Actions that interrupt the flow of a combat round

[Lord Dynel]

Some of the (optional) combat rules in the PHB - Dodge, specifically, but I would argue for Evade, too - can be declared anytime, so long as the character has not acted yet in the round.

My wife played C&C for the first time this weekend. She thought this above concept was odd, in concept. She thought it even more odd in practice - I allowed my older son, playing a mage, to react to an approaching bandit by using the evade maneuver. He hadn't acted yet, and was in the process of casting a sleep spell. A bandit approaced him, and he asked me if he could abandon the spell to evade the incoming bandit (he was down to 2 hp). I allowed it - in my game I allow Dodge and Evade to "interrupt" the flow of combat and to be done in reaction to events that unfold.

Though my wife didn't verbalize it, I think she thought it odd that some actions were able to interrupt combat. I tried to explain to her that AoO's did that in d20 (her only experience up till now) and it wasn't that odd. She later said that she liked the "declarefirst, then act" method of combat rounds. But I think she initially I was playing it "wrong."

So, I thought it might be a good topic for discussion - interruptable actions in C&C combat. Do you guys use these actions this way? If not, how do you use them? Do you use them at all? Do you have other actions that interrupt the combat round?

[Relaxo]

On the one hand, it's your game.
On the other hand, you are only as happy as your happiest wife.

[lobocastle]

I prefer the classic rule "declare your action and act." I like the quick flow of combat that this rule provides.

[mgtremaine]

OMG she's rule lawyering you! ;p

I've mentioned it before, and I know it will never be popular, but I run without initiative so everything is simultaneous. Thus no break in combat, if you want to dodge or evade you do that.

-Mike

[alcyone]

Some of the (optional) combat rules in the PHB - Dodge, specifically, but I would argue for Evade, too - can be declared anytime, so long as the character has not acted yet in the round.
...
So, I thought it might be a good topic for discussion - interruptable actions in C&C combat. Do you guys use these actions this way? If not, how do you use them? Do you use them at all? Do you have other actions that interrupt the combat round?

A dodge can be declared at any time in a
combat round as long as the character has not taken any other action.

Since I generally do a declaration phase for everything (used to only be spells, charge/set spear, and evade), I'd rule as you have; the spell has not yet been cast, so go ahead and dodge. Even though I consider that a magic-user starts casting immediately, for convenience sake, I'd say choosing a dodge is fine. The question is do they lose the spell. They probably should; after all, it was interrupted the same as if they got hit.

Evade is against the opponent you are facing, so, I guess it depends; can you only evade the person you are facing when you make declarations, or if someone else comes along can you evade them instead, if you haven't done it yet? I could go either way, but generally I make the player declare they will evade at the top of the round, and once they've evaded someone, that is their "evade buddy" until the round is over. If they don't get to evade anyone by their initiative, too bad, they are evading this round.

If you aren't doing declarations, it's anything goes I guess.

So, as far as other things, setting a spear against a charge is something that you might rule as an "interrupt".
In a "hasty disengagement", you might choose to allow a character to take their attack on the disengaging character's turn, so that is a sort of interrupt.

I never get any arguments about the dodge/evade (though people always wonder what the difference is at first), but disengage/withdraw seems to blow people's minds unless they have played classic D&D or something with that mechanic. If the disconnect is insurmountable I punt and do AoO.

[Desrimal]

Declare and act in my game

[Omote]

I follow the rules as presented in the PHB and the CKG. Therefore, the player can declare their actions on their initiative action. When using the CKG combat maneuvers, some of them require the player's action to be declared BEFORE initiative is rolled. Some actions can be declared to INTERRUPT another's action. I actually like the the options presented as they add a lot of flavor to combat. Consider me a big fan.

~O

[alcyone]

I follow the rules as presented in the PHB and the CKG. Therefore, the player can declare their actions on their initiative action. When using the CKG combat maneuvers, some of them require the player's action to be declared BEFORE initiative is rolled. Some actions can be declared to INTERRUPT another's action. I actually like the the options presented as they add a lot of flavor to combat. Consider me a big fan.

~O

Yeah, the rules kind of are all over the place on this, I guess it supports multiple play styles:


A character who wishes to cast a spell announces his intention to the Castle
Keeper during the character’s initiative turn.

yet...

