Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 241 to 256 of 256
  1. - Top - End - #241
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by quindraco View Post
    The devs have explicitly stated that anything changing your initiative violates the RAW, and they deliberately left hold (as in, holding your turn to act later) out of 5E to avoid it, because of how it lets clever players manipulate effects that end relative to the players' turns. If you think you have way to change someone's intitiative after combat has started, your first guess should be you've misinterpreted something. We have readied actions instead, which leave your initiative intact.
    I'll back up Max Wilson's request for a quote on this "explicit" rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Initiative is a Count though. The new Summon spells specifically refer to it.
    Not in the PHB, it isn't. If later rule books introduced the concept, it need not contradict what is in the PHB, but it does not change what the PHB says nor the model it uses. The PHB does not use the term "initiative count" the way you're referencing. It is perfectly reasonable to infer that "initiative count," absent anything defining it differently, means "as if it rolled this value on the dexterity check to determine initiative order," and I fully support that reading. As, I believe, do you, in function. However, I refute your claim that the use of "initiative count" in other books retroactively changes the way the PHB uses the word "initiative" to refer to an ordinal ranked position in the order of turns taken during a combat round to instead refer to "initiative count." Especially since the text you're leaning on surrounding where it refers to "initiative count" expressly gives different rules to tell us how to manage these things, rather than telling us to refer to the PHB's rules on "initiative count" to resolve them. Which is fitting when the PHB has no such rules, having not used the term "initiative count" nor worked its rules around a concept thereof.

  2. - Top - End - #242
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zalabim View Post
    Some context, to maybe clue in what's wrong with your argument. I'm not saying the words in the book can't mean what you want. I'm saying the words in the book you say are there are not there. There are times when the book does explicitly say to do this thing. Then there are the instances being talked about where it does not explicitly say to do this thing, but the other side is talking in terms as if it does. Not gonna quote a whole bunch of people. I'm just going to repeat my argument one more time, and I'll try to highlight all the things that aren't there. The existence of explicit instructions in some parts of the rules is what leads me to the conclusion that people making inferences about implied rules are using motivated reasoning. One more time, the rules do not explicitly say that the mount shares your initiative, nor does it say that it shares your turn. Nor does it explicitly say the mount can act on your turn. The rules do not say that identical creatures share turns. The rules do not say how multiple creatures that do act on another creature's [or shared] turn, which some spells explicitly say the creatures they create do, resolve their actions. The rules only explicitly say how you can break up your movement and your action on your turn. So even in the circumstance that another creature is moving and acting on your turn, as with the giant insect spell, no explicit permission has been given to split up your movement, its movement, your action, and/or its action freely. Maybe that's what it means. To be certain, it generally works fine to run it that way. Instances where it matters when one creature's turn starts or ends rarely overlap with these situations. But it does not say the same thing as giant insects, true polymorph, or simulacrum. In the case of Eldritch Blast, despite it being instantaneous, because it is not simultaneous, it is allowed for the warlock to resolve each attack in sequence before choosing a target for the next one. Circumstances like a target falling prone/dying, having a creature within 5' causing disadvantage, or being invisible granting advantage, can change from one attack to the next, but the warlock still can't move between them [as I understand it]. Also, when it is one paragraph to one argument, it is not necessary to break out every sentence into its own quote box. It comes off as extremely weasel-y when you're talking about looking at the rules across multiple pages in context, but can't keep a single paragraph in one context. This paragraph has no such cohesion.

    New information here. If you look at the DMG's variant on side initiative [and I know, "reading the DMG. Good joke."], it says "Recording initiative for each PC and monster, arranging everyone in the correct order, and remembering where you are in the list can bog the game down." That description of how to normally handle turn order sure sounds like initiative is a number. Further down, "When it's a side's turn, the members of that side can act in any order they choose. Once everyone on the side has taken a turn, the other side goes. A round ends when both sides have completed their turns." That sure is a lot of everyone taking turns and not a lot of everyone mingling their actions and movements freely, even though I'd expect this variant to be less strict with order.
    I'd like to point out that nobody, regardless of their opinion, ever used that word to describe what you said. I literally searched 'explicit' through the thread and nobody used it in the specific cases you're outlining.

    The only time where something similar was said was Max mentioning an hypotetical scenario, not the actual rule.

    Also I'm not sure what's the point on using a variant of initiative to demonstrate how it'd normally work.
    I won an argument with my GM -15/08/2017- (20:32 GMT +1)

    Want to try a WereWolf or Mafia game? Do you already know it and want to play it? Nothing currently recruiting.


