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
Unearthed Arcana: "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="Pauper" data-source="post: 7719526" data-attributes="member: 17607"><p>Hmmm...it would be interesting to hear from folks who actually used the system in action at GaryCon.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the article elides over the biggest effect on combat -- at a table where players will appreciate having each round be more of a tactical challenge, this system will drastically increase the time to run combats, as players hash out what their optimal strategies should be. With experience and DM prodding, perhaps this extra combat time can be minimized ("let's just use Maneuver E"), but I'm not seeing it.</p><p></p><p>The standard initiative system was designed as a 'stop messing around and just take your turn' system, and I can see where having players declare types of actions at the start of the round rather than waiting until the character's turn might help 'analysis paralysis', but in reality, I think the paralysis will just be relocated from the player's turn to the start of the round, and magnified if other players disagree with the chosen tactics.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The manner in which actions are declared is generic enough so that it seems unlikely, barring some weird combination of effects, that you'd actually be deprived of a useful action in a round, and even then, it'll be because your allies took care of a threat that you expected to have to deal with, so I'd say that problem is not a big as suggested. </p><p></p><p>I think the true biggest hazard is the loss of the Ready action and the tactical options that closes -- for instance, imagine if, instead of appearing in a dungeon corridor, the monsters in the example were stationed behind a fortified portal (not unlike one found in the D-series manned by drow, as long as we're doing callbacks). Not only can the hobgoblins make ranged attacks, they can do so by moving in and out of cover at whim, making them impervious to counter-attack. Trying to 'interrupt' their action by delaying doesn't work, since doing this allows the action *before* the hobgoblins get their turn (and are thus still safely hidden behind the fortifications), and waiting until after the hobgoblins take their turn means exactly the same thing -- the creatures cannot be effectively targeted until the fortification is breached, which not every member of the party may be equally capable of attempting.</p><p></p><p>This is far from the only tactical situation in which the loss of the Ready action means that one side in an encounter is placed at an extreme disadvantage -- it would be up to the DM to identify these situations and attempt to avoid them in order to not antagonize her players too much.</p><p></p><p>Also, did anybody else notice that in round 4, Rupert was able to ready a shield and still attack, despite the rule on donning armor and shields requiring an action to do so?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Coordination sounds like a solid goal, but that's not really the game that the designers have put forward here -- 5th Edition D&D is more a game where any individual character likely has the power to change the entire tempo of the encounter with the right action taken at the right time, rest of the party be danged. The tables who will appreciate the option will pay for their entertainment with less actual adventuring accomplished in the same amount of table-time.</p><p></p><p>If the DM and players really want a game in which weighing "the benefits and risks of each action" are needed to mitigate the risks inherent in combat, maybe they should just be playing Hackmaster instead?</p><p></p><p>--</p><p>Pauper</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pauper, post: 7719526, member: 17607"] Hmmm...it would be interesting to hear from folks who actually used the system in action at GaryCon. I think the article elides over the biggest effect on combat -- at a table where players will appreciate having each round be more of a tactical challenge, this system will drastically increase the time to run combats, as players hash out what their optimal strategies should be. With experience and DM prodding, perhaps this extra combat time can be minimized ("let's just use Maneuver E"), but I'm not seeing it. The standard initiative system was designed as a 'stop messing around and just take your turn' system, and I can see where having players declare types of actions at the start of the round rather than waiting until the character's turn might help 'analysis paralysis', but in reality, I think the paralysis will just be relocated from the player's turn to the start of the round, and magnified if other players disagree with the chosen tactics. The manner in which actions are declared is generic enough so that it seems unlikely, barring some weird combination of effects, that you'd actually be deprived of a useful action in a round, and even then, it'll be because your allies took care of a threat that you expected to have to deal with, so I'd say that problem is not a big as suggested. I think the true biggest hazard is the loss of the Ready action and the tactical options that closes -- for instance, imagine if, instead of appearing in a dungeon corridor, the monsters in the example were stationed behind a fortified portal (not unlike one found in the D-series manned by drow, as long as we're doing callbacks). Not only can the hobgoblins make ranged attacks, they can do so by moving in and out of cover at whim, making them impervious to counter-attack. Trying to 'interrupt' their action by delaying doesn't work, since doing this allows the action *before* the hobgoblins get their turn (and are thus still safely hidden behind the fortifications), and waiting until after the hobgoblins take their turn means exactly the same thing -- the creatures cannot be effectively targeted until the fortification is breached, which not every member of the party may be equally capable of attempting. This is far from the only tactical situation in which the loss of the Ready action means that one side in an encounter is placed at an extreme disadvantage -- it would be up to the DM to identify these situations and attempt to avoid them in order to not antagonize her players too much. Also, did anybody else notice that in round 4, Rupert was able to ready a shield and still attack, despite the rule on donning armor and shields requiring an action to do so? Coordination sounds like a solid goal, but that's not really the game that the designers have put forward here -- 5th Edition D&D is more a game where any individual character likely has the power to change the entire tempo of the encounter with the right action taken at the right time, rest of the party be danged. The tables who will appreciate the option will pay for their entertainment with less actual adventuring accomplished in the same amount of table-time. If the DM and players really want a game in which weighing "the benefits and risks of each action" are needed to mitigate the risks inherent in combat, maybe they should just be playing Hackmaster instead? -- Pauper [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unearthed Arcana: "Greyhawk" Initiative
Top