Withheld Actions

[Name Level]

So I'm CKing my first session and a couple of players use withheld actions during combat. Being a 3.5 veteran, I allow it. Then I realize that I haven't seen anything in the PHB about withholding. Did I miss it somewhere, or is it not allowed in the official rules?

[serleran]

It is not not allowed, nor is it directly supported -- you have to decide what it does. Obviously, it means they cannot act until whatever provokes their action occurs to let them do whatever they were withholding to do... ie, "I hold back until the orc crosses the door threshold, and then I hit him with my mace!" means "no attack until, and unless, the orc comes through the door." You have to play these entirely situationally, ensuring the party does not always get tactical advantage from doing so... maybe the monsters withhold, too... so, one round gone as the enemies just stare at each other (count off one round for spell duration...) waiting for the "first move."
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Name Level]

I'm not a big fan of house rules, but I wonder if dropping withholding will disappoint my 3e-based players. I'm going to have to think hard about this one. I'd like to stop allowing it, but I've already set a precedent.

[Treebore]

We "hold" actions all the time. IT makes sense to us."Hmmmm, its my turn to take an action, but the Orcs are 25 feet away... OK, CK, I want to hold my attack and stay in my current position, and if the Orcs close I will attack them."

If the Orcs close I get to attack, if they don't, I don't. To say I lose my attack because I didn't swing at the precise time of my initiative just doesn't make sense, and can take away that one attack that makes the difference in how the battle ends. Especially if several players are cheated out of that attack.

Granted, it doesn't happen a lot of the time, but why take the attack away?

Assuming I am understanding what your meaning by "with holding action".
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Name Level]

You understand me correctly.

In my group, delayed actions actually do happen quite often.

Well, no sense not allowing it just because it's not specifically mentioned in the PHB. Thanks for the quick response.

[cinderblock]

To keep things moving in our games, we just use a generic "on hold". The character can wait till later in the round to perform an action but his initiative drops to the new number that he/she chooses to go on. As a complication we have been debating using a SIEGE check to determine whether or not the character can perform their action before the opponent to prevent certain abuses.

[Lord Dynel]

Ditto on allowing holding actions. I make players act from that point in the new spot - the spot in combat which they held their action. If they hold their action and they do nothing, then they go in their old spot the next round.

But yeah, no official ruling in the PHB. That doesn't mean, especially in this game, that it's not possible. Enjoy!

[bighara]

I use a Savage Worlds-style initiative system with playing cards. If you hold your action, you don't get a new card until you've acted. You can try to interrupt somebody else's action by making an opposed DEX ck. If you fail, you're action occurs immediately after theirs.

[Omote]

I also allow players to hold action in my C&C games ala 3E, however I have been thinking for a long time to disallow such actions. First, delaying is not part of C&C. 2nd, in my experience, players tend delay their actions until just before the bad guys go and (like Magic the Gathering) go instantly just before the enemy... which seems so unrealistic and unbalanced.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Maliki]

If my players want to hold their action, I have no problem with it, thats their reward for winning initiative.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[Treebore]

Maliki wrote:
If my players want to hold their action, I have no problem with it, thats their reward for winning initiative.

Bingo! Thats what it boils down to. What difference does it make if they go on their initiative or just an instance before? Its still before.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Omote]

What about the characters who go lower than the baddies, but decide to delay until before the creatures go in the following round?

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Treebore]

Omote wrote:
What about the characters who go lower than the baddies, but decide to delay until before the creatures go in the following round?

-O

They are, in effect, permanently sacrificing that attack to change their initiative order. Works for me.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[serleran]

I would not allow a held action to carry over into the following round because, by the rules, initiative is not cyclical -- it is determined each round. So, if the trigger for the holding is not met within the current round, the player sacrifices their action -- that is what strategy is about. Choose wisely.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[CKDad]

serleran wrote:
I would not allow a held action to carry over into the following round because, by the rules, initiative is not cyclical -- it is determined each round. So, if the trigger for the holding is not met within the current round, the player sacrifices their action -- that is what strategy is about. Choose wisely.

Serleran's captured the way I handle it as well, though I don't always insist on a specific condition, as my players are all still rather new. I tend to view scoring higher in the initiative that round as the character / monster / etc. being momentarily a bit less subject to the chaos of the battlefield - but if they don't exploit that brief opportunity, poof!
_________________
"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

[Omote]

Excellent, that works for me and makes a good deal of sense. Plus, it adds to the strategic level of initiative in combat.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Balthock]

At my table (and that of my associate, Johnathan of White Haven), we use a very simple 'delay' system. All characters roll a d20 for initiative (we like the spread a d20 allows) every round. If a character wants to wait and see how things play out during a round, when their 'turn' comes during the round, they can announce "Delay". Their action then happens LAST in that round.

We've considered the 'conditional' possiblility, but there are just too many variables, and we feel it would tend to over-complicate the flow of the game. That's part of the beauty of C&C, it's simplification of the combat system(s) that can get incredibly overburdened with minutiae and rules-lawyering.

When considering a new house rule, my first consideration is; Does it follow the KISS rule? Keep It Simple, Stupid, IMNSHO, is the best way to judge the adoption of a new rule, or modification of an existing rule. Why make a (in some ways) complex game, moreso? I (and hopefully my players) get more enjoyment out of the content of the game than the mechanic. The mechanic is the means to the end not the other way round...
_________________
Meet me at Stonehenge at Midnight. I'll bring the goat.