D&D 4E Would 4e work better if it used "round phases"

[delericho]

A movement phase doesn't work with D&D as-is, since you can choose to attack-then-move, move-then-attack, or even make one contingent on the results of the other.

It's all about building a model of how combat is expected to work, and then applying that. D&D 4e has gone for a model with slightly bizarre geometry (1-1-1-1 diagonals), discrete rounds (can't split a jump between two rounds, regardless of Athletics), and no support for simultaneous actions (two characters are handcuffed together - how quickly can then walk down a corridor?).

Other models are of course possible. They would probably handle some things better and some things worse. They may be simpler, more complex, or about the same.

As I said: it's all about building the model you like, and going with that.

(Personally, if we're having a grid at all, and especially if we're using a VTT, I favour a hex-based movement system with really small hexes. Add plenty of support for reactions (and some support for simultaneous actions), and you'd get something really quite good, I think.)

 

[Dausuul]

It's an interesting thought. It would certainly reduce, if not eliminate, one of the problems with 3E/4E-style initiative, which is the "statue effect"--when it's your turn, you get to move around and act while everyone else is frozen in time. And as others have pointed out, it could speed up player decision-making.

Thinking about potential pitfalls/questions:

• Initiative on the movement phase would be weird. Normally high initiative is an unqualified good, but in this system, a big advantage goes to the person who moves last--you can dictate who you're in melee with. If you've got a low initiative and your enemy doesn't have reach or ranged attacks, you can just shift back out of reach every time it closes with you, then pepper it with spells or arrows, and it can never attack.
• How would charging work? Would you charge on your attack phase? Would you have to declare the charge on your movement phase, execute the movement part of the charge, and then attack on your attack phase? Could you charge at all?
• What happens if you ready an action, or delay? Can you ready an attack to make it during the movement phase? Do you use the same initiative for the attack and movement phases?

I don't think I'd try to do this with 4E, just because 4E is built around the current initiative system and switching to a phase-based approach would almost certainly break parts of it. But if I were designing a system from the ground up, I'd give it some serious thought.

 

[GameDoc]

I just make it clear to my group that they don't have to take all their actions at once. On their turn they can hold any or all. The restrictions are (1) you can only spend an action point on your initiative, and (2) if you hold an action until your next turn it's lost.

It sounds like chaos, but I have noted it keeps everyone's attention on the battle so they have to adjust their plans as each turn plays out. Either that, or they blow all actions on their turn and it doesn't matter if they then get distracted by something else.

It works for my group, but YMMV.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

We handle this in 4E (and did the same in 3E) with a hybrid approach, adjudicated where the sticky parts rear their heads.

Basically, the monsters are going to have 1-4 "initiative groups". In 4E, if I have a boss, 4 skirmishers, and 2 lurkers, I'll typically do it by type--i.e. one initiative roll for all 4 skirmishers. I'm sure a lot of people do this, too. The players all roll their initiative separately, but whatever groups form naturally when inserted in the initiative order with the monsters, are treated as PC groups. So it might be Bob and Mary, then the skirmishers, then Alice, Ted, and Mike, then the lurkers, etc. This can get rather odd when the initiative rolls skew funny, but that also keeps it from being the same every time.

Then we have everyone in an initiative group go together--unless the player really wants to wait. The players are very good at only asserting this exception if it really matters to them. On the flip side, if they don't assert, I'm a lot more forgiving if the situation changes. For example, if Alice, Ted, and Mike all attack the same monster, but Alice and Mike happen to resolve first, downing the monster, I'll let Ted change his mind. Ok, you already rolled on this skirmisher A, but he is dead. However, skimisher B was in range of your movement. So as long as you are ok being next to B, we can retro your decision to apply to B. If no one was in range, it is rather moot anyway.

While the players are handling their stated actions, I'll be rolling for the group of monsters in the next initiative group. (And frequently letting the players roll the attacks and damage, or sometimes only the damage.) Again, if it really matters, I'll hold off on the particular monsters where it matters.

We play for 8+ hours, and it will "really matter" maybe 2-4 times in the whole day. For those, I just make a ruling based on the spirit of the game and the situation. If the players are happy with the ruling, off we go. If not, spend a couple of minutes and talk it out.

I'd rather spend < 10 minutes in 8 hours resolving the occasional issue than play it strict, have no such issues, but take twice as long to resolve every combat. You've got to have players willing to engage in the spirit of the rules, but once you have that, you are golden.

 

[DNH]

I just make it clear to my group that they don't have to take all their actions at once. On their turn they can hold any or all. The restrictions are (1) you can only spend an action point on your initiative, and (2) if you hold an action until your next turn it's lost.

It sounds like chaos, but I have noted it keeps everyone's attention on the battle so they have to adjust their plans as each turn plays out. Either that, or they blow all actions on their turn and it doesn't matter if they then get distracted by something else.

It works for my group, but YMMV.

Ooh, I like the sound of this. Might have to try it out as I continue to have problems with too much tactical thinking and seeking the optimal manoeuvre. This thing of yours sets aside the ruling that you can only take (non-interrupt) actions on your own turn but still. Presumably if a player wishes to use an action at a later point during the round, they have to wait to jump in? How does that work exactly? Do they wait until the current "actor" has finished an action or a turn or what?

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Just to be clear -- would each phase still go by the initiative order, or would it be a chaotic scramble wherein each creature chooses its target square or creature and then the DM yells "MOVE!"

Please tell me you meant the former.