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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rune" data-source="post: 8400418" data-attributes="member: 67">From what I gather, I think the issue isn’t really that the rules don’t allow for any coherent narrative. The issue appears to be that they sometimes (often?) stand in the way of a narrative of simultaneous action that (for whatever reason) the OP desires.And this is absolutely true, despite verbiage to the contrary in the rules*. The rules divide a combat round into sequential multi-action (and movement) turns and treats these sequential turns as prescriptive for the starting states of future turns.Per the rules, characters can and often do make full use of their movement and action economy in a way that prevents slower characters from using not just some of their movement or taking not just a single action, but absolutely all of it. Most commonly through death.The point is, this conflicts with a narrative of simultaneous action because it isn’t even remotely simultaneous. It does create a narrative, but it is a different one, to be sure.The example of two enemies meeting in center of the battlefield can make narrative sense. But if the rules require the narrative to be: one character waits for the other and then advances, then that seems to be an issue for the OP.Why? Because that’s not the same narrative as: both characters charge each other at the same time. The RAW doesn’t allow for the latter narrative at all.That won’t matter to a lot of people, but it seems to be an issue for the OP. And the OP isn’t wrong.* Or not. I can’t find any mention of it in either the PHB or the DMG. At least not in any appropriately related section. This assumption might just be a holdover from previous editions – in two of which it was also manifestly not true.</blockquote>

Verification