Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5684157" data-attributes="member: 2011">Yes, but if neither side can play the tricks without losing their spot in the initiative, then both sides will focus a little less on the "most optimum" tactics.I also think that bunching up initiatives makes combats too easy for the players.5 PCs focusing fire on the first bad guy, and then the second bad guy, etc. without the NPCs having the ability to react to that results in easy kills. Ditto for the monsters.In a distributed init situation, the 5 players can still focus fire. But, the monsters can react to that as well with tactics (ditto for PCs). The only way where the players can force the tactic without the monsters being able to react is if they ready or delay actions and then, they lose their spot in the initiative. If all 5 PCs do that, sure, they'll bunch up their inits. But, they give up two things doing this: a) a few free attacks by the monsters because PCs readied or delayed, b) they give the monsters a better opportunity to focus fire without the PCs being able to react.Being able to react is important. If one PC goes unconscious, the team really wants to have someone, anyone, go over and give a potion or do a Heal to the unconscious PC before a monster can do a coup de grace on him. So yes, if the players want to game the system, then the DM can do so as well. Not that I have ever tried to do a coup de grace, but if a group started bunching up inits to gain CA and other advantages, and I had a re-occurring villain observe that, I'd have him instruct his NPC allies to coup de grace. It only makes sense.Personally, I prefer the semi-evenly distributed model where both sides can react to combat and neither side can try to use super optimal tactics.</blockquote>

Verification