Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5812776" data-attributes="member: 54877">Combat Advantage: That's another one of those interesting decisions I want them to deal with. The rogue will often win initiative, and then will need to gain combat advantage with nothing but the situation that exists at the time and whatever the characters moving in that bracket can do. But of course, since it is presumed simultaneous, if the paladin and rogue team up, the rogue can probably get it. The paladin is already committing to smack that target, and they are rolling at the same time. If the rogue getting a major lick in was enough to kill it, well that was part of the gamble. Of course, when they can, the paladin will try to move next to multiple enemies, while still providing a way for the rogue to get CA. Since the paladin wants to do this anyway, that gives the paladin more interesting things to do, too. It may help in our particular case that my wife plays the rogue. Because she isn't that tactically savvy, she chose to get a boatload of powers that give her CA independent of flanking. So on those rounds where someone can't help her, she can still hit hard. It's not unlimited, but it is mitigating. With the wizard domination example, I'd have the dominated monster, paladin, and rogue all move to the same spot. Adjudicating those kind of movement issues has always been an issue for side by side intiative in a turn-based game, and this is no different.  We don't have a lot of table chatter on plans, because that is not the way we roll. In fact, if someone shows a strong inclination to try something, the rest will probably follow right along. So if the paladin announces that he is going after the orc leader, the rogue will probably follow along to help. We tend to have a single leader, everyone else follows dynamic, albeit one where the "leader" shifts from round to round. Everything as "save ends" should average out about even, because statistically, end of turn effects in RAW are slightly more powerful than save ends effects. If anything, this is a nerf to end of turn effects (something I'll need to watch). This most affects the wizard in our group, because she has an inordinate amount of sustain, or end next turn effects. Even if it does nerf slightly, however, I think she'll be ok with it. The player doesn't like keeping track of the rounds, but she does like uncertainty. The rogue (and warden player if she shows) will be less thrilled with indeterminate lengths on walls of fire and the like. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I had considered putting in language for delaying from one round to the next, but decided to see how it goes first. That implies losing a turn (the current one) to insure going early next turn, which I think will rarely come up. I may be wrong. My inclination right now is to allow it, but perhaps find some additional way to compensate for the lost turn. Perhaps a bonus to the next two or three initiative checks would be fair. Something else we have done in our ad hoc versions of these group actions is let characters form "teams" of their own, as a way to ensure acting together. In this case, I'd probably have the low init character on the team roll for the team, with the other characters do an Aid Another roll based on their initiative (DC for the latter scaling by level instead of by monster initiative).</blockquote>

Verification