Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7305950">How do you choose being ready to Intercept?&nbsp; Doesn't that require you to Disengage (giving up your turn just in case there's a chance to Intercept), and then hope no enemies engage with you before there's a chance to Intercept?&nbsp; Does anybody ever actually do this?Maybe I'm not understanding something in these rules correctly, but as written it seems like melee characters will only have a chance to use Intercept in the first round, before they've had a chance to engage.&nbsp; Ranged characters, including casters, may have additional opportunities, but they won't want to Intercept and get into melee.Or am I missing something important?Yes, yes, of course.&nbsp; I just find it interesting to tinker with and discuss interesting new mechanics.I also thought about something along these lines.&nbsp; It makes a certain amount of sense, and adds tactical...&quot;richness&quot;...but maybe at the cost of re-introducing some of the complexity/bookkeeping that the rules get rid of in the first place.&nbsp; Also, such a rule wouldn't be replacing a rule that's lost when you get rid of the grid, it would be introducing an entirely new (and frequent) source of Advantage, which would have a pretty dramatic effect on combats.On the other hand, these rules clearly suggest new language for Sneak Attack: &quot;If you have Advantage, or if an ally is engaged with your target...&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7305950"] How do you choose being ready to Intercept? Doesn't that require you to Disengage (giving up your turn just in case there's a chance to Intercept), and then hope no enemies engage with you before there's a chance to Intercept? Does anybody ever actually do this? Maybe I'm not understanding something in these rules correctly, but as written it seems like melee characters will only have a chance to use Intercept in the first round, before they've had a chance to engage. Ranged characters, including casters, may have additional opportunities, but they won't want to Intercept and get into melee. Or am I missing something important? Yes, yes, of course. I just find it interesting to tinker with and discuss interesting new mechanics. I also thought about something along these lines. It makes a certain amount of sense, and adds tactical..."richness"...but maybe at the cost of re-introducing some of the complexity/bookkeeping that the rules get rid of in the first place. Also, such a rule wouldn't be replacing a rule that's lost when you get rid of the grid, it would be introducing an entirely new (and frequent) source of Advantage, which would have a pretty dramatic effect on combats. On the other hand, these rules clearly suggest new language for Sneak Attack: "If you have Advantage, or if an ally is engaged with your target..." [/QUOTE]

Verification