Declaration phase in 3.x

[kaomera]

Recently several threads on AD&D have turned to one of my favorite rules elements of that system, namely declaring actions before initiative is rolled. (Now, I have to say that I never saw declarations made in a "precise" manner, although since they where open to DM interpretation there was some real danger in being too vague... "I rush forward and attack the orcs!" was fine, but you would not then be able to single out which orc you took a swing at; "I charge the boss orc!", meanwhile, opened up the possibility that he would be dropped by a spell or missile fire before you could reach him...)

3.x "declare-as-you-go" initiative has served to enable some sub-optimal play in some of my games (I'm not saying it's the cause of this behavior, but I think that a different system might do a better job of discouraging it). Specifically, players who do not pay attention to the game until their action comes up, and players taking forever to work through their actions, especially when they start wanting to "do-over" actions (movement especially) that don't turn out the way they wanted. Also, it tends to promote a feeling that the action "stutters" along, with each participant standing idly by as others take their actions.

So: I'm wondering, if I adopted a "declaration phase" system in 3.x, what other changes do you think I'd have to implement?

 

[Nifft]

Drop minis, AoOs and other specifics; work out a way for casters to predict how likely it is they'll be interrupted and what countermeasures they can take; basically work out how to map out and manage players' expectations (possibly in a visual way).

You will need some way to allow players to quickly assess the risks and options presented by the battle field.

Cheers, -- N

 

[kaomera]

Drop minis, AoOs and other specifics; work out a way for casters to predict how likely it is they'll be interrupted and what countermeasures they can take; basically work out how to map out and manage players' expectations (possibly in a visual way).

You will need some way to allow players to quickly assess the risks and options presented by the battle field.

I agree about AoOs. Minis would not be needed in the current sense, but could still serve as a visual aid. I doubt I'd haul them out for every fight; to me this is another bonus.

As fas as casters predicting how likely they are to be interrupted, or assessing the battlefield, I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Part of the point of this system is to get away from the "looking down from on high" perspective. The wizard's "countermeasures" consist of putting his back against a wall, keeping the fighter between him and the enemy (and hoping he chooses to act as a guard / blocker, rather than rushing off leaving the spell-slinger exposed), as well as various protective spells and devices. Players assess the situation their characters face based on the DM's description of the situation. Scouting and information-gathering will be key (again, IMHO, rather than a waste of time), and if the PCs get in over their heads they may well need to retreat.

 

[airwalkrr]

I play-tested this using (mostly) 3.x rules myself. My results were quite positive. Most of the players enjoyed it (as a breath of fresh air from the rules they were used to if nothing else). We actually used party initiative and rolling for init each round as well. It adds a very dynamic aspect to combat.

I disagree with Nifft based on my experience. We used minis and I am certain it was helpful. We did cut out attacks of opportunity for movement only, however, I believe keeping them would be fine. Players would simply have to be more careful about movement since they never know when they might be provoking an attack of opportunity after an enemy who acted on higher initiative has already moved. Chances are it would increase the number of attacks of opportunity in the game (but not drastically I'd wager).

One thing I did allow players to do was change their action at any point in the round if their action became pointless (like attacking a foe who has already fallen). However, I toyed with different penalties for changing actions, such as a penalty to your initiative score, which seemed to work alright. I think it could be refined a bit or simply disregard it and let pointless actions stand. I tried it both ways. I found that when I allowed pointless actions to stand, the PCs were more likely to divide their attentions than they were to gang up, which actually makes sense in real-time combat since you don't have time to gang up on one guy at a time unless you are taking turns. It makes the game more strategic, which might be what you are looking for.

 

[Li Shenron]

We actually played with something like this for a while, when one of us (former AD&D DM) started DMing 3ed rules for the first time. It didn't work too well, were had lots of confusing situations, but with more experience it could work.

So: I'm wondering, if I adopted a "declaration phase" system in 3.x, what other changes do you think I'd have to implement?

The only extra thing we were using was a rule that declarations were done in order from LOWER to higher initiative, so that those characters who rolled a high initiative had the further advantage of knowing what every other PC of lower Init was going to do.

Actions were then resolved from highest to lowest, as normal.

 

[kaomera]

The only extra thing we were using was a rule that declarations were done in order from LOWER to higher initiative, so that those characters who rolled a high initiative had the further advantage of knowing what every other PC of lower Init was going to do.

We always kept a "declaration order", which started out being from low Int to high. However, this order could be changed by the players depending on their tactics. Specifically, it was often the case that one PC would be designated as "point man", and everyone else would (or at least was supposed to) take their cues from that character's actions. Therefore, that character would be moved to the top of the dec. order, declaring first regardless of their Int. The few times we used Barbarians they always had to declare first (and without any input from the rest of the group) if they where berzerking.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think a middle ground approach could be interesting..

Maintain the RAW cyclic initiative, but have 'action cards' that the players place in front of them at the end of thier turn to identify thier next action. Pencil in the needed detail such as "Action card: Move to: ____________" and the player would pencil in 'Orc with the funny hat'
Changing actions would be a Move Action... the cost of having to survey the battlefield and figure out what to do.

