Post/Author/DateTime	Post
paigeoliver 02-28-06, 07:22 AM	Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always been under the impression that every figure/character/etc in the game gets its own initiative roll. The LGCS does not mention initiative at all, while the initiative rules in the SRD state clearly that each combatant gets an initiative roll. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm Yet, it seems about half the games I play in I find the gamemaster moving all the bad guys on the same initiative roll. I have found that doing that can significantly reduce the fun factor of the game, and add an overwhelming random factor to the difficulty of the combats. I played 6 slots at a convention this weekend and in four of the slots the GMs did the "all bad guys move on the same initiative thing". Meanwhile the other two actually rolled for every creature. In the particular "group initiative" tables I played at this weekend the GMs had some really bad initiative rolls overall. Consequently the parties just blew through every single fight, usually with 5 out of 6 characters being entirely uninjured. By the time the bad guys got to act they were usually flanked, glitterdusted, tripped, and otherwise horked over. At the same time I have played at plenty of tables where the GM used "group initiative" and then rolls a 19 or 20 and the reverse happens to the party. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Mortepierre 02-28-06, 08:05 AM	I think it's a matter of logistics first and foremost. A DM already has to juggle with: - the plot - all the different bad guys - all the different feats, SA/SQ, etc.. of EACH of the bad guys - strict timing (in convention play) It may not seem like much from a player's point of view but, as a DM, I can honestly say it's sometimes overwhelming. Usually, at high APL, one deals with only a few opponents (albeit powerful ones) so it's relatively easy to generate different Initiative rolls. At low APL, on the other hand, a DM often has to run a true "swarm" of critters. Generating a different Initiative roll for each of them and sticking to it can quickly turn into a nightmare, especially if you add Refocus, Ready, and/or Delay to the equation. Thus, the temptation to - sometimes - "simplify" things somewhat by reducing the different rolls to a few, if not to a single one. I'll freely admit I am as guilty of it as many other DM. Yes, in an ideal world, every bad guys would get his/her/its own Init. roll. Alas, we don't live in such a world. Note that, as you pointed out, this can be either a huge boon or a big disadvantage for the baddies, depending on what their "simplified" Init. roll is. You win some, you lose some.
kjenks 02-28-06, 08:33 AM	The PH says the DM has the option of rolling init individually for his bad guys or of rolling once for everybody. When I'm the DM, I roll individually if there's a rogue in either party or I roll once if there are no rogues involved -- because rolling once for all bad guys skews the flat footed/sneak attack situation dramatically.
Lomiat 02-28-06, 09:00 AM	Another common DM tactic is to roll individually for each differently statted NPC and only once for a group of MOOKs. When you don't really think of the 6 orc barbarians as individuals, it doesn't hurt much to have them all go at the same time. However, when the 6 orc barbarians are fighting alongside a cave troll and a greater invisible rogue, then the DM often has 3 initiatives--one for the orcs, one for the troll, and one for the rogue. It's a compromise.
Lomiat 02-28-06, 09:04 AM	However, as an aside, I've seen (and heard of) a few judges having pre-rolled certain checks (and requesting players to make rolls to be used later), and this strikes me as a fairly good tactic. One of the reasons DMs often bunch up bad guys who have separate initiative modifiers is that stopping to roll each check and do the math and record the result can significantly slow the pace of the game. Pre-rolled initiatives can remove that initial math pause, and the bad guys are pretty much fated to roll initiative sooner or later, so it will hardly be wasted work...
Mommy was an Orc 02-28-06, 09:51 AM	While I understand the simplicity factor involved, the problem of rolling all at once is that essentially, the bad guys are in effect delaying to all go at the same time and getting to pick one roll instead of the lowest of all rolls. Which is a tactical benefit the players don't get. Sure, they can roll low, which skews the difficulty of the combat down, but on average, the bad guys will do better for doing this. Also, as Ken pointed out, the big problem is with Rogues - if the bad guys all roll high, then the Rogue might not still have a flatfooted opponent to go after in round one when his turn comes - a very unusual situation if there is a Rogue in the party attacking say a group of 4 or so.
