Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Platonix 04-10-06, 10:35 PM	First of all, for those who don't know, PEACH = Please Examine And Critique Honestly. I am looking for opinions and suggestions. The Player's Handbook states that if two combatants tie for initiative, regardless of who's on whose side, you must reroll to break the tie. In my campaigns, this is not the case. Simultaneous action in battle is quite possible. When two combatants act simultaneously, both must declare their actions before the results of either action are adjudicated. Neither is allowed to act with knowledge of how the other's action will turn out. The DM should adjudicate cases where one action could interfere with the other, such as a Fighter charging at a monster and a Wizard casting fireball at the same monster. If enemies act simultaneously and one of them attacks the other, the target is considered flat-footed with respect to the attacker unless his own action also involves the attacker (because if it doesn't, his attention is not on the attacker at that instant.) Even if it does, he is denied his shield bonus to AC unless a) his action does not involve the use of hands, or b) his action uses only one hand and he has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, which allows him to strike with a weapon and interpose a shield at the same time. if his action is a weapon attack, it gets the penalties associated with fighting with two weapons (treat it as the primary weapon); the shield bonus to AC is not penalized. If an attack fells a target who is acting simultaneously, he can still take his action before falling because it happened at the same time the felling blow was coming in.
jagggar 04-11-06, 03:41 PM	It says reroll? I thought it said whoever had the highest initiative modifier went first. I like the concept, but wondering exactly how you handle the Fighter and Wizard situation at the table. Do you ask them seperately so you can avoid a, "I charge the middle troll." "Darn it, I was gunna fireball him. I use magic missle on the troll." situation? Or are you saying you wait to roll attacks and damage? If enemies act simultaneously and one of them attacks the other, the target is considered flat-footed with respect to the attacker unless his own action also involves the attacker (because if it doesn't, his attention is not on the attacker at that instant.) Even if it does, he is denied his shield bonus to AC unless a) his action does not involve the use of hands, or b) his action uses only one hand and he has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, which allows him to strike with a weapon and interpose a shield at the same time. if his action is a weapon attack, it gets the penalties associated with fighting with two weapons (treat it as the primary weapon); the shield bonus to AC is not penalized. I don't understand why they would get penalties if they attacked each other. I could see them both being flatfooted during the first round, but a trained fighter isn't going to let his guard down just because he's attacking something. If you do keep the penalties, you should probably have the fighting defensively action allow the character to keep his sheild bonus.
Platonix 04-11-06, 08:21 PM	It says reroll? I thought it said whoever had the highest initiative modifier went first. /flips through PHB/ Yeah, okay, you're right, but sometimes two combatants with the same initiative modifiers get the same d20 roll. Then there needs to be a reroll. I like the concept, but wondering exactly how you handle the Fighter and Wizard situation at the table. Do you ask them seperately so you can avoid a, "I charge the middle troll." "Darn it, I was gunna fireball him. I use magic missle on the troll." situation? Or are you saying you wait to roll attacks and damage? Hrm. It hasn't come up yet at our table, really. I did say the DM should adjudicate...if it happens while I'm DM, I would allow the Fighter to change his mind because he has to move toward the troll before he can attack, but for the Wizard to change his mind he'd need to make a Concentration check. Success means he switches spells successfully, failure means he gets neither spell off and the use of fireball is wasted. I don't understand why they would get penalties if they attacked each other. I could see them both being flatfooted during the first round, but a trained fighter isn't going to let his guard down just because he's attacking something. Well, if they attacked each other, they wouldn't be flat-footed because they're still watching each other. They'd just lose any shield bonuses they might have, and even then, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat would enable them to keep their shield bonuses. Now, on the other hand, if Tordek the dwarven fighter were to attack Thokk the orc barbarian, and at the same time Holg the half-orc ranger attacked Tordek, then Tordek would be flat-footed with respect to Holg's attack because Tordek's attention is on Thokk right now. Remember, we're talking about two people attacking at the exact same instant here. Even if no one had any initiative modifiers, there would still be twenty different moments of possible action in a six-second round, so when two people act simultaneously they've got--at most--a little under a third of a second to adjust to each other. Good luck on that one. If you do keep the penalties, you should probably have the fighting defensively action allow the character to keep his sheild bonus. Excellent point. Will do.
Merestil Haye 04-13-06, 11:50 AM	I allow simultaneous actions in my game. Tiebreakers for action are Initiative Check Result Initiative Modifier Dexterity ability scoreIf all these are tied it's simultaneous actions. The only concern I have with your rules is this; the loss of shield bonus. The only bonus to AC that is lost due to being flat-footed is the Dexterity bonus to AC. Essentially you are penalising characters for attacking exactly simultaneously (unless they attack each other), when if they acted at different times neither would have this particular penalty.
Platonix 04-13-06, 12:12 PM	The only concern I have with your rules is this; the loss of shield bonus. The only bonus to AC that is lost due to being flat-footed is the Dexterity bonus to AC. Essentially you are penalising characters for attacking exactly simultaneously (unless they attack each other), when if they acted at different times neither would have this particular penalty. I could say something about needing to be on guard to interpose the shield, but you're right, that's not RAW. The loss of shield bonus replaces the flat-footedness...I forget whether I intended that at the start, but I intend it now. :D In either case, the penalties only apply to each other; if nobody chooses to attack someone who's acting at the same initiative, there are no penalties involved. edit: Waitasec. Come to think of it, the reason I'm denying the shield bonus applies just as much either way. If you're in the middle of doing something with your other hand (such as attacking some other guy over there,) you'd need to either have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat or be fighting defensively in order to react with your shield to the oncoming attack at the same time. Hrm...I guess, ultimately, denying the shield bonus doesn't make sense in a system that permits the shield bonus while flat-footed, because I've just brought myself right back to the "need to be on guard to interpose the shield" thing. Personally, it offends my sensibilities, given that there's a plethora of examples in all branches of culture for warriors needing to move their large shields to the side while thrusting, so I guess I'll call the loss of shield bonus an "optional house-rule-within-a-house-rule."
