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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Friend of the Dork" data-source="post: 5444325" data-attributes="member: 91954">Hey eveyone. I was thinking a bit about actions in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Normal combat is seperated by initative scores. A does his actions, then B, then C etc. The only exception is Ready actions, interrupts, and AoOs. And the occasional DM that likes to have his minions act at the same time to speed up combat (and even then it is assumed they act one at a time on individual initative counts (10.1, 10.2, 10.3 etc.). But sometimes this abstraction just doesn't make sense. For example, if a group of people are running down a dungeon corridor, at the end of which is a huge pit trap, a layer of grease, or maybe a tripwire. Now in "narrative time" the DM could simply describe them running into it, and give appropriate saves or balance checks etc. to stop from running into it, maybe giving the ones further back an easier check. But in combat they move one at a time and the first one only will trigger it, the rest will know about it and avoid it automatically preventing any chain collision. So how about a general change that can prevent this? Well here is finally my suggestion that may help: Acts declared before actions:Initative is rolled as normal. The first player states his action, but instead of having it completely resolved the rest of the players (and possible the DM) states actions after initative. Now given the teamwork of an adventurer party the other players will generally know and understand what their teammates are up to, and thus can adjust their actions somewhat, but they cannot know beforehand the result of such actions, meaning they could risk focusing attacks too much on single targets.As for NPCs the PCs will get a general idea of what they are up to (running a certain direction with weapon ready, hoisting a greatsword, get ready to cast spells), but will of course not know the exact action. Example: 4 PCs (A, B, C, D) runs into a room after kicking down a door. Inside is 4 goblins (1, 2, 3, 4) and neither side is suprised. Initiative is rolled and A, B acts first, follow by 1, then C, 2, 3, D and 4 at the last.   A says he will charge goblin 1. B says he will charge goblin 2. They don't know what 1 will do but the DM says it hefts his spear and looks scared at A who seems to be charging towards it. C says he will cast a spell at Goblins 3 and 4. Goblins 2 and 3 fears the magic user and wants to throw javelins him, hoping they survive whatever spell comes up. D wants to charge Goblin 3, and Goblin 4 wants to attack D in melee. Resolve actions: A and B charges, Goblin 2 is down. Goblin 1 attacks and misses. C cast his spell (Color Spray) and Goblin 3 falls unconscious. Goblin 2 is bleeding on the floor, Goblin 3 is in dreamland. D is was gonna charge but as he sees G3 on the floor he has a change of heart, so he stops by the uncscious goblin and uses his remaining Standard action to attack goblin 3.To be continued!Continued: Goblin 4 then attack D in melee. Round over and actions are declared again. So what do you think? Too complicated? The general idea is that combat is uncertain, and 2 PCs might both try to attack the same individual and found out it's overkill. Only the first action is spent though, leaving a standard action that can be assigned to something not originally intended.</blockquote>

Verification