Most Castle Keepers make you announce at the beginning of the round
whether you are going to cast a spell. If so, and you roll a low initiative
roll, then you have a chance of being struck before the spell goes off.
For those Castle Keepers who do not require announcement, some
disallow any spell in the same round in which you were hit before your
initiative turn. For Castle Keepers who do neither of the above, it would
be more a situation of simultaneous swings with an enemy or some sort of
environmental or magical effect situation disrupting the spell.

Other areas require "announcement" prior to an action, such as some class abilities requiring an announcement prior to an attack (though this is to avoid taking a more favorable result with risking anything), or announcing a charge before moving. Though much prior is not said; it's quite compatible with declare-on-initiative.

Besides spells, I think only "dodge" specifies declaration on someone else's initiative.

I think a CK is probably running "by the book" with declare-on-initiative, but declare-before-initiative has a lot of things going for it. For one, spell interruption becomes possible for "immediate" spells (though you could also say, you just can't cast a spell if you took damage before your init.) This is an important tool for players against powerful NPC spellcasters. And as long as the spellcasters are predeclaring, if you do the same for most other actions, certain things that make sense to resolve outside of initiative become more apparent (like two people charging one another).

In CKG, though, declare-before-initiative seems to be norm:

Table 17.4 Combat Maneuvers lists
several common combat maneuvers and their affects. Generally, the
combatant must announce these maneuvers before the round begins.

More than one way to do it. Besides generating discussion I guess I am reiterating to show you are following the rules in the PHB and CKG either way.

[Lord Dynel]

I agree, Aergraith, the initiative rules are all over the place.

As Omote said, I use the declare-then-roll method for combat. Many Combat Maneuvers from the CKG require announcing before initiative is rolled ("Generalls, the combatant must announce these maneuvers before the round begins." - CKG, page 256). Many of those maneuvers are attacks, types of an attack, or an action that sort of acts like an attack. That allowed me to go back to the PHB and extrapolate which maneuvers also follow that same logic and apply the same rule to them, whether or nor they should be declared before initiative or not.

What I came up with, was that these maneuvers/actions are to be declared before initiative is rolled:

Attack*
Called Shot
Cast a Spell*
Charge*
Disarm*
Disengage*
Grapple*
Move*
Offensive Focus
Overbear*
Parry
Pummel*
Push
Receiving Charge
Shield Blow
Shield Wall

These maneuvers/actions are either ones I've ruled as "interruptible" or are really non-maneuvers, and are just conssequential of an above maneuver/action:

Close Supporting Fire
Dodge* (interruptible)
Evade* (interruptible)
Flank Attack*
Reach Attack* (interruptible)
Rear Attack*
Two-Weapon Fighting*
Touch Attack*

Again, some of these aren't really maneuvers, but I've included them on a "cheat sheet" I made so my players know what they can do during a combat round. I consider Flank and Rear Attacks to be natural occurances as long as the PC end their movement in an appropriate position. Asteriks denote actions described in the PHB.

[alcyone]

Suppose it's worth a new topic, but are you doing facing? The reason I ask is you brought up flanks and rear attacks. Groups I've played with generally do a "flank" like 3.5 does; if you have a guy on each side of someone that's a flank.

Really though, if you have facing, a rear or flank should be:

Code: Select all

      ^
    ORC 
FL   R    FL

If you don't have facing you can still sort of do it; if your target is in melee with someone else you can assume they are facing them, and if they are in melee with more than one if you can remember which one was struck last you can have that be the facing. If you aren't using minis at all, then the only possibility (where combatants are aware of the attacker) would be to have the attacker say they were going for the rear or flank, and come up with some reason the attacker couldn't face them (otherwise engaged). And yes, they are situational and wouldn't be part of a predeclaration.

I see you have receive charge as not requiring declaration. Any other rules around that? Is it like Evade then, you interrupt a charge with it if you haven't done anything else?

Another situation is "longer weapon". It's automatic, but affects initiative so is useful to know ahead of time, and that sort of forces all attacks into predeclare (as you have.)

[Omote]

I use facing, and use a grid in my games. The PHB does a pretty good job describing flanking positions and rear attacks. That is why I use positioning on a grid, though you don't always have to.

Aergraith makes some valid points by quoting passages from the PHB and the CKG. And, he's right. The initiative process from PHB/CKG is a bit more convoluted than I thought. It's been a while since I visited this topic from the standpoint of the RAW versus how I have come to adjudicate such actions in game.

