Trip, Six Second Rounds, Circular Initiative, and Action-in-the-Middle

[tomBitonti]

This is forked from a post that I made under the thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/325768-stand-up-prone-joke.html

To continue my prior point, there seems to be a big difference in regards to the degree to which one is prone. Not to say that the detail is worth preserving in the game, but I can see at least four gradations:

1) Knocked prone, but retaining movement. That is to say, being knocked down but recovering quickly by rolling with the fall and using it to spring back up.

2) Knocked prone, and losing momentum, but keeping ones hands and legs basically where they can be used to get back up.

3) Knocked prone, and being splayed, such that effort is required to obtain a purchase before standing.

4) Knocked prone, and being splayed, and perhaps in a disadvantageous orientation. Say, on ones back and perhaps winded.

One would need to spend only a little effort to regain their feet in the first case. I can see that requiring a balance or acrobatics check, and costing 5' or 10' of movement. The fourth case seems like it might take a full move action (3 seconds) to recover from. The first case might not draw an AOO, but the fourth certainly should.

The question is, when we say "prone", which case do we mean? Down on ones rear and slightly stunned, or twisting to match the motion of the fall with a quick roll and spring back?

TomB

From those questions, there is a followup:

When tripped, if an ability such as Kip Up is used, the narration can be using case (1). If Kip Up is not used, the narration can be using case (3).

However, the decision to use Kip Up does not occur until the tripped player's turn. That is, in my view, a consequence of the circular initiative, which shifts most player actions to their turn.

That is, the shift from longer turns (1 minute), which tend to narration as simultaneous events, to very short turns (6 seconds), and the contemporous shift to circular initiative, seems to go to show the increased prevalence of Action-in-the-Middle as narrative style.

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

Continuing, the comparison with actions which are modeled as immediate, and having no action cost, is of interest. For example, the reflex save for avoiding a fireball. Several easy narrations of an attempted reflex save are:

1) Dodging the waves of fire.
2) Ducking behind one's shield, or any other immediately available cover.
3) Focusing on one's own natural resistance to strengthen it.
4) Having foreseen the still spots in the flame wash, and having already stepped to one of those spots.

In all but the last of these, there is a recognizable action. While these might have been modeled as actions on the player's turn, they are not: They instead use an immediate resolution (a reflex save), which is handled without cost to the player.

In all of the cases, the how of the save is not explained: The player is free to explain this in whatever terms best fit their saving throw bonuses. This is Action-in-the-Middle, although, it is not usually viewed as such.

Then, what factors lead to immediate resolution mechanics (a saving throw) and what factors lead to player action mechanics (Kip Up)?

TomB

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Then, what factors lead to immediate resolution mechanics (a saving throw) and what factors lead to player action mechanics (Kip Up)?

The most obvious difference is going to be in the active use of a limited resource (though I know that one is not going to be consistent). Presumably, a saving throw would be something you usually get, while a reaction to counter act or otherwise deal with the problem is not.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

As an aside and slight tangent:

PCs could have a number of swift actions up their sleeve (starting with one or possibly two for the rogue) and increasing as they gain in skill and experience. Swift actions could primarily be used for reactions that demand more than a free action (rolling with the fall) but less than a full action (on one's back and winded). The Fireball reflex save seems an appropriate one offering a "swift reaction". Perhaps it might even allow a 5ft. dive to escape the flames but end up prone with bonuses to the save (except perhaps for the rogue who again can sidestep 5ft. instead).

Now this takes away that action in the middle thing to an extent, or if you like gives the opportunity for the player greater input to override it. For example, with an area effect fireball, a rogue seeing they are about to be caught in the middle of the flames may just use their natural instinct to duck the full brunt of the flames. This is the traditional reflex save approach where the Fireball offers a reflex save.

However, you might then have a different sort of fire spell such as an Orb of Fire that is directed at a target. Rather than offering a reflex save, it may offer a reflex reaction instead. This means to have a chance of avoiding the magic requires more than an immediate and free reflex save, it requires the spending of one of the character's reactions to be afforded that save. If a character can't or won't spend such a reaction, then they automatically fail.

Just some thoughts and ponderings.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[tomBitonti]

As an aside and slight tangent:

PCs could have a number of swift actions up their sleeve (starting with one or possibly two for the rogue) and increasing as they gain in skill and experience. Swift actions could primarily be used for reactions that demand more than a free action (rolling with the fall) but less than a full action (on one's back and winded). The Fireball reflex save seems an appropriate one offering a "swift reaction". Perhaps it might even allow a 5ft. dive to escape the flames but end up prone with bonuses to the save (except perhaps for the rogue who again can sidestep 5ft. instead).

Yeah, I've considered such abilities. If one of the ways to avoid a fireball is to dive out of the way (or maybe just to hit the dirt!) then having an actual reaction to do so seems to make sense.

I run into a problem in that managing the action using circular initiative becomes complex. Probably too complex for many. An immediate action to drop, or a committed action to dive to the side would be how I would do it, with a committed action being one which you are required to take as your first action on your next turn. In the case of a fireball, there are all sorts of considerations: Would making a spellcraft check (to identify the fireball as it streaks towards you) be required? Would it perhaps provide a small bonus on the save? (Should a spellcraft check in general provide a saving throw bonus? Hmm.) Such mechanics just seem to be too complicated for most folks.

I've been pondering why a saving throw doesn't feel like action-in-the-middle, even though it seems to have some of the features. The best analysis that I've found is that a saving throw could be explained: Divide up the saving throw by bonus, and depending on what range the save was in, that would be the explanation. That is, if you have a +3 to your reflex save due to a high dexterity, and you make the save by just two, then an explanation of "dodging out of the way" can be assumed. But it is interesting to consider that we don't ask for an explanation (and generally don't have a problem with not knowing, or with a made up on the spot explanation), and that is a core mechanic, where-as other mechanics cause outrage.

TomB

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One option that might work would be instead of having reactions, expand the saving throws, but have them be limited somehow--N per turn, some free but have the "reaction" saving throws cost a limited resource, etc.

It could be as simple as something like 2 saving throws per turn for free, including for "reactions," but if you run out, it starts eating into your normal action count.