|
Post by Daos on Jul 10, 2020 11:31:07 GMT -8
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Malavar won the initiative, so he got to go first. But you stated you were going to use your turn to wait until a skeleton was in melee range. As far as I know, there is no rule for this. In standard 2E combat, you either take your action or you do not. But that didn't seem right to me, so I just extended his initiative until after the skeletons. That's what I always do when someone says they are going to wait for a specific action before taking their turn.
|
|
Rax
Dicemaster
Posts: 2,263
|
Post by Rax on Jul 10, 2020 13:04:19 GMT -8
I envisioned it as working the same way as setting for a charge, but since the skeletons didn't seem like the charging type, I didn't call it that. In standard 2e, calling out setting for a charge gives you a -2 bonus to your initiative roll, so it improves your chances of going before the charger. If you win the initiative, you don't move towards the enemy, you stay put and - assuming you actually get charged - you get to attack before the charger does.
A similar type of action is to wait and see what the enemy does. It's described in Chapter 11 as an option for encounters and gives you a +1 initiative penalty. Even if Malavar's action were judged to be a form of waiting, he would have won the initiative and should have been able to strike before the skeleton that attacked him.
If neither of these work, then it means that winning the initiative when you're not already in melee forces you to move to attack the enemy or effectively lose the initiative for that round. That seems oddly restrictive to me.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Jul 10, 2020 13:45:33 GMT -8
I found the section you referred to on waiting. It reads:
This seems more designed for uncertain situations, like if you don't know if a group is hostile or not, and the +1 is only added if they do attack. It also mentions you'll 'lose advantage' if they do attack.
I've never heard of the idea of a player getting to interrupt an enemy's turn before, which is what it sounds like you are describing: That the skeleton moves toward Mal, and then he attacks before it can, even though it's still the skeleton's turn. Is that right?
I'll consult with some other DMs on the matter, and see what they think on it. Then get back to you.
|
|
Rax
Dicemaster
Posts: 2,263
|
Post by Rax on Jul 11, 2020 11:25:54 GMT -8
I've never heard of the idea of a player getting to interrupt an enemy's turn before, which is what it sounds like you are describing: That the skeleton moves toward Mal, and then he attacks before it can, even though it's still the skeleton's turn. Is that right? I'll consult with some other DMs on the matter, and see what they think on it. Then get back to you.
And yet, interrupting an opponent's turn definitely occurs in a charge situation. The section on charging an opponent says that: In the standard combat sequence, the following would be happening: 1. DM decides on monster/NPC actions but doesn't declare them.
2. Players declare PC actions.
In this case, a player with a spear would have to declare that his PC setting it against an expected charge, i.e. staying put and waiting for an enemy to attack.
3. Initiative is determined. Both sides roll initiative and the PC gets a -2 bonus if a charge occurs. Alternately, reading off table 55, he gets the bonus for setting to receive a charge.
4. Actions are resolved. Three things can occur here: a. If no one actually charges the PC, then he wasted his action. b. If the monster/NPC wins initiative, it will attack first. c. If the PC wins initiative and the monster/NPC charges, the PC will attack when the monster/NPC gets close enough but before it carries out its attack. The PC can't be required to move to engage his target because getting the initiative bonus was dependent on being charged (or setting to receive a charge) and getting bonus damage from his spear is dependent on staying put and bracing his weapon. Barring the specifics of a charge situation, c. is exactly what I was going for. And although defending against a charge is the only specific situation described where breaking an opponent's turn happens, I see no reason why a player shouldn't be allowed to declare that he's waiting for an enemy to close in the hope of winning initiative and being able to strike first. It's exactly the same as the charge case, just without any bonuses or penalties for either side.
Edit: Also, I went ahead and posted Malavar's actions for next round so as not to hold things up while you decide how to handle this situation.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Jul 12, 2020 0:22:18 GMT -8
I don't know. This situation is pretty different. You are adding to your initiative, not subtracting from it. Also, in the section you quoted, it doesn't specify that setting a spear to a charge lets you attack before the enemy's charge finishes. You could easily interpret that to mean you get to hit right after the charge is finished and the enemy makes their attack roll. I spoke with some other DMs, and their general consensus seems to be that in this instance, the character who is holding their action changes their initiative to the same as the enemy that approaches them, so effectively both attack at the same time. What do the rest of you think? I know TristenC and GreyWolfVT run their own games (not sure about Dallion80 , but your opinion is welcome, too). How would you rule on something like this in your own games?
|
|
Rax
Dicemaster
Posts: 2,263
|
Post by Rax on Jul 12, 2020 3:29:29 GMT -8
I don't know. This situation is pretty different. You are adding to your initiative, not subtracting from it. Also, in the section you quoted, it doesn't specify that setting a spear to a charge lets you attack before the enemy's charge finishes. You could easily interpret that to mean you get to hit right after the charge is finished and the enemy makes their attack roll. I spoke with some other DMs, and their general consensus seems to be that in this instance, the character who is holding their action changes their initiative to the same as the enemy that approaches them, so effectively both attack at the same time A character with a spear or other polearm gets the same beneficial modifier to his initiative roll as everyone else who's setting to receive a charge. There's nothing in the section I quoted about ignoring the results of the initiative roll, so I honestly don't see how the rules can be read as turning "character being charged wins initiative" to "character goes second" or "both sides strike simultaneously". I mean, the entire point of the initiative modifier is to increase the likelihood of the defender winning initiative and in the first example under initiative modifiers it's made clear that if the defender isn't set to receive a charge, then he won't get the -2 modifier in the first place. Why would the rules grant a conditional initiative modifier and then nullify the advantage gained (winning the initiative) if the character that sets to receive a charge continues doing exactly that?
Malavar remained in place and readied himself to attack the first enemy that came close. That's analogous to setting to receive a charge and if the skeletons had charged, I would have expected to receive the -2 modifier to my initiative. The skeletons obliged by closing to attack (without charging) and Malavar won the initiative, therefore I expected him to strike before the skeletons could. Requiring him to move to attack first or lose his place in the initiative order makes holding a defensive line pointless since all it does is gift the enemy an attack it might otherwise not have been able to make if he's able to destroy it first.
|
|
|
Post by Dallion80 on Jul 12, 2020 9:39:53 GMT -8
When i ran 2e games i dont recall a ready action mechanic but i see no issue with it
|
|
TristenC
Elite
in the æther
Posts: 1,715
|
Post by TristenC on Jul 12, 2020 10:36:31 GMT -8
I don't know. This situation is pretty different. You are adding to your initiative, not subtracting from it. Also, in the section you quoted, it doesn't specify that setting a spear to a charge lets you attack before the enemy's charge finishes. You could easily interpret that to mean you get to hit right after the charge is finished and the enemy makes their attack roll. I spoke with some other DMs, and their general consensus seems to be that in this instance, the character who is holding their action changes their initiative to the same as the enemy that approaches them, so effectively both attack at the same time. What do the rest of you think? I know TristenC and GreyWolfVT run their own games (not sure about Dallion80 , but your opinion is welcome, too). How would you rule on something like this in your own games?
So, I had seen your post elsewhere Jaded/Daos, and decided against responding to it based on the fact that I am a player in the game in question. However, since you ask directly I will respond
I believe Jaded is correct that it does not say that the character holding goes first. As we all seem to agree, by the letter of the section in question, it really only improves your initiative and doesn't guarantee you will go first. In the instance that a player has a better initiative (after adjustment for 'setting for charge') before the enemy closes, then they are what I would consider 'prepared' for the charge.
In recent years, I have taken a different view that I originally did of this type of thing. Back when I was first starting, i just resolved the actions simultaneously (charging or not, so long as one was approaching the other. NPCs and monsters can take this tactic too). The PC is ready and waiting for that instant when the foe comes in range, the foe is moving forward and waiting for that instant when the player is in range. If their weapons are roughly the same length, that instant happens for both at the same time; essentially the PC is trading his superior initiative in order to 'tie' with the foe when it is in range. It usually worked without too much issue, and occasionally became a little silly when PCs and monsters took each other out in the same instant. It was quite entertaining for some of the players, but in my opinion, it happened way too much to be believable. Perhaps it was the way I treated simultaneous action at the time. In essence, if a creature was felled by a blow but struck in the same instant, both blows would land to full effect. A little like MTG that way, lol.
Since then, I have changed my ways a little, and I always allow PCs to win initiative ties. When taking that approach, it made sense to me that in the above example, the PC would win the 'tie' of whom struck first. So holding action and waiting for a foe would allow the PC to strike first as soon as it was in range, as long as the PC's weapon was of Longer or Equal size. If one bore a weapon at least one size-category longer, then that one struck first no matter what, because that instant where their opponent is in range comes sooner for the person or creature with more reach. The inverse would go for an NPC opponent or monster waiting on the PC to approach. If the person/creature holding won initiative, they would go first. This also is how I handle it for creatures with natural weapons, where their natural weapon size is essentially dictated by creature size category so long as it has reach [i.e. a clawed limb, long tail or such. A bite would be different as the face is much closer]
All that said, i can see it both ways or as Jaded has done it, and consistency is more important to me than which version we use.
Now that i think about it, all of those old d&d computer games for the goldbox sets and Unlimited Adventure DOS system play it the way Malavar describes. If someone holds, the instant the enemy comes in melee range the one holding gets their attacks... for what it's worth
|
|
|
Post by GreyWolfVT on Jul 13, 2020 9:17:36 GMT -8
Probably not the right take away from this but I would offer in my game if the enemy closes and the player did not roll an attack but the foes are within range to act that a player stating they are attacking once the foe is in range that an offer of an attack roll would be possible and allowed in said scenario. IF the player does not roll but i take it by their post they wanted to if they could I will roll the attack myself as the DM.
No idea how this helps but that is my 2 coppers worth.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Jul 13, 2020 16:17:45 GMT -8
Okay. And if I go ahead and house rule this into the game, it's understood by everyone that it would work both ways, right? The NPC enemies can do the same thing, if they choose. I trust everyone is okay with that?
My main concerns with this idea is that 1) it completely ruins charging. Nobody will ever charge again, because even if your opponent doesn't have a spear to set, they still get to attack first and 2) it might create a situation where both sides are just standing there waiting for the other side to approach, and so nothing happens.
|
|
TristenC
Elite
in the æther
Posts: 1,715
|
Post by TristenC on Jul 14, 2020 8:00:44 GMT -8
i'm good with it. I think it only ruins charging if the person standing there wins the initiative and decides to stand there and wait instead of moving forward and attack. That's kind of the whole point for setting to receive a charge anyway right?
|
|
Rax
Dicemaster
Posts: 2,263
|
Post by Rax on Jul 14, 2020 9:27:44 GMT -8
Okay. And if I go ahead and house rule this into the game, it's understood by everyone that it would work both ways, right? The NPC enemies can do the same thing, if they choose. I trust everyone is okay with that? My main concerns with this idea is that 1) it completely ruins charging. Nobody will ever charge again, because even if your opponent doesn't have a spear to set, they still get to attack first and 2) it might create a situation where both sides are just standing there waiting for the other side to approach, and so nothing happens. I don't get how what we've discussed ruins charging? Per the actual rules, if one side decides to set to receive a charge, they get a -2 initiative modifier and that's all. If they don't win the initiative, the other side - which presumably charges - will still go first. In other words, the only way any side is getting to attack first is by winning the initiative. This is no different than if neither side sets for a charge and both close to attack - you need to win the initiative to attack first. In Malavar's case, all I was requesting was that he could remain in place and still attack first if he beat the initiative of a skeleton that closed to attack with him without charging. I can see no discernable mechanical advantage in the choice I made. If I had moved forward to attack the closest skeleton, won the initiative, and destroyed it, the outcome would have been exactly the same as Malavar staying put, winning the initiative, and destroying the skeleton when it moved into melee.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Jul 14, 2020 15:36:15 GMT -8
Alright, but then if you hold your action and then lose initiative (or if the enemy does not approach you), doesn't that mean you've just wasted your turn? Which was your original complaint in the first place, wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Dallion80 on Jul 14, 2020 15:57:02 GMT -8
What i believe he wants to do is similar to reading an action in 3.x
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Jul 14, 2020 16:37:20 GMT -8
I looked it up on the SRD. You are referring to this?
|
|