Samwise 02-28-06, 11:51 AM	While I understand the simplicity factor involved, the problem of rolling all at once is that essentially, the bad guys are in effect delaying to all go at the same time and getting to pick one roll instead of the lowest of all rolls. The standard rule is that the critters get one initiative. As the rule says, each player gets a turn and the DM gets a turn. It isn't just simplicity, but a basic set up to keep the players as the main actors. Which is a tactical benefit the players don't get. Sure, they can roll low, which skews the difficulty of the combat down, but on average, the bad guys will do better for doing this. How exactly do the players not get this? Players constantly delay to get spells, flanks, and other benefits from each other. What is wrong with the bad guys doing it too?
Bob_the_Theurge 02-28-06, 01:30 PM	The standard rule is that the critters get one initiative. As the rule says, each player gets a turn and the DM gets a turn. It isn't just simplicity, but a basic set up to keep the players as the main actors. I compromise. I exercise my right to roll just once, but I apply each varying monster's init modifier to that roll. So if I roll a 10, and something has a +8, it's on 18. Its friend with a -2 is on 8. Fairly straightforward. When there's only one or two enemies, rolling for both is fine. Above about four, if they're not on the same init, it gets screwy.
MaxDog 02-28-06, 01:53 PM	I use a variety of methods: *If I have a bunch of identical "fodder" critters, I'll usually group them in batches of 2 or 3 and give each group a separete init. Bosses and unique creatures get their own inits. *If I'm going to have to roll more than 4 inits at the table, I'll usually use pre-rolled values. *If I'm in hurry and the NPC's have very different different init mods, like two fighters and two rogues, if I haven't pre-rolled, sometimes I'll roll one die and apply all NPC modifiers to that for individual's init. I'll just add my vote for giving rogues their own init mods: in one now-retired regional mod, a fight breaks out around the PC's -- 8 rogues vs. 8 monks and the PC's get to choose which side. When I played it, the DM rolled one init for the monks, one for the rogues (rogues won!). Eight sneak attacks later, there wasn't much between us and the rogues.
Mommy was an Orc 02-28-06, 01:57 PM	The standard rule is that the critters get one initiative. As the rule says, each player gets a turn and the DM gets a turn. It isn't just simplicity, but a basic set up to keep the players as the main actors. And it skews combat in a way that favors TPKs and too-easy combats over middle of the road combats. How exactly do the players not get this? Players constantly delay to get spells, flanks, and other benefits from each other. What is wrong with the bad guys doing it too? Nothing - provided they have pay a real opportunity cost to do it and don't get it for free. Here's 2 sets of initiatives with 4 rolls each...say the party runs into an iconic group of bad guys, 1 Rogue, 1 Cleric, 1 Fighter, and 1 Wizard. Both the Rogue and Fighter are designed for melee. APL 6, where they're facing a party of 6 characters, levels 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, and 4 For purposes of what happens, assume the Cleric wants to cast a buff spell, the Wizard wants to fire off an area affect battlefield control spell, and the Rogue and Fighter want to be flank buddies. I gave the Rogue a +3 and everyone else a +1. (10) 13,4,6,4 (17) 20,13,10, 2 Now notice what happens in each of the combats: Combat 1: Let's say the party BDF raged and charged the Fighter in such a way that while he's not exposed to a flank now, he will be after the Rogue and Fighter take 5' moves. But let's also say members of the party still have to go. Does the Rogue delay 7 steps, hoping that the +6 to hit/full sneak attac opportunity still exists or does he instead choose to target one of the still flatfooted party members with a substandard ranged weapon, move up to the party and melee a flatfooted, hoping to not get a full attack in response or ready an action against a spellcaster? It is an interesting choice without a clearly right answer. However, if the Rogue only has to delay 2 steps, the decision is obvious - wait and give the Fighter a +4 to damage from Power Attack. Combat 2: The Rogue goes off on 20 - there's the same problem again, except now it is magnified. However, if the bad guys all go off on 18, there's not just the likelihood that they go first, but that the party is still mostly in fireball formation. Presume one of the party likely goes before 18 - the evil Cleric goes first, casting his buff spell(and also likely drawing off any readied attacks), the evil Wizard casts Stinking Cloud on 5 members of the party, who are now both unable to see and 2-3 of them are likely nauseous. The Fighter charges the exposed party member, and then the Rogue moves into position for a flank sneak attack. There's some decent potential for a TPK. Even if that