Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8407058" data-attributes="member: 71699">To assess this, we need to look at more specifics, and at least two rounds.Round 1 declarations (P leads)P1 (Barbarian) has no information: they declare in the dark that they will move and attack N1P2 (Warlock) knows what P1 declared: often dropping one foe is better than dividing attacks, so they declare move and attack N1N1 (Goblin) knowing what P1 and P2 declared: they are going to dodgeN2 (Goblin) knows everyone's declarations: they are safe to move and attack P2Round 1 initiative rolledP1 = 20 --> they know they are safe to advance and use Reckless Attack, hitting and dealing damage to N1P2 = 10 --> they cast EB at N1, missing, and then they move back and into total coverN2 = 5 --> can't reach or see P2 to attack them, and isn't allowed to attack P1 though they'd have advantage doing soN1 = 1 --> their dodge isn't in time to help this round, and they can't attack P1Round 2 declarations (N leads)N1 is dodging, and going last, so they will attack P1 (if they live that long), calling for N2 to helpN2 had closed on P2's position, but will help N1 (by attacking P1)P1 will dodge seeing as they go first and know they are the target of attacks, they call for P2 to finish off N1P2 will move and attack N1 who is woundedRound 2 initiative carries forward (that's what you intend, right?)P1 = 20 --> dodges and laughs at the foolish goblinsP2 = 10 --> they step out, cast EB at N1, missing, and then move back and into total coverN2 = 5 --> misses P1 who is no longer vulnerable from Reckless and is dodgingN1 = 1 --> misses P1For the sake of this design, are you thinking of the following problems<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a creature basing their action over a round on something known only at the end of the round</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a creature moving all of their movement before another creature moves any</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a creature lacking information during a round on something happening during that round</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">being sure to be no worse than equal to 5th edition combat's complexity</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">being sure to take no more time than 5th edition combats typically take</li> </ul>This "charging each other" doesn't seem fully explained. How does it work? Are they still moving in turn? Or is movement spaced out over the round (i.e. spanning multiple turns). If the former, doesn't it still fail the "meet in the middle" test? Are you going with "the middle is where we meet" that I proposed?Dodge seems problematic, because it can be made irrelevant by the initiative roll. Likewise the Help action. Anything contingent like that, that could be invalidated by the initiative roll, is going to be problematic. On the other side, all-in features like Reckless Attack gain value if others have to commit to which creature they attack before you have to commit to using it.The simplest fix could be to make the action declarations even more general so that they are unlikely to be invalidated. Nominating targets up front as implied by "move to the cleric and attack" can be foreseen to lead to unhappy players. It may be best to work out a set of standard declarations with your group, and agree on the scope of those declarations before play.More general declarations could also solve the problem with Dodge. So the goblin declares they are "defending", allowing them to perhaps use their special feature to disengage or hide.</blockquote>

Verification