Search results

Continual Flame targets an object. A creature is not an object.

How do you decide whether or not the arrow was nocked and ready to shoot?

I don't see why that'd be a problem, since resolution will consist of the DM resolving each action, one at a time, speaking aloud while the PCs listen. So, it wouldn't be much of an interruption to ask for a little clarification like that. I don't think it's adding an extra step. Declaring a...

VERSION 0.2 Combat Sequence - Concurrent Initiative Variant In this variant, you don't establish an initiative order at the beginning of combat. Each round consists of two phases: First each player declares an action, then all actions are resolved. The sequence is as follows: BEGINNING OF THE...

I'll put it this way: declaring conditional actions is a specific skill. Once the player has learned that skill, they are able to more efficiently use their resources, with declarations such as "move, then attack if possible, else dash" or "attack target A if possible, else attack target B." A...

The difference between those two scenarios (emphasis mine) is that the former is strategy, and the latter is rules mastery. For an optimizer, there's no reason to declare an attack rather than a charge in that situation. It's not even a decision; that player is never going to just say "attack"...

IMC: A spell can be written in any language. It could be Common, it could be Elvish, it could be Morse Code. It could be a song, a painting, or even a subtle pattern in the stitching of a robe. Any layman who understands that language may attempt to cast the spell (or, just by examining it...

Not an expert, but wouldn't a free Wordpress site do pretty much everything you need?

^I didn't notice this post at the time, but this is an interesting conversation. Perhaps it would help to explain what I'm looking for in an initiative system and why: I've played D&D with hardcore gamers who like to optimize, master a system, and play to win. I've played D&D with complete...

To be clear, are you disagreeing with my point that declaration/resolution creates a risk/reward transaction that's not present in the core rules? Or are you just talking about the balance issues of melee vs ranged? Good point. As I showed in my examples, this system actually does penalize...

In my game, I'd have rolled each time they met a new group of Redbrands--meaning the disguise could get them in the door, but sooner or later they'll probably be discovered. Just like in Star Wars, the disguise got them into the hangar control room, and up the elevator, but the dude on the...

I was thinking the exact same thing. Some random ideas on that, in no particular order: If you take damage before you finish casting a spell, you must make a concentration save or lose the spell. You lose the action, but not the spell slot. Or, you do lose the spell slot. Or, the spell misfires...

A Chain variant that's like Pokemon. Please?

As I once told a power-hungry player, "If you try to break the game, the game will break. I don't want to play a broken game."

The caster would declare they're casting Hold Person, the ally who doesn't care would declare an attack, and the ally who wants to wait would Delay. These actions are resolved in initiative order, then the delaying player can decide what to do. Well, it says "at the end of each of its turns," so...

Interesting. What's the rationale for Dodge? I can imagine someone deciding to dodge an attack, but not being physically able to get out of the way in time.

IN WHICH GX.SIGMA TRIES TO WRITE IT OUT IN THE FORM OF ACTUAL RULES Combat Sequence - Concurrent Initiative Variant In this variant, you don't establish an initiative order at the beginning of combat. Each round consists of two phases: First each player declares an action, then all actions are...

It's a little unrealistic, but it's better than cyclic initiative. In cyclic initiative, if the guard wins initiative, the barbarian can never catch up. That's a problem that this method addresses. It accomplishes my intended goals. Sure there are still corner cases, but simultaneous-ish...

I'm assuming that Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins are all balanced at 1st level. Giving some of them extra features would unbalance them. Do you disagree with this assumption?

As a DM, I wouldn't. A 1st-level Ranger or Paladin would be too much stronger than a 1st-level Fighter if they got all their class features and spellcasting.