Wizard goes on 18+ and the rest of the evil party doesn't, it isn't anywhere near as dangerous - first off, what if that guy who moved first readied an action against a spell? The Wizard can't afford to delay until the Cleric goes because other people might do that even if the first guy didn't. Sure, the Stinking Cloud is still going to have the same effect, but the members of the party who saved do have the possibility of disrupting the evil bad guys back - before they get to act. If their Cleric moves out of the cloud and fires off his own battlefield control spell at them, the Rogue might not get to act if he delays until the Fighter goes. Personally, I don't know why any tactically adept DM would want to roll one initiative. Probably end up killing parties almost by accident and then they'd probably decide to do something crazy like not using battlemats... :)
kjenks 02-28-06, 02:13 PM	Here's what I mean about the rogue situation. Consider the following cases: Case 1: DM rolls group init for bad guys. Players have a rogue in the party. Case 1a: All bad guys go before the party rogue, so no foes are flat-footed by the time the rogue gets to act. The rogue gets screwed. Case 1b: The party rogue acts before all of the bad guys, so ALL foes are flat-footed at the time the rogue gets to act. The bad guys get screwed. Case 2: DM rolls group init for bad guys, with one or more rogues in the group of bad guys. Case 2a: The bad guy rogue(s) goes before the party, so all party members are flat-footed. This is especially dangerous if there are multiple rogues in the DM's group. The party gets screwed. Case 2b: The bad guy rogue(s) go after the party, so none of the party members are flat-footed. The bad guy rogues get screwed. So if there are rogues on either side of the table, someone gets screwed by group initiative. If the DM has trouble keeping track of who goes next in the initiative order, the DM can assign a player to keep track of the initiative. Everybody (PC and NPC) rolls, giving their numbers to the keeper. The keeper can always answer the question, "Who's next?" The keeper also keeps track of who has delayed or readied actions, as these things can change the initiative order. Sometimes, it's best to assign the player whose character is a fighter-type, rather than a spellcaster, because a fighter-type usually has less complexity to manage between his turns. But a reach weapon fighter with Combat Reflexes may have MORE between-turn activity, so this is only a rule of thumb.
paigeoliver 02-28-06, 03:13 PM	Here is also another common one. Auto-ambush by rogues. GM uses group initiative and the bad guys all get to do sneak attack damage twice before the PCs even act. Or here is one I saw once. Auto ambush by chokers. Chokers all got 4 standard actions before the PCs ever got to act because the GM only made one initiative roll for them. 5 of the characters died in that fight, and only one of them got away. And it wasn't a weak table at all, it was a table loaded with beefy character types. The one that got away was probably the weakest one there. Or, the fight starts with a bit of distance and no surprise round. GM uses group initiative and rolls poorly, and the blinded, entangled, etc bad guys never even make it into melee range because of it. Also, can someone please point out the page in the dungeon master's guide that says group initiative is legal, it isn't located in the section where they talk about initiative.
Mommy was an Orc 02-28-06, 03:29 PM	Also, can someone please point out the page in the dungeon master's guide that says group initiative is legal, it isn't located in the section where they talk about initiative. It is in PHB at the bottom of page 136 under the 'monster initiative' section.
paigeoliver 02-28-06, 03:44 PM	It is in PHB at the bottom of page 136 under the 'monster initiative' section. Ok, I found it. Strange though it doesn't say what to do if the bad guys have different initiative modifers.
Samwise 02-28-06, 06:20 PM	Here is also another common one. Auto-ambush . . . An ambush is not surprise. There is no rule allowing auto-surprise. You always get a listen or spot check. It may be near impossible to make against magically enhanced, skill maxed opponents, but you always have a chance. And of course there are the Feign Surprise cards. Or, the fight starts with a bit of distance and no surprise round. GM uses group initiative and rolls poorly, and the blinded, entangled, etc bad guys never even make it into melee range because of it. And? One roll, three rolls, ten rolls. If the wizard wins initiative he wins initiative. Why try and negate that by suddenly throwing more rolls around for the bad guys? As shown, one initiative roll cuts both ways. Either all the critters go first, or all the critters go last. Worse, it serves an excuse for a DM to switch methods when convenient. He rolls under 10, these critters need individual initiative. he rolls over 15, it is "obviously" a single group and he doesn't need to roll for them individually.
