Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7022665" data-attributes="member: 16814">So...My fundamental issue with the various simultaneous/concurrent/word-of-choice resolution systems is that they still end up with weird corner cases that defy their intended goals.  For example, the barbarian vs guard example above or the orc vs tackling fighter example.  In both cases, when a situation arise that requires a determination of 'who goes first' because actions are mutually exclusive, the winner of the contest is allowed to complete their whole declaration, even in events where it makes no sense.  To refer to the barbarian vs guard example, if the barbarian wins, he can close 30' and make his attack before the guard can move a step.  This harkens straight back to the cyclical initiative problems that this method is meant to address.So, suggestion for a correction -- phased initiatives.  You would still declare your entire action at the beginning of the round/cycle/word of choice, but it's execution then proceeds in phases.  A phase would be a move or action.  So, in the barbarian vs guard example, the barbarian declares he will close and attack, the guard declares he will retreat and shoot.  The first phase will be the first part of the declaration, in this case, both move.  As there's no conflict yet, play continues without a resolution.  Then the second phase occurs, the guard shoots, and the barbarian looks confused.  That's not fun, though, so let's add in the concept of changing a declaration between phases to account for the change in scenario.  Since the barbarian's action has been cancelled out by events, he can now choose to declare a second phase action that's different -- in this case, he would likely choose to close to the guard.  Play continues.  As a variant, add an additional delay in phase for changes, so, in that case, the 1st phase is both move, the 2nd is guard shoots and barbarian changes declaration, and the 3rd would be the barbarian closes.  Usually you won't get more than 2 phases, but it's helpful to add more as needed, especially to cover events like a fighter using extra action -- just have it happen in the next phase to reflect that it's extra.But, this concept still doesn't address issues like the orc and the tackling fighter -- there's no way for the fighter to succeed in both closing to the orc and tackling prior to the orc completing his move.  That's too restrictive of fun play, so let's allow the expenditure of a reaction to 'speed up' a declaration through the readied action rules.  So the fighter can declare he's going to close to the charging orc and use a readied action when he does to tackle the orc.  This then works as the fighter intends, but since he's readying a shove, he will have no ability to follow up with any more attacks either way.  This nicely limits the choice to ready things.  Similarly, casters will still be under the 'readied spells' requirements and vulnerable to an alert and intelligent opponent declaring  an action to interrupt the held spell.  So, the orc vs fighter would go: orc declares it's closing to the mage and attacking, fighter declares he's intercepting the orc and readying an action to tackle when he does so.  The 1st phase occurs, the orc begins moving as well as the fighter.  The DM adjudicates based on understood position where the intercept occurs.  The fighter attempts his tackle.  The 1st phase concludes.  Now, if the attempt was successful, the orc can change declaration to stand or attack the fighter from the ground and go in the third phase.  The fighter, since they have no 2nd phase action, will do nothing else unless they declare the use of an action surge, which will go off now, as they have no action for phase 2.  The orc can continue in phase 3 with their changed action.Reactions under this scheme would work as normal.One of the reasons I like this better is that it works okay when using a battlemat as well as TotM.  The methods described so far for simultaneous resolutions all seem to not work very well on a battlemat and seem far more geared towards TotM.  My players prefer battlemats for their D&D.</blockquote>

Verification