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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amaroq" data-source="post: 5164818" data-attributes="member: 15470">Our DM s both do this, only they keep it as straightforward as "DM announces attack bonus, player rolls d20, player says whether it hits or not."Your system is mildly better in that it maintains the attack bonus as "hidden" information, but may feel less natural to the players.This one, believe it or not, is a disadvantage for the players, and I recommend against it.Why?Because a lot of monsters have synergistic effects.For example, a pack of Grey Wolves (L2 Skirmishers) has a basic attack for 1d6+2, has a "special" that if they have combat advantage they can knock an opponent prone, and then does 2d6+2 against a prone target. If all wolves "go" on the same initiative, one can move and attack, a second can move to combat advantage and attack, which results in knocking the opponent prone, and the remainder can savage the prone target for the additional damage.The problem gets "worse" as the stakes increase: Lurkers, Artillery, Controllers, etc, which do increasingly nasty effects in synergy with other monsters. On the other hand, if the wolves each roll their own unique initiative, it allows the party time to "react" to the situation as it develops: to cover and protect their teammates from becoming flanked, or to help cover and protect the teammate who is knocked prone.That, in turn, makes for more tactically entertaining fights, as it gives the party members sub-goals - and deadlines. "Get to so-and-so to protect him", "Heal so-and-so before the Brute gets to finish him off", etc. Turn-based (all monsters, all PCs, all monsters, all PCs) combat may go a bit quicker, but I think it results in much less tactically interesting battles.</blockquote>

Verification