solbergb 02-28-06, 07:26 PM	Here's how I do it, and the only time I vary this approach is when doing playtests for myself or another author (and thus needing a wider variety of results to fairly judge the effect of an encounter), as opposed to running the game "for real". 1. I break the bad guys up into categories. For each unique statblock, there will be one init roll. 2. If there isn't already more than 4ish inits, I'll break groups in half and roll inits separately. I don't like clumping the threat into one group, unless it is an especially ineffective encounter, or unless they all delay/ready for some event (in which case the WORST init will generally be used). I also don't like having more init slots on the GM side than there are players, which is why I usually cap it at 4 separate inits, unless there are unique statblocks. (Druids and companions move together, wizards and familiars move together, anything summoned moves with the summoner, but otherwise if it's not the same, it gets its own slot in the init order) Then I'll pre-roll the init checks for the encounters, not "fudging" ever, and do my entire module prep assuming those die rolls. That way at the convention or gameday I know that the bard actually goes after the wizard and know how they'll react to that juxtaposition of their usual tactics, etc. Yes, sometimes low init guys go before high init guys, in spite of feats etc. That's how it goes for PC's too. Some encounters come out harder, some easier, but at least I as the judge *KNOW* that this obligatory thug encounter will be unusually tough, because the rogues all rolled well, or unusually easy, because the buffing spellcasters all went late and the warrior types are too dumb to not immediately charge and scatter. Better to know when you're prepping than to get surprised at the table by the "easy" encounter that wiped the floor with the party, while the "hard" one was cakewalked. I don't think anyone else does it like I do, but it's a method that's worked well for me.
paigeoliver 03-01-06, 12:37 AM	Ok, now that I know this is more of a D&D rules problem and not a Living Greyhawk rules problem I will just go back to what I have been doing, which is recommending individual initiative to DMs I know, and explaining why. The most I'll ever group together myself is a pair of kobolds or something, other than that I will just roll for everyone. I usually pre-roll though and have the init rolls written down in the module with the stats. One thing that I have found helps out is initiative cards and a nice miniature selection so that every baddie can have a unique miniature, that way I can note the name of the baddies mini on the init card so I don't get confused.
VinGoodman 03-01-06, 01:24 AM	Consider the following (very simplified game): 1) The DM has to roll 4 d20's. If 3 or 4 of them are higher than 15, the PC loses. Otherwise, the PC wins. The chance of PC's losing would be roughly 5% (13/256, for those who are interested). 2) If the DM simplifies, and simply rolls once and counts it 4 times, then the chance of rolling higher than a 15 would be 25%. That is, the chance of PC's losing would be 25%, significantly higher than the 5% from scenario 1. For tough encounters, this increased risk would not make the PC's happy. For weaker encounters this may be less of an issue, since losing may simply mean more resources depleted to resolve the encounter rather than loss of life. Thus, for tough EL/CR battles, I believe the DM should think twice before using group initiatives, whereas for lesser encounters, this is probably not enough of issue to fret over. Can't believe I used my first post for this...I should be asking how to find a game (it's looking like FlatCon 2006 will be my debut into the world of Greyhawk), not fretting over probabilities.
Sieylianna 03-01-06, 07:34 AM	One thing that I have found helps out is initiative cards and a nice miniature selection so that every baddie can have a unique miniature, that way I can note the name of the baddies mini on the init card so I don't get confused. The problem you run into is that if you're not running a home game, there are way too many variables to make this practical. The last con I judged at I was asked to run "Times Tide on the Bright Sands". It supports APL 2-16 and two of the combat encounters allow the PCs actions to determine which of two groups are fought. There isn't any realistic way to prepare that module. Personally, I generally roll separate initiatives for anything which has its own stat block. If everything uses the same stat block, I'll allow up to three separate rolls if there is a way to break them into groups. Ed
paigeoliver 03-01-06, 07:49 AM	Ah, I don't judge at cons. I judge at home and I judge at game days. At our game days we sort of know in advance who is judging what APL.
redgamer 03-01-06, 11:44 AM	The problem I have with bad guys going all on the same initiative is that it doesn't give the person being attack a chance to withdraw or get healing. If you are fighting 3 enemies that do about 22 damage a round and have 50 hit points so long as either you or the cleric go before they go 3 times you can heal up or withdraw. If they have an int above 4 and all go at once all three will attack the same person and they will almost certaintly die in what is likely meant to be an easy encounter.
