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="Stormonu" data-source="post: 5928900" data-attributes="member: 52734">Ah, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by stop-motion initiative then.  I thought you were having all actions occur simultaneously (i.e., moving all figures at basically the same time, resolving all attacks at once in one glorious dicerolling-fest).  That would have boggled my mind if you were doing it that way.[MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] - I used the optional 2E initiative rules for my group, but it's been so long I had forgotten about the "declare actions before rolling initiative".  Even when I was running my B/X game in March, I forgot to have the characters declare actions before rolling init.My goof.In normal D&D, that would not happen. Whether using the "declare actions before init" or cyclic initiative, one side acts then the other - not both at the same exact time.  The orc would complete his action; the PC would have to wait until the orc's charge was completed before he could react.  Of course, under the current rules, the orc could charge forward, strike - then even fall back, if he still has movement left.  And the PC could do the same, but they wouldn't be running around each other's backside at the same time; one would complete their action before the other reacted.  Sure, the PC could circle around the orc after the orc's finished his turn, but he's got to wait until the orc finishes his attack.If you were using simultaneous actions, why couldn't the DM simply respond with, "Well, if you run behind him, he simply turns to face you."  The orc still has movement left, doesn't he?  That's part of the reason newer versions don't use facing -  unlike static minis, it is assumed opponents are in constant motion and trying to keep their opponent in sight and off their back (though this does make "attacks from behind" almost impossible to model under the current rules).  If you do use facing, you're going to end up with the wierd results you were talking about where opponents can just blithely maneuver around to each other's back as targets become "weeping angel" figures who can only move as long as no one else is looking at them.</blockquote>

Verification