Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 4551120" data-attributes="member: 29398">I've never minded the idea of the 5' step when it's to let someone else in to fight alongside you, or get your back to a wall, or some other logical tactic one might do in a fight.  But the idea of a 5' step giving you safety to cast a spell is silly; your opponent could simply follow you.Harsh interpretation of the turn-based initiative system leads to many wacko things.  For example (and this came up once in a game I was in) a battle breaks out 50' away.  Two of us want to charge in *together* so we could keep track of each other's whereabouts in the fog...the higher-init. guy (me) even holds up to wait for the slower guy's initiative to arrive...but we still aren't allowed to move together, as by the book all of one character's actions (including movement) must resolve before another's can start.  End result: I charged in, and the other guy got lost in the fog.  Bloody ridiculous.Another one, hypothetical this time: a Giant stands across a field.  How can the party charge it en masse?  Under the turn-based initiative system, they move one at a time...so when the Giant's initiative comes up only some of the party are there to be hit *despite* the stated intention to all arrive at once.The game has to make some allowance for simultaneous actions, and for fluidity in combat.The other thing that bugs me is - and I like your term for it - cyclic initiative, where everyone always acts in the same sequence (intentional changes such as holds notwithstanding).  I far prefer - and will always use - re-rolled initiaitve each round, though be advised it slows things down a bit.Lanefan</blockquote>

Verification