  3. - Top - End - #243
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    The DMG also makes it clear that initiative uses "initiative numbers", not just an initial die roll which is then discarded for an order. DMG 247.

    Interestingly Segev, the "Visible List" suggestion is identical to how you say 3e was and 5e is not supposed to be.

  4. - Top - End - #244
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    The DMG also makes it clear that initiative uses "initiative numbers", not just an initial die roll which is then discarded for an order. DMG 247.
    Which makes sense; you have creatures that may join combat (and initiative) later on (e.g. additional waves of creatures or wandering creatures, but also conjured creatures like on PHB226) and therefore those initial rolls need to be conserved to slot new creatures into the initiative (counts -> order).

  5. - Top - End - #245
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    The DMG also makes it clear that initiative uses "initiative numbers", not just an initial die roll which is then discarded for an order. DMG 247.

    Interestingly Segev, the "Visible List" suggestion is identical to how you say 3e was and 5e is not supposed to be.
    It actually doesn't say, anywhere, to write down the numbers. It does, to be fair, mention the players telling you "their initiative numbers," which you could interpret as meaning that initiative is a number. However, you can also interpret it as meaning that initiative is a thing that has a number. If you interpret it that second way, you have no conflicts with the PHB rules that you, Tanarii, have dismissed as "stupid" to have written as they are on the basis that the rules don't, by the interpretation you're backing, make sense.

    What it says is to write "them" (with antecedent seeming to mean "the players") down on the visible list, with white space between them. It goes on to say you can either write the monsters on the list in their places in the order as you go down creating it, or that you can write them in when the monsters first act (which would require remembering their position or having a hidden list, as well).

    It would, indeed, make it easier to use the latter method if you included the numeric list, but at no point does the DMG say you should do this. Nowhere does it suggest making the list with "initiative numbers" down the side to show individual turns for every individual participant. Nowhere does it suggest that you wouldn't have, as the PHB suggests, "Speedy Goblin Group" as a single entry on that list, and certainly nowhere does it say any variation on, "By the way, each goblin on Speedy Goblin Group acts sequentially, not all at the same time on the same initiative."

    Even the "Index Cards" method on the same page says to write each player and group of monsters on an index card, and order the index cards from high to low roll. Note: "group of monsters" is referenced, specifically, as something that has one index card: "After each character or group of monsters [emphasis added] acts, the top card is moved to the bottom of the stack."

    So, once again, the rules you're pointing to could be interpreted your way or mine, but my way has them mesh seamlessly with the rules in the PHB, while your way requires "but surely it actually means this" interpretations and rejections of RAW that don't work well or make sense with how you're interpreting it.

  6. - Top - End - #246
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    It actually doesn't say, anywhere, to write down the numbers. It does, to be fair, mention the players telling you "their initiative numbers," which you could interpret as meaning that initiative is a number. However, you can also interpret it as meaning that initiative is a thing that has a number. If you interpret it that second way, you have no conflicts with the PHB rules that you, Tanarii, have dismissed as "stupid" to have written as they are on the basis that the rules don't, by the interpretation you're backing, make sense.

    What it says is to write "them" (with antecedent seeming to mean "the players") down on the visible list, with white space between them. It goes on to say you can either write the monsters on the list in their places in the order as you go down creating it, or that you can write them in when the monsters first act (which would require remembering their position or having a hidden list, as well).

    It would, indeed, make it easier to use the latter method if you included the numeric list, but at no point does the DMG say you should do this. Nowhere does it suggest making the list with "initiative numbers" down the side to show individual turns for every individual participant. Nowhere does it suggest that you wouldn't have, as the PHB suggests, "Speedy Goblin Group" as a single entry on that list, and certainly nowhere does it say any variation on, "By the way, each goblin on Speedy Goblin Group acts sequentially, not all at the same time on the same initiative."

    Even the "Index Cards" method on the same page says to write each player and group of monsters on an index card, and order the index cards from high to low roll. Note: "group of monsters" is referenced, specifically, as something that has one index card: "After each character or group of monsters [emphasis added] acts, the top card is moved to the bottom of the stack."

