Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Satyrn" data-source="post: 7294880" data-attributes="member: 6801204">I can compare against the way we played before the rule, although my memory's not perfect.Oh, we're definitely optimizing for best use of inflicted conditions, and buff spells and the like. Well, some level of optimizing. It's like, if the fighter says "I'm gonna grapple that wizard," the cleric will say, "okay, first I'll cast this buff spell to help you." Or if the wizard says "I'm gonna cast fireball" the other players will go first so they can get out of the way first - and use shoves and pushes to corral the enemies into a tighter group so the wizard can hit more targets.. . . I just realized a key point that might differentiate our tables. My table has pretty much always had the monsters act as a group, and so using this Initiative system is really giving the players what tbe monsters already had. No. There's generally still only one player that will get to attack the prone monster, with some exceptions where we gang up. So it just kinda helps make sure that the condition has some impact, where the book initiative could more easily have the condition have no impact (or just never get used as much)My gnome battlemaster has done the popup clown routine in one combat, and in another was riddled by bullets and killed outright. My experience says yeah, same penalty.More than anything, I find that the players are more apt to look at their actions with an eye to how we can boost each other more than we used to, because the little buffs and conditions and positioning can be exploited to an effect to a point where it's tge equal of just hitting something with a sword.</blockquote>

Verification