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

[Harzel]

We declare actions, but only because I use simultaneous resolution rather than sequential turns.

 

[Harzel]

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.

Wellll, yeah, it's 'unrealistic' if you imagine that the whole you do your entire round's worth of stuff, and then I do my entire round's worth of stuff and then the Orc does his entire round's worth of stuff is actually what is happening in the fiction, which is pretty, um, what's the word I want, oh, yeah --- unrealistic.

Don't get me wrong, there are reasonable criticisms of using declarations with you-go-I go; it just doesn't seem to me that 'unrealistic' is one of them. (Unless you meant unrealistic that anyone would have fun doing it this way.)

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.

Two questions out of (sort of) idle curiosity:

1. So casting takes time, but physical attacks and movement are instantaneous? I'm just as much in favor of nerfing casters as anyone, but any particular reason besides that?
2. What units are casting times measured in? That is, how does casting resolution mesh with the other things going on? (If the answer is measured in rounds, then it's reasonably clear, otherwise ?)

 

[Myzzrym]

We declare actions, but only because I use simultaneous resolution rather than sequential turns.

Same, I feel like it gives more punch to the fight when everything happens at once, with Initiative being used to show who's slightly faster (for instance during a duel to know who hits first). Players can react while I describe what's happening, but it avoids people constantly readjusting their action depending on what the previous player / monster just did. Battles become more frantic, and reactions actually feel like split of a second decisions

 

[Henry]

I can’t say that I’ve ever encountered any table who has done any of 3e/4e/5e or Pathfinder this way. Back in 1st ed and 2nd ed AD&D, we had declaration phases, but not since.

 

[Seramus]

Wellll, yeah, it's 'unrealistic' if you imagine that the whole you do your entire round's worth of stuff, and then I do my entire round's worth of stuff and then the Orc does his entire round's worth of stuff is actually what is happening in the fiction, which is pretty, um, what's the word I want, oh, yeah --- unrealistic.

I've got the opposite problem. Accomplishing nothing is too realistic!
My players are trying to escape their crushing depression.

 

[Lanefan]

Wellll, yeah, it's 'unrealistic' if you imagine that the whole you do your entire round's worth of stuff, and then I do my entire round's worth of stuff and then the Orc does his entire round's worth of stuff is actually what is happening in the fiction, which is pretty, um, what's the word I want, oh, yeah --- unrealistic.

Problem is, starting with 3e that's how the game has worked by RAW: one person does their entire round's worth of stuff, then another, then another. Movement is almost like a mini-teleport, there's no consideration given for the time it takes and where you might be when something else happens (e.g. did you just run into that lightning bolt or not).

Don't get me wrong, there are reasonable criticisms of using declarations with you-go-I go; it just doesn't seem to me that 'unrealistic' is one of them. (Unless you meant unrealistic that anyone would have fun doing it this way.)

No, unrealistic in that I can't change my action to reflect things that happen between the time I declared it and the time I would do it.

Two questions out of (sort of) idle curiosity:

So casting takes time, but physical attacks and movement are instantaneous? I'm just as much in favor of nerfing casters as anyone, but any particular reason besides that?

I'm running a 1e variant, and 1e had casting times (which serve as a wonderful rein-in to casters, as it gives more of a chance for interruption). Movement can also take time depending how far you want to go, particularly in 5e where rounds are just a few seconds long.

What units are casting times measured in? That is, how does casting resolution mesh with the other things going on? (If the answer is measured in rounds, then it's reasonably clear, otherwise ?)

Segments, of which there's 6 to a round because we use d6 initiative. Were I running 5e there'd be 20 to a round (because init is rolled on a d20).

So, in my version of 5e a 3rd-level spell might take 6 segments to cast - your init is 14 so that's when you'd start, resolving on 8 if you hadn't been interrupted. Oh, and init would be rerolled every round (which means I'd use a smaller die, for sure!).

 

[Satyrn]

I see that, yet again, I voted with the clear majority on a poll.

I'm just another brick in the wall.

 

[Ratskinner]

I haven't had declarations phases in quite some time. I ran a session of a game called Old School Hack that uses them to determine initiative order....and I think that is something I might try to work out for 5e. Just eliminate the initiative roll entirely. Start of each round, folks declare what they're going to try to do, then resolve as seems appropriate.

 

[MechaPilot]

I used to have my players declare actions when the declared actions affected their place in the initiative order. However, that become a little too cumbersome and was abandoned at my table.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

... but it avoids people constantly readjusting their action depending on what the previous player / monster just did.

Others have also expressed this sentiment, but I don't get it. How can you adjust something that hasn't come up yet? When you don't have initiative declarations, you don't have to make any decision until your turn, and then you don't change it because it immediately happens. Are people using cyclical initiative but having the players decide what they do first and then just keep it to themselves instead of declaring it? Even if players start thinking about what they plan to do next round as soon as they finish their turn (a generally good practice), that would just mean they are paying close attention to what is going on, and might even be faster on the draw when their turn comes up again.

I kind of (not too seriously) wonder if some pro-declaration players misread the way cyclical initiative works from the very start.