    So, once again, the rules you're pointing to could be interpreted your way or mine, but my way has them mesh seamlessly with the rules in the PHB, while your way requires "but surely it actually means this" interpretations and rejections of RAW that don't work well or make sense with how you're interpreting it.
    Except horses and PCs aren't monsters, so the "group of monsters" statement doesn't apply. So far, it seems like the only ones who can share turns, by the text, are groups of identical monsters. Everyone else has their own turn, even if their initiative roll was the same (initially or changed to be so later).
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  7. - Top - End - #247
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Except horses and PCs aren't monsters, so the "group of monsters" statement doesn't apply. So far, it seems like the only ones who can share turns, by the text, are groups of identical monsters. Everyone else has their own turn, even if their initiative roll was the same (initially or changed to be so later).
    Except Simulacrum. And Giant Insect. And the Ranger's Animal Companion. And whatever other exception designers can think of.


    Once it's established that simultaneous turns are a thing in the rules for some creatures (groups of similar monsters), it can be a thing in the rules for other creatures; like the ones mentioned above (and, I'd say, like a controlled mount, that moves and acts on the same turn that it's mounted, i.e, the rider's turn)
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2021-04-21 at 10:01 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #248
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    Except Simulacrum. And Giant Insect. And the Ranger's Animal Companion. And...
    At least the Ranger only specifies "takes its turn on your initiative". Which is the phrase under dispute. It does not say "shares your turn".

    Simulacrum is a specific exception noted as such in its text. It wouldn't have to say "acting on your turn" otherwise. Which makes the presumption that the default is that sharing initiative =/= acting on the same turn.

    And no, specific exceptions don't make general rules. So monsters acting on the same turn is a specific exception, not a rule that now exists for others to follow unless they, too, make that exception explicitly. No hidden rules. You can't generalize from <specific exception 1> to <example 2> unless <example 2> specifically calls itself out as an exception in the same terms that <exception 1> did.
    Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2021-04-21 at 09:57 AM.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  9. - Top - End - #249
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Except horses and PCs aren't monsters, so the "group of monsters" statement doesn't apply. So far, it seems like the only ones who can share turns, by the text, are groups of identical monsters. Everyone else has their own turn, even if their initiative roll was the same (initially or changed to be so later).
    Only if you ignore the fact that the PHB explicitly says that controlled mounts change their intiative to their rider's, and can explicitly act on the turn they're mounted. Or you really stretch and twist your brain around to decide that that explicit permission to act on the turn they're mounted must only be there for the case when the rider readied an action to mount the steed on the steed's turn, rather than the way the entire rest of the rules describing mounting seem to expect things to go and have the would-be rider expend half his movement on his turn to mount the steed. (Please do note that I am using "steed" as equivalent to the noun "mount," just because "mount the mount" was reading very awkwardly to me even though it is perfectly valid English.)

    Just because a suggested way to run things mentions "groups of monsters" but not "creatures on controlled mounts" doesn't mean "creatures on controlled mounts" suddenly aren't using the same grouped initiative rules. The suggested way to run things is giving common examples, and nowhere says "only groups of monsters, and not creatures on controlled mounts, share a single index card." It doesn't even imply this. It says "groups of monsters" because a large number of fights in almost every campaign will include "groups of monsters." It doesn't mention mounts at all, likely because mounts didn't even enter the writer's imagination as he wrote those rules, because while some games will have it come up frequently, probably the majority will have it come up rarely or not even at all.

    Should we interpret it never mentioning mounts at all as meaning that mounts don't exist in the initiative order? Of course not. We should go with rules that cover them. The "they don't share a turn with their rider" camp will, I believe, try to point out that they are creatures and thus, as with all other creatures, get their own initiative card. But that's relying on a standing rule for "creatures." There exists a more specific standing rule for controlled mounts that doesn't get changed merely by the suggested way to track initiative not mentioning them. So the correct rule to fall back on is the one that says the mount's initiative changes to match the rider's. How would you represent that in your stack of index cards? Very simply: you write the mount down on the rider's initiative card!

    It doesn't even have to say you do so in the recommendation, because it already has clearly spelled out that the index card is the initiative. Therefore, if something shares an initiative, it shares a card.


    Once again, the interpretation that says some creatures act on the same initiative, at the same time, on the same turn, meshes entirely with all the text as written. No twisting, no "weaseling," no side-eye examination required. And the interpretation that is needed to make the 3.5-style "initiative is a count, and all creatures act on individual, sequential turns" version fit the rules requires not just some "of course it means X, not what it actually says," but also causes it to have contradictions with other parts of the RAW and to find certain RAW to be "stupid" or otherwise badly-written because it doesn't make sense with the "strictly sequential turns" model.