This would maintain the faster resolution speed of the cyclic system while adding in a bit of chaos. More chaos would ensue if the cards had to be set out face down

Action cards would include:
"Move to: ", identifies movement
"Melee Attack"
"Ranged Attack"
"Standard Action Spell"
"Full Round Spell"
"Mount/Dismount"
"Open door/chest"
"Stabalize"
"Full Defense"
etc..

Players would place either two cards {Move + Standard Action} or one card {Full Round}

Depending on how busy you want to go, we could layer a 'mode' card on top of this. Mode cards identify how the character goes about the action. Cards would include:
"Fight Defensively"
"Power Attack"
"TWF"
etc...


Upsides: combat would be a bit less orchestrated, potentially increasing EL's
Downsides: requires players who are paying attention..and a bunch of cards to sort through
{maybe a sheet of paper with the various options could be 'checked' instead of cards...}

anyway.. I am rambling...back to your regularly scheduled thread

 

[kaomera]

This would maintain the faster resolution speed of the cyclic system while adding in a bit of chaos. More chaos would ensue if the cards had to be set out face down

I find that statement highly amusing. In my experiences with AD&D and 3.x the cyclic initiative system is much, much slower than declare-then-resolve. I will freely admit that this has everything to do with how the players deal with the system, but it's been so constant that I have to feel that the system is at least partly to blame...

Now in AD&D there where penalties laid out for "delay of game" in terms of declarations. Honestly I was always pretty lenient in that regard, and so where most other DMs I knew. However, woe be to the player forced to admit that he didn't know what his character should do, because he hadn't been paying attention! I'm tempted to bring this kind of pressure to bear in my 3.5 game, but then I'm also prone to thinking that may well be a really bad idea. How is a player likely to react if in response to his "What where we fighting, again?" by skipping his action? Or, even more extreme, if I decide that if you don't have your basic combat stats (like, say, the total attack bonus with the weapon you use every single round...) recorded on your character sheet and need to stammer ever-increasing numbers at me until I say you've hit... then, well, you don't hit? I have one player who tends to call "At least a ##" before he actually does all his math... How about just taking the first total you call as your final total (Well, bar the actual die roll... You still need to call natural 20s and 1s, as well as critical threats...)?

The other time-wasting issue is taking back actions. Especially movement. Typically a player will "step through" his movement, and then back up to the last square if a possible AoO occurs. So you can have a player trying 4 or 5 routes trying to avoid taking an AoO... And counting diagonals always seems to cause confusion. In AD&D we always used to handle (almost) all movement as simultaneous at the start of the round. There where some exceptions where part (or all) of a character's movement had to take place after attacks, but usually the DM would just adjudicate where everyone ended up based on their declarations, and then attacks would get rolled. I've tried not letting the players move their own minis in the past, but honestly it's more of a PitA than it's worth; drawing an AoO still turns into several minutes of the player trying to argue that the PC could reach that square some other (safer) way, followed by changing actions completely...

 

[NilesB]

From my experience with combat systems containing a declaration phase:

Combat will probably take about 50% longer, with a corresponding increase in player inattention.

Risky or tactically innovative actions will be highly disincentivized resulting in more conservative and less interesting play.

Either suspicions will arise about the DM cheating on foes action declaration will undermine player/DM trust or foes action declarations will eliminate surprises. or both intermittently.


As you can see I'm not a fan of the idea.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I find that statement highly amusing. In my experiences with AD&D and 3.x the cyclic initiative system is much, much slower than declare-then-resolve. I will freely admit that this has everything to do with how the players deal with the system, but it's been so constant that I have to feel that the system is at least partly to blame...

One of the aspects of 3.x that I have always worked on, from the very beggining, was speed of combat. I use pre-rolled initiatives that smooths the flow from narration to phased combat.

IMC, the start of combat runs something like:
DM: You have been ambused, Joe, you were not surprised and have initiative, there are 4 orcs bursting out of the thicket with weapons drawn...what do you do?

I do not allow retracing steps, altho I will coach players on how to move to avoid an AoO if possible...generally speaking my players will risk the AoO from movement anyway...just as the NPC's do.

I have found that combat can be run at the same speed in 3.x as I used to run it in 2e, but with the added advantage of avoiding arguments as to where people are, or are not. The more my players gain familiarization with the rules, the smoother the combats go.
Had one game that I could not re-create in 2e... the characters were invading an enemies tower and chose to start combat...then chose to keep opening doors mid combat, inviting more of the inhabitants into the battle. They explored the entire tower in combat resolution mode! It was a very fun session, altho if I had not been as prepared for the game it would have ground to a halt very fast. {I had the entire tower mapped out on papers that got scattered over the table when the party split and ended up on three different levels simultaneusly....} but I digress.
3.x combat can be handled quickly, but most importantly the rules provide a strong foundation for player/GM trust...