Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8585810" data-attributes="member: 6921763">Cool.&nbsp; I'd take it one step further and that there really is not a true separation of the pillars at all and they are just a shorthand to try to categorize what the adventurers might be doing in any given scene.&nbsp; Indeed, a combat can feature some level of social interaction, especially against intelligent activities.&nbsp; Exploration can feature combat where some hostile agents need to be fought off while the party simultaneously tries to figure out a puzzle or trap.&nbsp; Social interaction can feature exploration... etcSay more about this.&nbsp; I'm not really following what you feel needs to be fixed and how you apply your &quot;action patches&quot; (and, indeed, what these &quot;action patches&quot; are on a basic level).Agreed. Although a natural order of declarations can certainly evolve in a non-combat scene, albeit informally.Do you grant advantage on initiative for both the PCs and the NPCs/monsters?&nbsp; It's an interesting adjudication.I certainly wouldn't make it a habit to do so in a surprise situation, though - the mechanics for surprise already strongly favor one side.&nbsp; With the &quot;surprisee&quot; forgoing their action on their first turn, the &quot;surpriser&quot; now has a much better chance to get off two attacks when given advantage on initiative - this is a bit OP, in my opinion.&nbsp; I don't think the players at our table would appreciate it at all to see the DM grant the stealthy monster an even better chance at two (or more!) whacks at them before the surprised PC(s) can even move, let alone act.&nbsp; That said, on the player side, if a player (looking at you Rogue Assassin) wanted to burn an Inspiration to gain advantage on their initiative when surprising a foe, I'm all for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8585810, member: 6921763"] Cool. I'd take it one step further and that there really is not a true separation of the pillars at all and they are just a shorthand to try to categorize what the adventurers might be doing in any given scene. Indeed, a combat can feature some level of social interaction, especially against intelligent activities. Exploration can feature combat where some hostile agents need to be fought off while the party simultaneously tries to figure out a puzzle or trap. Social interaction can feature exploration... etc Say more about this. I'm not really following what you feel needs to be fixed and how you apply your "action patches" (and, indeed, what these "action patches" are on a basic level). Agreed. Although a natural order of declarations can certainly evolve in a non-combat scene, albeit informally. Do you grant advantage on initiative for both the PCs and the NPCs/monsters? It's an interesting adjudication. I certainly wouldn't make it a habit to do so in a surprise situation, though - the mechanics for surprise already strongly favor one side. With the "surprisee" forgoing their action on their first turn, the "surpriser" now has a much better chance to get off two attacks when given advantage on initiative - this is a bit OP, in my opinion. I don't think the players at our table would appreciate it at all to see the DM grant the stealthy monster an even better chance at two (or more!) whacks at them before the surprised PC(s) can even move, let alone act. That said, on the player side, if a player (looking at you Rogue Assassin) wanted to burn an Inspiration to gain advantage on their initiative when surprising a foe, I'm all for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification