Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5475278" data-attributes="member: 54877">We handle this in 4E (and did the same in 3E) with a hybrid approach, adjudicated where the sticky parts rear their heads.&nbsp;Basically, the monsters are going to have 1-4 &quot;initiative groups&quot;.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I'm sure a lot of people do this, too.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; So it might be Bob and Mary, then the skirmishers, then Alice, Ted, and Mike, then the lurkers, etc.&nbsp; This can get rather odd when the initiative rolls skew funny, but that also keeps it from being the same every time.&nbsp;Then we have everyone in an initiative group go together--unless the player really wants to wait.&nbsp; The players are very good at only asserting this exception if it really matters to them.&nbsp; On the flip side, if they don't assert, I'm a lot more forgiving if the situation changes.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Ok, you already rolled on this skirmisher A, but he is dead.&nbsp; However, skimisher B was in range of your movement.&nbsp; So as long as you are ok being next to B, we can retro your decision to apply to B.&nbsp; If no one was in range, it is rather moot anyway.&nbsp; &nbsp;While the players are handling their stated actions, I'll be rolling for the group of monsters in the next initiative group.&nbsp; (And frequently letting the players roll the attacks and damage, or sometimes only the damage.)&nbsp; Again, if it really matters, I'll hold off on the particular monsters where it matters.&nbsp;We play for 8+ hours, and it will &quot;really matter&quot; maybe 2-4 times in the whole day.&nbsp; For those, I just make a ruling based on the spirit of the game and the situation.&nbsp; If the players are happy with the ruling, off we go.&nbsp; If not, spend a couple of minutes and talk it out. &nbsp;I'd rather spend &lt; 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.&nbsp; You've got to have players willing to engage in the spirit of the rules, but once you have that, you are golden. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5475278, member: 54877"] 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--[B]unless[/B] 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. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification