D&D General I Do Declare! Do you? (POLL)

[Blue]

With the exception of one system, I haven't used declaration this millennium. Back with AD&D 2nd I seem to remember declaring for casting because any damage for the round caused the spell to be lost.

The one exception was a system that had a phased system where your action decided your initiative (which phase you go in).

My experience is that declarations slowed down play - combats took longer wall clock time. Now, an individual round may be faster or slower, but invalidated actions would add more rounds so the combats as a whole would take longer.

 

[Roadkill101]

I use one at my table, but I run a house-ruled game, and characters only get one action per round (period, not counting iterative attacks or very minor actions such as dropping an item to pull out a small, easily accessible item for use, such as unsheathing and attacking with a dagger), so it works in that context. They declare after each party members turn in the initiative order is determined, in that order (so character x may adjust their original intended action based on character y's declaration). In the context of 4e with bonus actions and reactions, I can't imagine a declaration phase working (and I don't recall how 3.x handled the action economy in a tactical situation). The one action is concurrent with movement.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Yes. We do that. Have done it for decades.

Reason: It allows me, the DM, the opportunity to successfully RP NPC's/Monster's that have significant Intelligence, Cunning and/or Combat Experience in a MUCH more believable manner.

The Players each state their PC's intention. It's usually enough to be 'vague'; e.g., "I'm going to attack one of the ogres", "I'm going to cast Magic Missile at the leader", "I'll shoot my bow at someone". It doesn't have to be uber-specific, unless it's a spell. I need more info for those.

Then I can solidify what the bad guys are doing based on their capabilities (mental/combat experience/attitude). It allows me to 'dumb down' the bad guys tactics...use 'average' tactics...or 'on-up' their tactics. For example, goblins might just swarm towards the closest foe...the tanked up fighter or raging barbarian who steps way out in front...because goblins aren't exactly smart or known for their tactics. Likewise, a group of orcs might divvy up their attacks and might even have one or two hang back and use missile weapons against a caster. Finally, some super-genius monster or one that is very combat savvy (say, Mind Flayer, or maybe a Type V demon [Marilith]) I could "counteract" something the PC or PC's are planning simply because it's so damn smart and/or experienced. So if a Player declares "I'm casting Lightning bolt at the Marilith", it allows me to maneuver the Marilith in such a way that the Wizard's lightning bolt would have to go through a fellow party member, or might have to contend with partial cover or something. Now *I* as a human DM wouldn't be able to deduce that the Wizard, at that particular time, in that particular location would cast that particular spell...but I'm not an immortal demon constantly tested in battle, nor do I have an IQ of at least 180. So, by making Players Declare an action, it give me and my feeble human IQ a chance at RP'ing these creatures in at least a semi-believable manner.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[MarkB]

I've played such a system once, years ago, and loathed it. All too often, by the time the combat came round to a particular player's turn, the situation had change to a point where their chosen actions became nonsensical, redundant or even counterproductive.

 

[Immortal Sun]

No. Or at least it's not required. Some players state at the start of a round that they're doing a thing, but otherwise people wait until their turn to declare their actions. As a DM I don't declare NPC actions at the start of the turn, I don't see why the players should.

If there's a possibility that it will change, then I don't really see the point.

 

[Shiroiken]

This is a mechanic that is hard to get people to agree to. The 5E system is very simple and very efficient. It has some issues, but the pros outweigh the cons for a huge majority of players. You're only likely to get old school players and/or players of other RPGs that use that mechanic (such as the early L5R RPG's declare in reverse action order system).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

That was basically the norm for initiative before 3e switched to cyclical. Most systems since then have followed suit. I was skeptical when 3e came out, but soon converted and never looked back. The cons of action declaration far outweigh the pros for me and pretty much everyone I game with. I would try to talk sense into a 5e DM that planned to use such a variant, and consider leaving the game if he stuck with it, because I'd assume it would indicate a tendency for other playstyle elements I dislike. And this is coming from the one with the most old school sensibilities in my group.

 

[Mercule]

I've used declarations, in the past -- like the speed factors from 1E AD&D, among others. They always seem to cause more problems than they solve. Sure, it might seem a bit odd, 3/4 of the way through a six second round, to switch from drawing your greatsword and cleaving the orc to walking to the far side of the melee and laying hands on the wizard. But, that's better than having all 5 PCs declare for focusing on the ogre, killing him after the second attack is a crit, and having the rest of the group stand with their thumbs up their rears while the other two ogres eat the halfling.

Really, I struggle with even something like Savage Worlds where you have to declare all your actions at the top of your turn. In that case, I know it's the necessary trade-off for having penalties for multiple actions and it's not horrible as long as the GM isn't a jerk about things.

 

[Lanefan]

Way back in the day we used declarations, but abandoned them mostly because far too often the declared action didn't make any sense by the time your init came up. Example: my declaration is that I attack the Orc I'm fighting but by the time my init comes up someone else has already killed it; my declaration has me committed so either I chop at a corpse or I do nothing, where it'd be far more logical and reasonable for me to move to another foe even if I lose my attack for the round. Unrealistic, and dropped.

Sometimes I'd love to reintroduce the concept just to speed up the on-my-turn decision-making from some players, but it would fail again for the same reason as before.

If you're casting a spell I allow you to target on resolution (we have casting times) rather than on commencement.

 

[Seramus]

I've played and run games that have a Declaration Phase. It always seems to slow things down to a crawl and make people have regrets, usually along the lines of characters wasting their actions because what they declared is no longer valid. Missing your action is usually the least fun way to play.