Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7582303" data-attributes="member: 20564">Agreed to a point.&nbsp; Even something generic like &quot;I'm going to move and attack a goblin&quot; can be pretty loose when there's lots of goblins, but restraining when there is only one and monsters of other types.&nbsp; Yet once you get to the non-rigidness of &quot;I'm going to move if needed and attack a foe&quot;, you've diluted it down to the point that there is little reason to declare.Back in AD&amp;D when we declared I have seen characters lose actions.&nbsp; Enough that I played more ranged characters (archers or casters) who were less likely to do so until the DM house ruled re-purposing missed actions at the end of initiative.But I do agree with your basic intent - if you are going to be declaring, allow and encourage general instead of highly specific declarations to avoid lost actions which lead to having players bored for long stretches of time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7582303, member: 20564"] Agreed to a point. Even something generic like "I'm going to move and attack a goblin" can be pretty loose when there's lots of goblins, but restraining when there is only one and monsters of other types. Yet once you get to the non-rigidness of "I'm going to move if needed and attack a foe", you've diluted it down to the point that there is little reason to declare. Back in AD&D when we declared I have seen characters lose actions. Enough that I played more ranged characters (archers or casters) who were less likely to do so until the DM house ruled re-purposing missed actions at the end of initiative. But I do agree with your basic intent - if you are going to be declaring, allow and encourage general instead of highly specific declarations to avoid lost actions which lead to having players bored for long stretches of time. [/QUOTE]

Verification