Merestil Haye 04-13-06, 03:48 PM	edit: Waitasec. Come to think of it, the reason I'm denying the shield bonus applies just as much either way. If you're in the middle of doing something with your other hand (such as attacking some other guy over there,) you'd need to either have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat or be fighting defensively in order to react with your shield to the oncoming attack at the same time. Hrm...I guess, ultimately, denying the shield bonus doesn't make sense in a system that permits the shield bonus while flat-footed, because I've just brought myself right back to the "need to be on guard to interpose the shield" thing. Personally, it offends my sensibilities, given that there's a plethora of examples in all branches of culture for warriors needing to move their large shields to the side while thrusting, so I guess I'll call the loss of shield bonus an "optional house-rule-within-a-house-rule."What I'm saying is that if a character who is taking their turn would normally get their shield bonus to AC, they should not lose it just because they are acting at the same time as someone else. Losing it because their actions mean they would lose it anyway; that's fine. It's your houserule; I just don't like it in part because it's nerfing already below-average styles.
jagggar 04-15-06, 10:56 AM	Hmm. *scratches head* If I'm taking Two-Weapon Fighting, I'll probably be using two weapons instead of using a sheild (unless I go sheild basher). I'd say create a new feat which gives a +1 to AC when using a sheild and allows you to keep your sheild bonus when preforming simultaneous actions (as long as the action wouldn't normally deny you your sheild bonus). I don't have Complete Warrior, but I'd guess there's feats in there that have to do with fighting with a sheild, so just add it to one of those that's easy to get.
Witch 04-15-06, 11:09 AM	A shield does not require much attention and should not require a feat to be used. If you fight with two weapons, you're doing delicate maneuvres with both hands. If you fight with a sword and a shield, you hold the shield up and make a delicate maneuvre with the weapon. The shield is just... there, making it harder to hit. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Platonix 04-15-06, 11:35 AM	Hmm. *scratches head* If I'm taking Two-Weapon Fighting, I'll probably be using two weapons instead of using a sheild (unless I go sheild basher). I'd say create a new feat which gives a +1 to AC when using a sheild and allows you to keep your sheild bonus when preforming simultaneous actions (as long as the action wouldn't normally deny you your sheild bonus). I don't have Complete Warrior, but I'd guess there's feats in there that have to do with fighting with a sheild, so just add it to one of those that's easy to get. Hrm, yeah, that's true. Not exactly intuitive. I'm going to keep TWF as allowing it, because it really is exactly the same sort of skill required, but also allow for...Improved Shield Bash, maybe? That's in the PHB. Every other feat I see in the PHB or Complete Warrior that would work for this has either TWF or ISB as a prereq, so those two would probably do it.
Golem1972 04-15-06, 01:11 PM	I've played in systems that use a sort of simultaneous action system before. It can be a little confusing at first, but it seems to be a little more realistic. About losing the shield bonus because of matching initiatives... It might help to remember that initiative order is really there for players, not characters. All actions are supposed to happen at about the same time, not in order of initiative (yeah I know, damage is dealt in order and people that die don't get their turn). In other words, your whirling dervish doesn't attack 8 times and cross 40 feet of the battle field in one second and then stand perfectly still for 5 seconds while 2 dozen goblins each take a turn trying to poke him with a spear. The mechanics require everyone to take turns, but the idea is that everyone is moving at the same time (hence attacks of opportunity, etc.). In a simultaneous system, initiative is still used. Starting at the lowest initiative (because faster people get to react to slower people) everyone declares there intent for the round, usually a record of actions is kept. These actions are usually a little more general than normal, but can be very specific (ie "The orc fighter will charge to melee range with the human fighter and then attack," "The human fighter (seeing the orc begin his charge) will sidestep to keep out of melee range and set his longspear against a charge"). Actions are then completed. Usually these systems seperate action and movement into seperate parts of the combat round. If I haven't thoroughly confused everyone, I'm sorry I'll try harder next time. :)
Kursk 04-15-06, 07:42 PM	We use simultaneous actions all the time as it is more realistic. On a tie all actions are considered to occur at the same time. Don't use flatfooted rule so that's not a consideration.
jagggar 04-15-06, 08:01 PM	Improved Shield Bash, maybe? Yeah, yeah that's the feat I meant. I forget some things exist sometimes.
Sae Cael Oanar 04-20-06, 06:37 PM	well, if they both move at the same time on the first turn, are they really going to do that again? also, at my table we all roll out in the open, its common to delay to go after other people, like my ranger waiting for the tripper to prone some foes for me. i would say reroll after the first round, and that the wizards con check could only halt the spell, not let him swap it, and if he fails it goes off. the fighter should have to make a reflex save or spot check even, or something to stop himself from charging. if they both fail then both effects happen. truthfully, that would happen, im sure, accidentally. ive seen it happen on purpose too, cuz the tanks ok with being a damage sponge.