Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sir Brennen" data-source="post: 7165760" data-attributes="member: 553"><p>You seem to contradict yourself a bit with these statements:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not talking about a player "changing their mind" - I mean when their chosen option simply isn't viable at the point their turn comes up. Not declaring the specific spell ahead of time, even though it's likely they know what they're going to cast, allows for them to switch to a backup spell, adapting to the changing circumstances of the battle. </p><p></p><p>Making them stick to what they've declared in the initiative phase could also have the effect of creating indecision - they've got to cast the spell they choose, so what's the best spell to pick if things change during the round?</p><p></p><p>Would you also make archers declare a target in advance, and if that target dies or becomes no longer visible, make them lose their action as well? A ranged attacker can currently simply pick the best/preferred target when their turn comes up. They may still end up with no targets, but that will happen far less than having to declare one. Same with casting spells.</p><p></p><p>And if you're worried about adding time for a player to figure out their turn, why, oh, why have a system where you have to stop and look up the specifics of the spell each time one is cast in combat? Think of the poor DM who has more than one spell caster NPC fighting the party.</p><p></p><p>The "adding a d6" to take a turn later ... nope. If they can't take the action now, it's still unlikely they'll be able to do it later. Unless you're suggesting they can also make a new declaration of what they're doing (potential for abuse there.) I mean:</p><p></p><p>DM: Any 9's?</p><p>Player 1: That's me, but the orc I was going to charm is dead.</p><p>DM: OK, roll me a d6 to act later.</p><p>Player 1: I got a 1.</p><p>DM: Alright. Any 10's?</p><p>Player 1: Uh, that's me, and the orc I was going to charm is still dead.</p><p></p><p>Like someone else said, this UA system is slightly more simulationist than the current initiative system. The question is, how far down the simulation rabbit hole to you want to go with further tweaks? Especially with non-real world things like casting spells.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sir Brennen, post: 7165760, member: 553"] You seem to contradict yourself a bit with these statements: I'm not talking about a player "changing their mind" - I mean when their chosen option simply isn't viable at the point their turn comes up. Not declaring the specific spell ahead of time, even though it's likely they know what they're going to cast, allows for them to switch to a backup spell, adapting to the changing circumstances of the battle. Making them stick to what they've declared in the initiative phase could also have the effect of creating indecision - they've got to cast the spell they choose, so what's the best spell to pick if things change during the round? Would you also make archers declare a target in advance, and if that target dies or becomes no longer visible, make them lose their action as well? A ranged attacker can currently simply pick the best/preferred target when their turn comes up. They may still end up with no targets, but that will happen far less than having to declare one. Same with casting spells. And if you're worried about adding time for a player to figure out their turn, why, oh, why have a system where you have to stop and look up the specifics of the spell each time one is cast in combat? Think of the poor DM who has more than one spell caster NPC fighting the party. The "adding a d6" to take a turn later ... nope. If they can't take the action now, it's still unlikely they'll be able to do it later. Unless you're suggesting they can also make a new declaration of what they're doing (potential for abuse there.) I mean: DM: Any 9's? Player 1: That's me, but the orc I was going to charm is dead. DM: OK, roll me a d6 to act later. Player 1: I got a 1. DM: Alright. Any 10's? Player 1: Uh, that's me, and the orc I was going to charm is still dead. Like someone else said, this UA system is slightly more simulationist than the current initiative system. The question is, how far down the simulation rabbit hole to you want to go with further tweaks? Especially with non-real world things like casting spells. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative
Top