Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cyberen" data-source="post: 6478908" data-attributes="member: 69074">This.Also, on the balance side, giving away a full round of action, and possibly 2 in a row, when combat is meant to take 3 rounds, is really overkill.Rather than using triggered reactions, I would rather give auto-init to the ambushers, with maybe advantage on their attacks if a flat footed condition seems relevant (for instance, when the attack occurs outside of a situation considered as dangerous), in order to avoid a side acting twice in a row.Split ambushes, as the one described in the OP, are not tactically optimal, if you intend to fight, as it puts a lot of pressure on the open group : not giving your hidden allies away, and not acting before the signal is given, while beign very exposed. I would give them a WIS check not to blow the plan, then disadvantage on their Init. Far simpler to turtle, block the road with rocks, and negotiate from behind a rock...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cyberen, post: 6478908, member: 69074"] This. Also, on the balance side, giving away a full round of action, and possibly 2 in a row, when combat is meant to take 3 rounds, is really overkill. Rather than using triggered reactions, I would rather give auto-init to the ambushers, with maybe advantage on their attacks if a flat footed condition seems relevant (for instance, when the attack occurs outside of a situation considered as dangerous), in order to avoid a side acting twice in a row. Split ambushes, as the one described in the OP, are not tactically optimal, if you intend to fight, as it puts a lot of pressure on the open group : not giving your hidden allies away, and not acting before the signal is given, while beign very exposed. I would give them a WIS check not to blow the plan, then disadvantage on their Init. Far simpler to turtle, block the road with rocks, and negotiate from behind a rock... [/QUOTE]

Verification