solbergb 03-01-06, 01:51 PM	The problem you run into is that if you're not running a home game, there are way too many variables to make this practical. The last con I judged at I was asked to run "Times Tide on the Bright Sands". It supports APL 2-16 and two of the combat encounters allow the PCs actions to determine which of two groups are fought. There isn't any realistic way to prepare that module. Ed Sure there is. You prep them both, you playtest them both (if you playtest/simulate combats as LGCS suggests you should). I rolled different inits for the different options, treated them as separate combats. Riddle in the Dust had one like that too. Mods like that take extra prep time, nearly as much as a two-rounder. There aren't as many variables as you think. If you run 3 combats with randomized parties (weak 6 person, average 5 person, strong 4 person) you'll get a really good sense for how the combats will go "normally" and can thus adapt to any weirdness the PC's introduce. Of course that is a tremendous amount of work, especially if you are prepping a wide APL range. I only do it because I enjoy it, it's kind of like doing a CRPG for me (and keeps me from getting sucked into World of Warcraft or other time sinks so far). Initiatives though aren't a big deal. Pre roll a set for each combat, breaking the enemy up into about 4 groups (or one per unique statblock) and you're set...if they "clump up" it is because of luck, not GM malice, and it takes a lot more bad luck to cause the "all low" or "all high" results that are the subject of this thread. Even if they all roll, say, 16 18 22 24, there is still room for a PC or two in the middle, unlike, say, all going at 22. Of course sometimes you get a nice even spread and the PC's muck it up by rolling only very high or very low inits, making it seem clumped even when it isn't.
Timlagor 03-03-06, 03:42 PM	Thanks for raising this. I roll once per stat block too. One issue that hasn't been mentioned is keeping track of which 'mook' is which. Damage is usually easy to track because the party tends to damage tehm one at a time. Tracking Initiative seperately for a bunch of identical mooks could be confusing -though not impossible and maybe worth the effort... I hadn't thought of the Rogue problem and will attempt to be more accomodating to PC Rogues in future.
kjenks 03-03-06, 05:45 PM	Thanks for raising this. I roll once per stat block too. One issue that hasn't been mentioned is keeping track of which 'mook' is which. Damage is usually easy to track because the party tends to damage tehm one at a time. Tracking Initiative seperately for a bunch of identical mooks could be confusing -though not impossible and maybe worth the effort... I number my mooks, and those numbers correspond to the numbers on my "mook minis" (plastic dwarves with broad bases). This facilitates keeping track of mook HP, ability damage and conditions. I hadn't thought of the Rogue problem and will attempt to be more accomodating to PC Rogues in future. Remember, this is an issue if rogues are on EITHER side of the table. A half-dozen low-level rogues is not a very tough encounter -- unless they all roll high on initiative together and they all gang up and sneak attack one lightly-armored opponent. There's another issue with simultaneous initiative: Mutual flanking. If you have two rogues that go on the same initiative, you might be tempted to move both of them up to flanking positions and sneak attack. This can work, kind of, but it requires some fancy "ready action" maneuvers, where one moves then readies an attack, the other moves, the first one attacks with flanking, then the second one attacks with flanking. You avoid all this just by rolling two initiative checks.
King Kashue 03-04-06, 03:13 PM	The PHB gives the option for DMs to either role a single initiative for all bad guys, or to roll separately...Either is acceptable by the rules. However, to roll separately is in my opinion much better, being both fairer (since it puts them on equal footing with the PCs) and more "realistic" (since not everyone would move at the same time). I consider DMs who do not roll separate initiatives to be making a choice that lessens the experience for the players. Especially since the reason most often stated is "I don't want to bother tracking all the inits"...If you've got 18 bad guys, yes, grouping some of the initatives is necessary from a logistics standpoint, but tracking 2 or 3 extra initiatives just isn't difficult...
haferka 03-04-06, 03:35 PM	If I was the DM.. which I never am.. Roll 1 initiative (use the WORST) initiative modifier, and that is the initiative ALL the baddies go on. I would simply "delay" the faster NPCs so they could act together. Its simple, and effective, since it gives the PCs very little chance of avoiding combat maneuvers.