~O

[Lord Dynel]

I use facing, and use a grid in my games. The PHB does a pretty good job describing flanking positions and rear attacks. That is why I use positioning on a grid, though you don't always have to.

+1

Flanking a la 3.x D&D isn't necessary, unless that's the way you like to do it.. It's pretty clearly stated in the PHB what consittutes flanking (and rear attacks) in C&C. If you want to do it like 3.x, that's cool, of course. In combat, I rule that a foe must be engaged with a combatant for a flank or rear attack to be valid (back attacks done by rogues and assassins are not necessarily subject to this).

[alcyone]

DAMMIT!
What kind of conversation is this? Where is the conflict? Everyone agrees?
*RAGEQUIT*

[Lord Dynel]

Haha! I thought we were peaceful folk 'round these parts?!?

[Dracyian]

Haha! I thought we were peaceful folk 'round these parts?!?

BLASPHEMY

[Zudrak]

DAMMIT!
What kind of conversation is this? Where is the conflict? Everyone agrees?
*RAGEQUIT*

[Relaxo]

DAMMIT!
What kind of conversation is this? Where is the conflict? Everyone agrees?
*RAGEQUIT*

LOL

{aside} I've always said this is a nice, civilized, friendly board. It's one of the reasons I love it. {/ serious aside}

[Arduin]

I use facing, and use a grid in my games. The PHB does a pretty good job describing flanking positions and rear attacks. That is why I use positioning on a grid, though you don't always have to.

+1

Flanking a la 3.x D&D isn't necessary, unless that's the way you like to do it.. It's pretty clearly stated in the PHB what consittutes flanking (and rear attacks) in C&C. If you want to do it like 3.x, that's cool, of course. In combat, I rule that a foe must be engaged with a combatant for a flank or rear attack to be valid (back attacks done by rogues and assassins are not necessarily subject to this).

Oh no! You're using common sense & logic.

I do it the same way. I require declare before init. But I play it pretty loose. Example, If the fighter says that he is protecting the wizard, I assume he moves to interpose against a threat if possible. If moving across a room and a foe would be crossing his path during the round I allow interception as despite order of turns, everything is in reality, simultaneous in that 6 seconds.

[TensersFloatingDisk]

The character should at least be able to dodge, that's common sense. Because the player declared something, that doesn't mean the wizard is a brainless robot commited to executing that instruction for the next ten seconds, regardless of circumstances that may arise. By declaring dodge or evade however, he has given up any chance of the spell working, whereas if he hadn't and the bandit missed, the spell would still have gone off.

[Arduin]

By declaring dodge or evade however, he has given up any chance of the spell working, whereas if he hadn't and the bandit missed, the spell would still have gone off.

A tactical decision to be made. To start casting or not based on the existing threats.

[TensersFloatingDisk]

But the character shouldn't start casting knowing that he will, for no apparent reason, be unable to stop.

[Arduin]

But the character shouldn't start casting knowing that he will, for no apparent reason, be unable to stop.

Once you start to cast a spell, stopping ruins the spell. It is how spells work. So, you have a choice. You CAN stop casting.

[TensersFloatingDisk]

But the character shouldn't start casting knowing that he will, for no apparent reason, be unable to stop.

Once you start to cast a spell, stopping ruins the spell. It is how spells work. So, you have a choice. You CAN stop casting.

Yes, that's what I meant. You can carry on casting (matron!) or lose the spell and get out of the way.

[Lord Dynel]

Exactly. Good points.

To me, the declaration phase makes sense in that players don't know what's going to happen during the course of the round. Meaning, that they shouldn't base their actions in the round on what was done right before them in the initiative count (a la 3.x, PF, and such). In fact, I try to do that with monsters, too, if I can - I try to plan out what I want the foes to do before I ask the players their intentions. I just think that this method makes a bit more sense.

I think my wife was trying to fit a square peg (her experience with d20 systems) into a round hole (the C&C combat structure). We had another go over with it a day or two ago and I tried to put it into more common vernacular instead of explaining mechanics. The gist of that conversation was that once you decide what you want to do in the next ten seconds, then you're committed to doing it. Only a few things can interrupt that commitment. In C&C, it's the Evade and Dodge maneuver (and reach, to an extent, though that's a little different). I think she's coming around to the idea a lot better with some time to digest the session before and our talking about it.