Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 7022446" data-attributes="member: 6690511">But if the barbarian can do that, then the situation becomes a lot less interesting: the barbarian ends up in melee with the guard no matter what.I'm skeptical of allowing stuff like this. If the players can declare contingencies, that gives them an incentive to figure out the whole decision tree. e.g. &quot;I'll run up and attack the guard, but if he's dead by the time I get there I'll attack the other guard, but if the other guard is dead and my guy is running away, I'll Dash after him, but if he hides, then I'll Search for him...&quot;I know that's an extreme example, but it seems to me, the more you allow stuff like that, the more it becomes Chess again. My gut is telling me I'd rather make the players commit to a single action (&quot;I'll run up and attack that guy&quot;), and during resolution I can allow common-sense solutions if needed (&quot;That guy is dead before you get there; want to attack the other guy instead?&quot;)EDIT: Actually, on reflection, overkill seems like a positive feature. You can either say &quot;I attack that specific guy&quot; to focus fire but risk wasting your damage, or you can say &quot;I attack one of those guys&quot; to make sure your damage counts, but lose the tactical ability to choose your target (which makes it easier on the DM).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GX.Sigma, post: 7022446, member: 6690511"] But if the barbarian can do that, then the situation becomes a lot less interesting: the barbarian ends up in melee with the guard no matter what. I'm skeptical of allowing stuff like this. If the players can declare contingencies, that gives them an incentive to figure out the whole decision tree. e.g. "I'll run up and attack the guard, but if he's dead by the time I get there I'll attack the other guard, but if the other guard is dead and my guy is running away, I'll Dash after him, but if he hides, then I'll Search for him..." I know that's an extreme example, but it seems to me, the more you allow stuff like that, the more it becomes Chess again. My gut is telling me I'd rather make the players commit to a single action ("I'll run up and attack that guy"), and during resolution I can allow common-sense solutions if needed ("That guy is dead before you get there; want to attack the other guy instead?") EDIT: Actually, on reflection, overkill seems like a positive feature. You can either say "I attack that specific guy" to focus fire but risk wasting your damage, or you can say "I attack one of those guys" to make sure your damage counts, but lose the tactical ability to choose your target (which makes it easier on the DM). [/QUOTE]

Verification