Madfox11 03-06-06, 07:17 AM	You do realize delaying does have consequences since that creature is no longer flat-footed? ;) Most of the time I roll one initiative for each set of creatures, but at the same time I hardly ever focus all attacks on one PC. Never had complaints about it from players. Remember that most of the time large groups of the same creature tend to be mooks - relatively easy to kill and dealing not as much damage as the more special ones. Ultimately it speeds things up, and when you are running a game at a convention that is really appriciated by the players. They tend to have more problems with a game stopping in the middle of the adventure due to time problems. Note: when I use one initiative roll for a group of mooks, I never let them acts at exactly the same time. I also never let them ready so that all of them get outflank bonuses. I discourage PCs from taking ready actions based on PC's actions (it can be really cheesy), so I can hardly do ready actions based on allies actions with NPCs. Pieter Sleijpen Circle Member representative of the Splintered Suns Metaregion
haferka 03-06-06, 08:49 AM	You do realize delaying does have consequences since that creature is no longer flat-footed? ;) I discourage PCs from taking ready actions based on PC's actions (it can be really cheesy), so I can hardly do ready actions based on allies actions with NPCs. Pieter Sleijpen Circle Member representative of the Splintered Suns Metaregion Ready actions are NOT cheesy, they are tactics. Wolves use them instincitivly, and warriors have leaned from these base animals. I am curious, what would you do to an individual that chooses to use these "tactics"? Would you single them out for retributive "tactics"? Not that I would have a problem with that, I just want to know if you have a double standard.
King Kashue 03-06-06, 09:59 PM	Ready actions are NOT cheesy, they are tactics. Wolves use them instincitivly, and warriors have leaned from these base animals. I am curious, what would you do to an individual that chooses to use these "tactics"? Would you single them out for retributive "tactics"? Not that I would have a problem with that, I just want to know if you have a double standard. He's talking about one PC readying an action based on knowledge his character doesn't have... E.g., Player one says "Dude, delay so I can pull off MANUEVRE X"...He doesn't say it in character, and there's no way for his character to posess the information, so it's exploiting the fact it's a game system, and therefore is cheesy metagaming... If people want to communicate in character, that's fine, but using player knowledge to gain advantage is BS...When players won't stop doing that at a table I'm judging, I'll stick a time limit on them, if they don't decide on an action, they go into auto-delay (allowances given for rules questions and such)...It's usually not a problem though...
haferka 03-07-06, 12:59 AM	ok. Using out of game info ... is cheesy. I agree. (to a point). normal tactics, like delaying for a flank, but unfamiliar tactics, like moving outside the area of effect of a comming spell (a spell which they have NOT seen the PC cast repeatedly before) should NOT be allowed. But again, it all depends on the DM. The DM has the advantage of knowing the PCs tactics.. every time. Why not allow the PCs the same leway once in awhile.
paigeoliver 03-07-06, 04:06 AM	I always assume both the good guys and the bad guys talk about battle tactics all the time out of combat, and thus are able to signal each other about that sort of thing.
vvincent 03-07-06, 12:25 PM	The problem is that I've never seen characters discuss tactics during an adventure outside of combat. It *always* occurs the moment initiative is rolled. Sort of approach you describe (signaling each other regarding tactics - especially the kind of complex tactics that get discussed at a table) would require the use of "Delivering a Secret Message" rules, provided under the Bluff skill. That would be the only way for the type of communication you descrive to occur without being instantly detected by an enemy. For reference, here is the wording: Delivering a Secret Message: You can use Bluff to get a message across to another character without others understanding it. The DC is 15 for simple messages, or 20 for complex messages, especially those that rely on getting across new information. Failure by 4 or less means you can’t get the message across. Failure by 5 or more means that some false information has been implied or inferred. Anyone listening to the exchange can make a Sense Motive check opposed by the Bluff check you made to transmit in order to intercept your message (see Sense Motive). Vernon L. Vincent Verbobonc Triad I always assume both the good guys and the bad guys talk about battle tactics all the time out of combat, and thus are able to signal each other about that sort of thing.
Asaris 03-07-06, 02:06 PM	But I don't think those rules apply if you've worked it out beforehand. Presumably the PCs talk to each when walking from place to place, and presumably it's not all small talk, but some stuff like "So, if we run into some orcs, here's what we're going to do." I don't really see any trouble with assuming this, rather than making the PCs work it out explicitly. That seems like it'll just make the table drag.
