's down and I'm still up
- the 4 got me first, I'm down and he's still up
- the hits were simultaneous and we're both down
I would make it a bonus action to switch.Or maybe the change in action IS your reaction...you're reacting to the change in situation. Makes sense...