Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fenriswolf456" data-source="post: 5812703" data-attributes="member: 6687664">Another thought occurs, with the idea of everyone acting simultaneously during their iniative bracket. How are you going to adjudicate Combat Advantage? Positioning at the beginning of the turn? Or start and end points of movement, or during entire movement? If only at the start, then CA will all but disappear as monsters move/shift on their turn. If end points/during, things could lead to abuse as characters move and shift to grant multiple CAs to other characters. It would seem to necessitate that CA applies only at the end point of movements.  This is leading into how are you going to manage everyone acting at the same time. Are the PCs going to have to declare their entire turn's worth of actions before actually doing anything? This could potentially lead to frustrations as some actions may fizzle or prove tactically unsound at the end of action phase. This does lead into your idea of 'teaming up' on something a more difficult decision. But I can see situations where players may feel they are losing out on actions and effects unfairly. Say a defender stands his ground against an enemy, to give a striker a chance to move in and gain CA. The enemy goes down, but now the defender is out of position against other enemies. In the current game rules, the situation could have been the striker moves in for CA, downs the enemy, and then on the defender's turn, the defender moves to intercept a still active enemy. There are also bound to be numerous situations that will be difficult to adjudicate simultaneously. One that just came to mind is the case of a defender and striker moving in on a tough enemy to gain CA, while a caster Dominates to move the creature and have it strike an ally. For it to occur simultaneously, the melee PCs have to move to the point where the enemy is supposed to end up. But if the caster misses with the Dominate, then what? Do the other two end up with no attacks this turn?  It will be interesting to see if there is an overall improvement in time. I don't see any saving of time during the simultaneous actions, there will be more groups talk about how to plan out the actions of all the PCs involved in the current phase before anything is actually decided upon. Admittedly, this happens with the current rules in any case. If you're looking to save time on the whole saving throw matter, why not keep the initiative/turn order as it, but just have an End of Turn phase where all saving throw effects are handled like your steps 5 and 6?  Ah, ok, so you're changing "until the end of next turn" to "save ends", as well as sustain? Wouldn't this make 'until end of next turn' abilities potentially much more powerful than intended? I'm not familiar enough with wizards to know what the decisions are with sustaining abilities. Are there sustained effects that can be saved against?  But is there a way for low iniative to delay until next turn and get into the high iniative bracket? One bad roll could potentially really hurt a character for an entire encounter. For example, I play a Swordmage, and I have a couple of powers currently that apply a mark until the end of my next turn. I also have +2 initiative, so I'm virtually always going to be in the low iniative bracket. If my temporary marks go away at the end of the turn, those powers are now essentially useless or certainly subpar. It would seem that certain character types will want to be in certain brackets. Those who impose status effects will certainly want to be in the high bracket, while I think strikers oddly will mostly want to be in the lower, to take advantage of effects at least once before they disappear. Interested to see how the playtest goes.</blockquote>

Verification