Mommy was an Orc 03-07-06, 03:03 PM	The problem is that I've never seen characters discuss tactics during an adventure outside of combat. It *always* occurs the moment initiative is rolled. Well, that's the natural result of time pressure and often mustering groups of completely different players. If I were a melee focused rogue and had 2 weeks of time on the road to discuss tactics with a combat trained fighter, I'm sure we'd come up with all kinds of tactical things to do - and based on that discussion, come up with say 5 hand signals that indicate a particular manuever - and the manuever would likely be obvious given the situation - You charge that thing, I will then flank it. I have enough problems getting other players to remember a +2 to hit/damage bonus my Bard is giving them, let alone specific signals for combat tactics. That's the thing - the characters should have no real problems remembering this(unless of course they're a 6 Int or maybe 8 Int character) even if the players have difficulty. The metagaming part that should be discouraged is when they're discussing what everyone would do, rather than paired manuevers. A Wizard should say, "Just so everyone knows, I like to cast X in the beginning of a combat.", not on the battlefield say, "Okay, I'm going to cast X, so plan accordingly..."
solbergb 03-07-06, 05:57 PM	I find with my sorc I often use the "say a brief thing" out of phase action to say things like "step back after you attack" or "wait for my spell". I do not elaborate on why. Before the adventure starts or early in she'll usually find out the weight of every party member with gear (it affects how/when she moves them) pass some stuff out and find out who balances well "sometimes I spray grease around". If I need someone else to do something for a reason in combat though, I usually briefly state what I need, and it is up to them whether or not they go along. And of course the bad guys get to hear. I try not to say things that are easily countered by knowledge. Likewise when the bad guys are forced out of normal tactics by situations, I'll have them call out to each other what they need or think they need from the other - briefly. If the PC's understand their language, they learn stuff. If it's something they should already know as a team, such as "time to bug out" I might have a code or signal be used instead. Of course my favorite combats as a judge involve everyone able to talk trash to everyone else (one encounter I had intelligent, talking swords on both sides of the fight...engaging in a swordfight, commenting on the prowess and lack thereof of their masters after each die roll)....so adding some signal to the noise doesn't hurt either.
Samwise 03-07-06, 06:39 PM	The problem is that I've never seen characters discuss tactics during an adventure outside of combat. It *always* occurs the moment initiative is rolled. I constantly see players discuss tactics during an adventure, outside of combat. Indeed, I constantly see players discuss tactics the weeks before when an adventure is being set up to be run, particularly with APL parties, as the specifics of what they can do can vary widely. And more, when I sit down, I always start off with a clear statement of what I can, and should be to do, in combat.
Samwise 03-07-06, 06:46 PM	The metagaming part that should be discouraged is when they're discussing what everyone would do, rather than paired manuevers. A Wizard should say, "Just so everyone knows, I like to cast X in the beginning of a combat.", not on the battlefield say, "Okay, I'm going to cast X, so plan accordingly..." As it happens, and as noted above, I do plot paired maneuvers. I have rapid spell and summon monsters. I make it clear at the start that if someone waits for me, I'll set up a flank for them. That is what I took the feat for after all.
paigeoliver 03-07-06, 10:31 PM	I know I do at least some tactic talking in character outside of the fight. For example it is EXTREMELY important that my trip/disarm Marshall is paired with a melee fighter in every fight. It works out best if we know in advance who he is going to pair with. Works out even better if I can pair him with a combat reflexes character.
JohnduBois 03-07-06, 10:56 PM	My warchanter does something similar. At the start of every adventure (usually during mustering), there's a lot of "who are my Power Attackers?" and asking the clerics to not prep Mass Cure Light and such. But I certainly make it a point to discuss combat tactics the second we know what we're up against, even if it's "let me see if I can talk to it and make it go away". Speaking of your trip marshall, paige, did you make it to BashCon to join the Furyondy bard meta-org?
paigeoliver 03-07-06, 11:49 PM	My warchanter does something similar. At the start of every adventure (usually during mustering), there's a lot of "who are my Power Attackers?" and asking the clerics to not prep Mass Cure Light and such. But I certainly make it a point to discuss combat tactics the second we know what we're up against, even if it's "let me see if I can talk to it and make it go away". Speaking of your trip marshall, paige, did you make it to BashCon to join the Furyondy bard meta-org? Nope, I am still holding on to the cert, gonna make it up to Furyondy to get it signed eventually.