    If one interpretation works smoothly with the rules and they all make sense with it, and another creates all sorts of "well, the writers goofed up, because that doesn't make sense" problems, it's likely that the attempt to shoehorn the model that makes the rules look messed up that is the problem.

    The Bohr Model of the Atom isn't correct and all the experiments using Quantum Mechanics "stupid" and "wrong" because they don't show results that prove the Bohr Model to be right.

  10. - Top - End - #250
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    At least the Ranger only specifies "takes its turn on your initiative". Which is the phrase under dispute. It does not say "shares your turn".

    Simulacrum is a specific exception noted as such in its text. It wouldn't have to say "acting on your turn" otherwise. Which makes the presumption that the default is that sharing initiative =/= acting on the same turn.

    And no, specific exceptions don't make general rules. So monsters acting on the same turn is a specific exception, not a rule that now exists for others to follow unless they, too, make that exception explicitly. No hidden rules. You can't generalize from <specific exception 1> to <example 2> unless <example 2> specifically calls itself out as an exception in the same terms that <exception 1> did.
    No, the exception does not need to be in the same terms. Ideally, it should be, but it's definitely not necessary. For instance, a group of similar monsters uses different terms than the Simulacrum spell to achieve the same result (i.e, simultaneous turns). And Mounted Combat uses yet another different term to get to that result.

  11. - Top - End - #251
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    No, the exception does not need to be in the same terms. Ideally, it should be, but it's definitely not necessary. For instance, a group of similar monsters uses different terms than the Simulacrum spell to achieve the same result (i.e, simultaneous turns). And Mounted Combat uses yet another different term to get to that result.
    If anything, agreement that at least one example behaves a particular way is evidence that that particular way is not antithetical so the model, and thus that particular way should not be rejected as "impossible" on the face of it.

    Note that at no time has anybody said "sequential turns" is an impossible way to run things. It patently is not. But requiring it at all times for all creatures creates holes and conflicts in the rules, and even leads to some of the RAW needing to be rejected as "stupid" (i.e. obviously a case where the writers were wrong and thus the rules can be ignored) in order to be made to work.

    Whereas we seem to all agree that Simulacra act on the caster's turn, sharing it. So we all agree at least one thing does. If a mount shares its rider's turn, the RAW regarding mounts all lines up nicely with no contradictions and makes sense. We know it's possible for two creatures to share a turn, since Simulacra share their caster's turn. Therefore, there's no universal rule that is never violated against it. At least one way to read the mounted combat rules declares that the RAW state outright that the mount DOES share the initiative (and thus the turn) of the rider.

    "But it doesn't use identical wording to simulacrum" is not a logical argument that holds when the words can be interpreted to point to the same model, and when they are, there is no need to reject the RAW as "stupid" on the basis of it not making sense with the model being applied.

  12. - Top - End - #252
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    If anything, agreement that at least one example behaves a particular way is evidence that that particular way is not antithetical so the model, and thus that particular way should not be rejected as "impossible" on the face of it.

    Note that at no time has anybody said "sequential turns" is an impossible way to run things. It patently is not. But requiring it at all times for all creatures creates holes and conflicts in the rules, and even leads to some of the RAW needing to be rejected as "stupid" (i.e. obviously a case where the writers were wrong and thus the rules can be ignored) in order to be made to work.

    Whereas we seem to all agree that Simulacra act on the caster's turn, sharing it. So we all agree at least one thing does. If a mount shares its rider's turn, the RAW regarding mounts all lines up nicely with no contradictions and makes sense. We know it's possible for two creatures to share a turn, since Simulacra share their caster's turn. Therefore, there's no universal rule that is never violated against it. At least one way to read the mounted combat rules declares that the RAW state outright that the mount DOES share the initiative (and thus the turn) of the rider.

    "But it doesn't use identical wording to simulacrum" is not a logical argument that holds when the words can be interpreted to point to the same model, and when they are, there is no need to reject the RAW as "stupid" on the basis of it not making sense with the model being applied.
    Though sequential turns are not impossible, I'd say that, at least in the case of similar creatures, they can be an awful waste of table time. If PCs are being ambushed by 6 goblin archers atacking from the bushes, it's a lot faster to roll 6 Attacks and 6 bonus action Hides than attack, hide, attack, hide, attack, hide, attack, hide, attack, hide, attack, hide.
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2021-04-21 at 10:57 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #253
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    Though sequential turns are not impossible, I'd say that, at least in the case of similar creatures, they can be an awful waste of table time. If a PC is being ambushed by 6 goblin archers atacking from the bushes, it's a lot faster to roll 6 Attacks and 6 bonus action Hides than attack, hide, attack, hide, attack, hide, attack, hide, attack, hide, attack, hide.
    Speaking as a DM who initially not-deliberately, then deliberately, rolled every monster its own initiative, yes, it is a lot slower to do it that way.

