Let's say combat begins; PC's vs goblin meleers, goblin archers, and some ogres.
I have everyone roll initiative, and I roll once for each monster type (pretty sure this is RAW).
At the end of round one, more monsters show up.
Let's say some are more gobin meleers, and one is a new type; a goblin wizard.
Which method do you use?
1. The new monsters go immediately. Still in round one but last.
2. The new meleers get the same initiative as the others, and go when they go. The wizard rolls initiative and goes in whatever order he fits.
3. The new monsters are treated separately and roll their own initiative, starting in round two.
4. Something else?
Additional question: when the new mobs join the field, do you have them stop to make their initiative roll immediately upon entering the edge of the battle area, or might you place them closer to the action?
Let's say combat begins; PC's vs goblin meleers, goblin archers, and some ogres.
I have everyone roll initiative, and I roll once for each monster type (pretty sure this is RAW).
At the end of round one, more monsters show up.
Let's say some are more gobin meleers, and one is a new type; a goblin wizard.
Which method do you use?
1. The new monsters go immediately. Still in round one but last.
2. The new meleers get the same initiative as the others, and go when they go. The wizard rolls initiative and goes in whatever order he fits.
3. The new monsters are treated separately and roll their own initiative, starting in round two.
4. Something else?
Additional question: when the new mobs join the field, do you have them stop to make their initiative roll immediately upon entering the edge of the battle area, or might you place them closer to the action?
When ever introducing someone or something new to the initiative I'll make a new roll. Whether I am introducing a new enemy in mid fight, or my fifth player is arriving mid battle (My fifth player arrives an hour or two late due to his job) If everyone is in an encounter when he arrives I'll have him roll inititive for him to be placed. I do the same with new enemies, beofre I introduce them, I'll roll their initiative and them have them run in when their turn comes up.
As for the second question it depends. I'll usually place new guys at the edge of area of sight of the players, or infront of doors. I'll never just throw them in the middle of the battle unless they are teleporting or swooping in.
I tend to roll for all monsters I know are going to be in the encounter when general initiative is rolled. If there is a delayed entrance I simply determine when they show up/can be seen and they act in that round.
I do option 1 usually. I place them where it's fictionally appropriate with input from the players.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
I wouldn't put them in the first round, unless they were waiting (delaying) deliberately to join the fight then.
When I've had others of the same monster type join I usually have them join the initiative with others of their type, so #2. If that's going to give a huge turn to monsters (reinforcement wave), then I'd go with #3,
Sometimes I try to give the PCs some knowledge that there's reinforcements coming if it fits with terrain, lighting, perception, stealth, monster preparation, etc. Just because it doesn't fit our board doesn't mean the the PCs can't see/hear something 100 ft away, and it breaks the atmosphere if, despite great party Perceptions, a previously unseen orc suddenly charges. Accordingly, the monsters can be in the initiative from the start, just not on the board.
If i want them to actually appear in round 2, then i do option 3. Some would argue that (option 1) going last in round one is the same as going first in round 2. And while this is mechanically true, i think it's just kinda chumpy to automatically let them go first in round 2, so i'll roll them in and have them go on their rolled intit order.
In some rare occasions, i may do option 2, but probably only if the newcomers are minions.
So really, the bottom line is just what feels appropriate for those particular creatures, and that particular combat...
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
For battles with smaller numbers of opponents, I go with 3, with individual rolls for each monster. For larger battles, I go with group rolls, with the new monsters entering initiative in clumps, rolled separately. For example, if there are fifteen creatures entering in round two, with five different types (let's say three of each type), then each type will get its own initiative roll, and "enter" the combat on that point in the initiative order.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
Three Basic Rules (p 11)
Power Types and Usage (p 54)
Skills (p178-179)
Feats (p 192)
Rest and Recovery (p 263)
All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
Depending on my mood and how complex the fight is, I either use #3 or #2. Though I am a frequent user of Readied Actions and Delays, and when DMing PbP I enforce most intiative-changing rules of delaying when people act out of order, so I have to make a note of what the original die roll was (which is why I'm more likely to use 3 than 2), and by the time the reinforcement join in the whole round order is probably vastly different than when it started.
The only time I might not roll at all is if they're non-combatants to the combat (in which case they act at the end of each round), or if it's a trap with a deisgnated initiative marker (in which case I place it where the guidelines say to do so). But newcomers might catch the other side off-guard (and have a high init) or be caught off-guard themselves (low init), or go with the flow (middling init), another reason I'm more likely to go with #3.
I always add new combatants between rounds, no matter what else goes on, usually at an appropriate (1 or 2 move actions) distance, unless there's a reason for them to appear closer in. Depending on circumstances, the PCs might hear the reinforcements coming, or might not; a lot of times I'll base it on what else is going on, and Passive Perceptions.
Rolling once for each monster type isn't RAW, but it is highly recommended as a timesaver.
Actually, in 4e anyway, it is. DMG1, p38: "Each player character rolls initiative separately, of course, but don't give the monsters the same attention. Roll once for each distinct kind of monster in an encounter."
Granted, I know a lot of DMs who don't use this rule, and I know RPGA rules say to roll once for all monsters, and apply the same die roll to their individual inits. But it is RAW, and the other options aren't presented in the book.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
