Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnLynch" data-source="post: 7687126" data-attributes="member: 6749563">Thanks. I was curious how you would handle it. Especially after reading:This is a very  4th edition take on the rules with "rules first, narrative second" that  was emphasised so strongly in the rules (with the presumption being that  even oozes could be tripped and a DM must override that presumption).  This was not a particularly popular way to run games and I personally  have moved away from it (although I don't think I ever really embraced  it and have been much more comfortable with rulesets that have the world  operate in a way that makes sense to me and then have the rules bring  form to that world).Completely understood.Good to see you're somewhat flexible about that to best ensure fun is had during gameplay. Your earlier stances (where you lacked such qualifiers like "you might" allow combat to be left) and even here where you indicate that you ordinarily would not let him 'take back' his action is an interesting way to play. I've played for 7 years now and I've never seen such a rigid "Declaring you want to attack doesn't initiate combat" stance. I've never seen a DM demand to know what your hostile action is when you want to attack. In fact I've seen DM's say "hold on. We'll roll initiative" and then when that person wins initiative the DM asks exactly what the person will be doing with them having free reign to not make the intended attack. So you're statement of "wanting to attack doesn't initiate combat" was surprising to me because this is exactly what has initiated combat in every single game of D&D I've ever played.</blockquote>

Verification