Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jezter6" data-source="post: 3285612" data-attributes="member: 6567">I've played D&amp;D off and on since the late 80s, and rycanada states it exactly how we played it all the way up to 3e. We used a simple d10 roll, PCs vs bad guys, winner got to go first. It stayed that way the duration of the combat. Anyone who joined the combat late automatically went last.However, we didn't assume that it was 'everything happens at once.' If you killed the figther before his turn, he was dead. It was very easy to gang up and interrupt. Then again, we never used maps or minis and the DM just fudged positions/ranges. If I were to do it all over again, I would do it the same way, just assuming that the fighter died at the end of the round, and got his attacks this round.That's one of the reasons I don't like cyclic initiative. It sort of assumes that everyone is waiting around for each other to do their action until thir turn, which doesn't happen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jezter6, post: 3285612, member: 6567"] I've played D&D off and on since the late 80s, and rycanada states it exactly how we played it all the way up to 3e. We used a simple d10 roll, PCs vs bad guys, winner got to go first. It stayed that way the duration of the combat. Anyone who joined the combat late automatically went last. However, we didn't assume that it was 'everything happens at once.' If you killed the figther before his turn, he was dead. It was very easy to gang up and interrupt. Then again, we never used maps or minis and the DM just fudged positions/ranges. If I were to do it all over again, I would do it the same way, just assuming that the fighter died at the end of the round, and got his attacks this round. That's one of the reasons I don't like cyclic initiative. It sort of assumes that everyone is waiting around for each other to do their action until thir turn, which doesn't happen. [/QUOTE]

Verification