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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 3282954" data-attributes="member: 12460">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.</blockquote>

Verification