Action Declaration/Resolution Question

[imported_Rasyr]

Again - in the interest of speeding up combat if possible...

I have included Option 3 (Declare/Resolve low to high w/ preempt) as a new possibility that just occurred to me as I was making this poll/post.

Essentially, you start with the lowest IP (Initiative Point) and have each declare and then immediately resolve their actions, in order from lowest to highest. However, a person with a higher IP can always preempt the actions of a lower IP person (this must be done before any rolls are made).

Example: The Orc has an IP of 9 while Joe the Fighter has an IP of 15. The Orc declares that he is moving to and then attacking Joe (Fast Attack). Joe decides to preempt him by declaring that he will be Fighting Defensively this round (all Joe knows is that the Orc is moving towards him and is likely to attack), and that he will attack the Orc as well. Resolution order would be:

 Orc declares|Joe Declares|Orc moves|Joe attacks|Orc attacks

Does that make any sense?

[Fidoric]

That reminds me of an alternative combat system somebody (Jegergryte ?) has submitted some times ago on ICE forum. Essentially, IIRC, the one with the initiative was granted the opportunity of "holding" his action until he knows the result of the slower one. It's like what you're proposing but goes a little further. To take your own example, Joe the fighter could wait until the Orc has made its attack roll before declaring he fights defensively or not or even how much of his AB he converts in DEF.
Example : the Orc, with the lowest IP, goes aggressive, Joe wait to react. The Orc rolls 21 for his attack which is above Joe 17 DEF. Joe, having the upper hand in this round, can now decide his best course of action, likely invest 5 of his AB to foil the orc attack, providing he his entitled to put that much of his AB in his DEF (requiring Combat Training 1 or 2 and sufficient AB I think).
What do you think about this ? Maybe a bit powerful ? May be it gives an additional and disbalancing advantage to high speed characters ?

[imported_Rasyr]

I think that that would be way too powerful (knowing the results of the roll before determining response.

I can see knowing what his actions will be, but not what the results would be (too powerful, I think).

[Fidoric]

I think it could be too powerful too. In that case, I think your proposition is a good compromise between this "extrem" and the basic rule.

[imported_Raf Blutaxt]

I voted the first option. In our games so far, the ritual of declaring from lowest to highest and then resolving back from highest to lowest initiative has worked very well. It allows for everybode to fully understand his position in the order of initiative, something often confusing to some of my players when I let them declare actions all at once or in some other order.

One alternative I always liked was declaring actions before rolling initiative. It makes combat more dangerous because you don't know whether you'll be quick enough to achieve your goal before you're attacked. 

[gamewizard]

When I play tested it with my group we declared and resolved at once from highest to lowest. That system is similar to Dark Heresy, Megatraveller, and other well thought out games of that type. It seemed to work.

[imported_Rasyr]

For those who declare and resolved at the same time ---

How do you handle Fighting Defensively?

[samwise7]

At first I wasn't too keen on how Initiative worked in Novus, but once we gave it a shot it seemed pretty good.  I was used to the highest roll went first, and then on to the lower rolls. 

[brianbloom]

Back when I played D&D, our group did the following, and liked the way it worked/realism.

Before each round of combat, all players jotted down a short note about their action for that round.  It could be dependent on other people's actions who acted before you. (Like, "if the wizard starts to cast a spell, I move to block him"). We allotted only a minute or so for this.  Then we played out the actions from highest initiative to lowest.

You had the ability to abort an action and just take a partial/standard action (as opposed to any full round actions) if something unexpected in the situation changed.  Thus if the orc fled the room [before your action because he had higher initiative], you didn't have to waste your fireball spell, but you also couldn't take an arbitrary full action instead (we assumed you started your original action, but changed partway through, thus costing you a part of the time slice).

We liked the system overall - This kept players for maximizing/overcoordinating, it still allowed for players to be surprised by their comrades actions in the heat of the battle (which we felt was necessary and real), and still accommodated some flexibility in changing things at last minute.  And you didn't have to fully write down your action - we trusted our players just to put a few words describing the action, and have the integrity to stick to even a bad planned action.

Haven't playtested Novus yet...

[imported_Rasyr]

The current system is somewhat like you described, though a little more formalized on the declaration side of things. There is also some guidelines for canceling actions and what may be done once you have cancelled your declared actions.

I hope that you will like Novus once you get a chance to try it out.

[imported_Witchking20k]

In battletech 1 side always acts first.  Now, that is more of a board game, but combat speeds up because you have the chance of the a few opponents not being able to act.....maybe that could be an option.  It could at least speed up the actual initiative step & make it more of a declare & resolve upon turn system..... probably not a favourite, but a suggestion none the less..

[imported_Rasyr]

Having a declare and resolve at the same time sort of system is problematic because of Canceling actions, things like Fighting Defensively, and even Counterspells.

So, I think, that at least for the time being, I am going to leave it as it is...

[imported_Witchking20k]

Had not considered that. 

[imported_Rasyr]

and I must consider all that. Although, truthfully, I had forgotten about them when I first started this thread and recalled them as I hit them in the manuscript (as I go through it).

[gamewizard]

Other systems handle these issues differently. For example, my group is currently playing Mongoose Traveller (as well as testing your game) and it handles fighting defensively thus:

If you are attacked you may Dodge; this subtracts 1 from your opponent's chance to hit but also subtracts 1 from all your Skill checks the following round. You may Dodge as many time as you wish in one round. Dodge is a Reaction and a character can have as many Reactions as he likes.

Now, I might put a limit on that, because it sounds a little much to be able to Dodge an unlimited amount of times.

In Warhammer Fantasy 2E (the only edition I have played, I won't play 3E) you can either Dodge an attack or Parry if you have a shield. You can only Dodge or Parry once in a round. It has been some time since I played and my books are at my shop, but I believe if you have both those Talents you can do both once in a round.

I'd like to see something discussed by Tim regarding a similar method as Traveller.