Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mage of Spellford" data-source="post: 9010402" data-attributes="member: 21576">I find that one rather simple trope from almost any action/sf story feels unnecessary difficult to port to 5e D&amp;D: the knight that guards everyone's back allowing their team mates to retreat. I understand why delaying was sacrificed on the Altar of Speeding up play for 5th edition but for example I have player who's knight always refused to retreat until he's sure his companions are safely away. Under 5e this means that depending upon his character's initiative he will often be left alone until his next turn. Does anyone else find that the cyclical initiative precludes reasonable group tactics? At least in pre-5e the players could agree to all delay until they could retreat as a group, it led to them losing better placement in the initiative order but it was still an option.I'm really noticing this because since it isn't really practical to manage the enemy's initiative individually this provides the 'bad guys' with an advantage of sorts because they can act as a unit and the PC's cannot. How do you deal with this?M</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mage of Spellford, post: 9010402, member: 21576"] I find that one rather simple trope from almost any action/sf story feels unnecessary difficult to port to 5e D&D: the knight that guards everyone's back allowing their team mates to retreat. I understand why delaying was sacrificed on the Altar of Speeding up play for 5th edition but for example I have player who's knight always refused to retreat until he's sure his companions are safely away. Under 5e this means that depending upon his character's initiative he will often be left alone until his next turn. Does anyone else find that the cyclical initiative precludes reasonable group tactics? At least in pre-5e the players could agree to all delay until they could retreat as a group, it led to them losing better placement in the initiative order but it was still an option. I'm really noticing this because since it isn't really practical to manage the enemy's initiative individually this provides the 'bad guys' with an advantage of sorts because they can act as a unit and the PC's cannot. How do you deal with this? M [/QUOTE]

Verification