Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Side by Side Initiative
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fenriswolf456" data-source="post: 5812439" data-attributes="member: 6687664"><p>I'm not seeing how this group iniative fomulation furthers the goals of your stated intentions. The idea behind "end of your next turn" effects is to give the character that applied the effect a chance to benefit from it as well as their allies. This model doesn't give that chance to the applying character. If you are dropping the 'until the end of your next turn' wordings from powers and effects, when do they in fact end? Presumably a high iniative stun lasts to step 6. But what about a low iniative stun? If it ends at step 6 too, then all 'until the end of your next turn' effects are effectively negated for the entire encounter by the result of one roll, if the character loses iniative.</p><p> </p><p>Also, from your steps, you're applying ongoing damage immediately. This may be your intent, but there are going to be potential times when such damage will drop a character to 0 before any chance of lower initative assistance, as well as denying potential flanking bonuses when the character drops unconscious for those in a different iniative bracket. Is there any particular reason why steps 5 and 6 cannot be switched? This will preserve the 'effect occurs at least once' before the saving throw.</p><p> </p><p>There is also going to be a good chance that the characters in the high intiative bracket will not benefit from save end effects applied by characters in the low iniative bracket. i.e. low iniative character applies Daze (save ends) in step 4, monster makes save in step 5. </p><p> </p><p>Currently, I see this model encouraging/forcing players to take intiative feats so that they can consistently act in step 2, which then leads to a similar issue in that the party acts simultaneously in step 2, applies effects, then the monsters save in step 5. In general, effects become less useful. </p><p> </p><p>This looks like it might be the basis of a turn sequence for mass combat, where things are a bit more abstracted. But on an individual level, it seems to increase the potentency of ongoing damage, while making other save end effects less useful overall.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fenriswolf456, post: 5812439, member: 6687664"] I'm not seeing how this group iniative fomulation furthers the goals of your stated intentions. The idea behind "end of your next turn" effects is to give the character that applied the effect a chance to benefit from it as well as their allies. This model doesn't give that chance to the applying character. If you are dropping the 'until the end of your next turn' wordings from powers and effects, when do they in fact end? Presumably a high iniative stun lasts to step 6. But what about a low iniative stun? If it ends at step 6 too, then all 'until the end of your next turn' effects are effectively negated for the entire encounter by the result of one roll, if the character loses iniative. Also, from your steps, you're applying ongoing damage immediately. This may be your intent, but there are going to be potential times when such damage will drop a character to 0 before any chance of lower initative assistance, as well as denying potential flanking bonuses when the character drops unconscious for those in a different iniative bracket. Is there any particular reason why steps 5 and 6 cannot be switched? This will preserve the 'effect occurs at least once' before the saving throw. There is also going to be a good chance that the characters in the high intiative bracket will not benefit from save end effects applied by characters in the low iniative bracket. i.e. low iniative character applies Daze (save ends) in step 4, monster makes save in step 5. Currently, I see this model encouraging/forcing players to take intiative feats so that they can consistently act in step 2, which then leads to a similar issue in that the party acts simultaneously in step 2, applies effects, then the monsters save in step 5. In general, effects become less useful. This looks like it might be the basis of a turn sequence for mass combat, where things are a bit more abstracted. But on an individual level, it seems to increase the potentency of ongoing damage, while making other save end effects less useful overall. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Side by Side Initiative
Top