Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6806847" data-attributes="member: 6787503">Yeah, turns are discreet RAW, but I see no harm in resolving attacks and movement simultaneously, and (if opponents have multiple attacks) describing the melee as a trading of blows. When simultaneous movement and actions conflict, the DM can adjudicate how they interact. It's nothing to be afraid of.I thought about having creatures with multiple attacks roll multiple initiatives as well, but settled for the initiative minus ten mechanic (and then only for Action Surge and my houserule for bows, blowguns, and thrown daggers and darts) for a few reasons. 1) My goal in all this is to emulate 1e, and in that edition only creatures with multiple attack routines had their attacks broken up throughout the round. A claw/claw/bite attack, for example, was considered a single attack routine and would not be broken up, whereas a high level fighter with multiple attacks would be considered to have more than one attack routine. There is no one-to-one equivalency, but the way I've adapted this into 5e is if it only takes a single action it doesn't get broken up. Multiattack is an action. Extra Attack also takes a single action. Action Surge however grants an extra action, so I have that action resolve on the fighter's initiative minus ten. I got the idea of using initiative minus ten from the rogue ability. I think it's a little more tidy than rolling initiative for each action because 2) when you roll initiative separately for each action you're giving the fighter adavantage on his first initiative count. This may be desirable when trying to emulate 1e, but it interacts badly with static initiative, and probably some other game elements.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 6806847, member: 6787503"] Yeah, turns are discreet RAW, but I see no harm in resolving attacks and movement simultaneously, and (if opponents have multiple attacks) describing the melee as a trading of blows. When simultaneous movement and actions conflict, the DM can adjudicate how they interact. It's nothing to be afraid of. I thought about having creatures with multiple attacks roll multiple initiatives as well, but settled for the initiative minus ten mechanic (and then only for Action Surge and my houserule for bows, blowguns, and thrown daggers and darts) for a few reasons. 1) My goal in all this is to emulate 1e, and in that edition only creatures with multiple attack routines had their attacks broken up throughout the round. A claw/claw/bite attack, for example, was considered a single attack routine and would not be broken up, whereas a high level fighter with multiple attacks would be considered to have more than one attack routine. There is no one-to-one equivalency, but the way I've adapted this into 5e is if it only takes a single action it doesn't get broken up. Multiattack is an action. Extra Attack also takes a single action. Action Surge however grants an extra action, so I have that action resolve on the fighter's initiative minus ten. I got the idea of using initiative minus ten from the rogue ability. I think it's a little more tidy than rolling initiative for each action because 2) when you roll initiative separately for each action you're giving the fighter adavantage on his first initiative count. This may be desirable when trying to emulate 1e, but it interacts badly with static initiative, and probably some other game elements. [/QUOTE]

Verification