    The reason I deliberately rolled individual initiatives was a misunderstanding of the RAW, wherein I thought things worked by the model Tanarii et al are backing, and that rolling once for all those goblins still meant they acted sequentially. This is the worst combination of things for me (for reasons that would be still more words to explain, so I'll try to cut down). Understanding they all go on the same turn actually changes my conception of how to run them sufficiently to make me want to go with the model that I now understand 5e to work with.

  14. - Top - End - #254
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Speaking as a DM who initially not-deliberately, then deliberately, rolled every monster its own initiative, yes, it is a lot slower to do it that way.

    The reason I deliberately rolled individual initiatives was a misunderstanding of the RAW, wherein I thought things worked by the model Tanarii et al are backing, and that rolling once for all those goblins still meant they acted sequentially. This is the worst combination of things for me (for reasons that would be still more words to explain, so I'll try to cut down). Understanding they all go on the same turn actually changes my conception of how to run them sufficiently to make me want to go with the model that I now understand 5e to work with.
    Exactly, I was thinking the same thing. This whole thread has "opened my eyes" about how 5e combat can be a lot faster than how I usually play it (also based on these very misconception you so cogently refuted); Fantasy Grounds (and Roll20, and, I believe other tabletop simulators- I'm just more used to Fantasy Grounds) has much to answer for :p

    In the case of similar monsters, I'm thinking that, though you probably can have them acting individually and just intermingling their actions and movements as desired, it's probably best, at least in many combats, to do exactly what the PHB suggest, i.e, to have them act at the same time. Definitely doable in Theater of the Mind, and probably on a live game with a battlemat, if you are quick at calculating distances (or don't sweat it too much; let's call this method Theater of the Mindish) , but not so sure on a VTT.
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2021-04-21 at 11:09 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #255
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    Exactly, I was thinking the same thing. This whole thread has "opened my eyes" about how 5e combat can be a lot faster than how I usually play it (also based on these very misconception you so cogently refuted); Fantasy Grounds (and Roll20, and, I believe other tabletop simulators- I'm just more used to Fantasy Grounds) has much to answer for :p

    In the case of similar monsters, I'm thinking that, though you probably can have them acting individually and just intermingling their actions and movements as desired, it's probably best, at least in many combats, to do exactly what the PHB suggest, i.e, to have them act at the same time. Definitely doable in Theater of the Mind, and probably on a live game with a battlemat, if you are quick at calculating distances (or don't sweat it too much; let's call this method Theater of the Mindish) , but not so sure on a VTT.
    To be fair, those are not 5e-specific tools. You also CAN represent the "group of goblins" in roll20 with a single token you keep off to the side for initiative purposes, if you like. But yes, the tool definitely treats each token as separate.

    Also, thank you for the compliment on my refutation.
    Last edited by Segev; 2021-04-21 at 01:06 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #256
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    Exactly, I was thinking the same thing. This whole thread has "opened my eyes" about how 5e combat can be a lot faster than how I usually play it (also based on these very misconception you so cogently refuted); Fantasy Grounds (and Roll20, and, I believe other tabletop simulators- I'm just more used to Fantasy Grounds) has much to answer for :p

    In the case of similar monsters, I'm thinking that, though you probably can have them acting individually and just intermingling their actions and movements as desired, it's probably best, at least in many combats, to do exactly what the PHB suggest, i.e, to have them act at the same time. Definitely doable in Theater of the Mind, and probably on a live game with a battlemat, if you are quick at calculating distances (or don't sweat it too much; let's call this method Theater of the Mindish) , but not so sure on a VTT.
    I would point out it also makes transitioning between the mob rules and regular combat easier, since you don't need to figure how the monsters acting together transitions to separate turns. Assuming anyone other than me uses the mob rules.
    My sig is something witty
    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.


    I am a:
    Spoiler
    Show
    I Am A: Lawful Good Human Wizard/Sorcerer (1st/1st Level)
    Ability Scores:
    Strength-11
    Dexterity-13
    Constitution-13
    Intelligence-14
    Wisdom-12
    Charisma-14

    what are you

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •