Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5371889" data-attributes="member: 58197">Interesting note, this is somewhat like how D&amp;D worked before the release of 3E. First everyone declares what they're doing; then you roll initiative and resolve the declared actions in initiative order. Sometimes your action gets invalidated by another combatant's action, and you don't get to do anything that turn.It makes combat more chaotic and exciting, and it stops people from &quot;finessing&quot; the initiative order (e.g., &quot;Okay, Bob goes after me but before the monsters, so if I go here and ready an attack, he can go there and attack with flanking, then I take my readied action, and then...&quot;). However, it's harder to keep track of, and it doesn't lend itself to complex tactical maneuvering. That may be a plus or a minus depending on where you stand*.As for the force field scenario: Regardless of what initiative system I was using, I'd give the force fields their own initiative. (In 3E-style &quot;sequential&quot; initiative, I'd roll for it each round to keep it from getting predictable.) Then the outcome of any given round depends on how the initiative order falls out.[size=-2]*It also made spellcasting a tense experience. You really, really hoped for a good initiative roll as a caster, because if the bad guys scored a hit on you before you got to act, poof--concentration disrupted, bye-bye spell. And AD&amp;D gaming culture being what it was, there was a good chance the DM had cobbled together some kind of vicious homebrew &quot;spell failure&quot; chart and was just itching to roll on it...[/size]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5371889, member: 58197"] Interesting note, this is somewhat like how D&D worked before the release of 3E. First everyone declares what they're doing; then you roll initiative and resolve the declared actions in initiative order. Sometimes your action gets invalidated by another combatant's action, and you don't get to do anything that turn. It makes combat more chaotic and exciting, and it stops people from "finessing" the initiative order (e.g., "Okay, Bob goes after me but before the monsters, so if I go here and ready an attack, he can go there and attack with flanking, then I take my readied action, and then..."). However, it's harder to keep track of, and it doesn't lend itself to complex tactical maneuvering. That may be a plus or a minus depending on where you stand*. As for the force field scenario: Regardless of what initiative system I was using, I'd give the force fields their own initiative. (In 3E-style "sequential" initiative, I'd roll for it each round to keep it from getting predictable.) Then the outcome of any given round depends on how the initiative order falls out. [size=-2]*It also made spellcasting a tense experience. You really, really hoped for a good initiative roll as a caster, because if the bad guys scored a hit on you before you got to act, poof--concentration disrupted, bye-bye spell. And AD&D gaming culture being what it was, there was a good chance the DM had cobbled together some kind of vicious homebrew "spell failure" chart and was just itching to roll on it...[/size] [/QUOTE]

Verification