To Declare or Not To Declare?

[KeyIXTheHermit]

My primary experience with D&D was 2e, where initiative used the following sequence: 1) DM determined actions for NPC's, 2) Players determined and declared actions for PC's, 3) Initiative was rolled and the results of actions were determined.

Later, I played DC Heroes where Initiative was determined, then declared in advance from lowest to highest, then played out from highest to lowest.

I never used miniatures with either of those games.

Fast forward 20 years, I now have a group, and they want dungeon-crawl, hack -n- slash, tactical, maps and minis goodness. Okay, C&C is a great system that can handle what they want and makes my life easy (because it's easy to run). But I'm finding it difficult to work advance declaration into play with maps and minis. (This is not a C&C thing for me, just a game thing in general).

The C&C rules say nothing about advance declaration. Does anyone do it in their games? I really feel that it gives a lot more possibilities to actions, and our games get kinda "Chess-y" without them. But they're not really working very well with minis, in my experience.

[Omote]

Particularly if you use the advanced combat options from the CKG, you really have to declare before the initiative is rolled. I think the default assumption is that when playing, you should declare. Obviously you don't need to, but I get a strong feeling that was the intent. I know it says in the PHB that you don't have to, but I believe that is how it was probably played when written.

Therefore, in the games that I run, I don't often call for declaration before initiative, but there are some abilities that need to be declared before initiative While I don't ask for it every turn, if the player has some pre-initiative action they need to declare, I make sure they do it before the die is rolled.

~O

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Particularly if you use the advanced combat options from the CKG, you really have to declare before the initiative is rolled. I think the default assumption is that when playing, you should declare. Obviously you don't need to, but I get a strong feeling that was the intent. I know it says in the PHB that you don't have to, but I believe that is how it was probably played when written.

Therefore, in the games that I run, I don't often call for declaration before initiative, but there are some abilities that need to be declared before initiative While I don't ask for it every turn, if the player has some pre-initiative action they need to declare, I make sure they do it before the die is rolled.

~O

You just taught me a lot I didn't know, Omote! I'm using an earlier edition; I'm not sure what edition it is, but I do know that later editions have different Barbarian rules, if that helps to clarify which one I'm using. So, I guess maybe 1e or 2e?

Anyway, the edition I'm using doesn't say anything at all in PHB about declaring actions, and when I got mine, there wasn't a CKG yet. It came around later, and I think was intended for use with the matching PHB.

So I didn't know declarations were ever even discussed in the game itself. Now I know I'm going to be watching this thread closely, trying to glean how later players are doing it!

[Omote]

Looking over the current printing of the PHB (6th), I actually can't find the specific mention of making a declaration before initiate is rolled. It might have been in one of the previous printings, or perhaps I am imagining it. The current printing of the CKG definitely mentioned using a declaration phase, but gives not details on how to do so.

~O

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Looking over the current printing of the PHB (6th), I actually can't find the specific mention of making a declaration before initiate is rolled. It might have been in one of the previous printings, or perhaps I am imagining it. The current printing of the CKG definitely mentioned using a declaration phase, but gives not details on how to do so.

~O

You just answered questions I hadn't asked yet, which is a great time saver! I wondered how they preferred to do it, given that so many different games even have different ways of declaring actions. Now I know that there's no details, so that answers the question. Thanks again.

[alcyone]

Looking over the current printing of the PHB (6th), I actually can't find the specific mention of making a declaration before initiate is rolled. It might have been in one of the previous printings, or perhaps I am imagining it. The current printing of the CKG definitely mentioned using a declaration phase, but gives not details on how to do so.

~O

In the 6th printing PHB, there are mentions of announcements that seem to indicate that there is a declaration phase, at least under certain circumstances. There doesn't seem to be a general rule for always doing so. I find a declaration phase removes most ambiguity from the players actions, but also hurts their ability to react to changing circumstances. Some of these don't make sense when a CK house rules that initiative is rolled once per combat, instead of once per round.

Most Castle Keepers make you announce at the beginning
of the round whether you are going to cast a spell.
6th printing p.74
(Note this is contradicted on p.73: A character who wishes to cast a spell announces his intention
to the Castle Keeper during the character’s initiative turn.)

The charge must be announced prior to the
character moving and before initiative is rolled.
6th printing p. 173


They do not need to roll initiative, but must announce
their intention before the round begins.
(under Dodge)
6th printing p.176


The player must announce that he is disengaging at the beginning of
the round. The disengaging character does not roll initiative.
(under Disengaging from Combat)
6th printing p.176

They do not need to roll initiative,
but must announce their intention before the round begins.
(under Evade)
6th printing p.177

This ability takes effect as soon as the barbarian uses the ability. He must
announce it before rolling initiative.
(Under Intimidate, Barbarian section)
6th printing p.23

The attack must be
announced before an attack roll is made.
(Under Death Strike, Monk section)
6th printing p.38

[Buttmonkey]

I have tried using a declaration phase in the past, but don't like it. The bottom line is it slows things down. I prefer to have players declare their actions on their initiative turn. The only upside I see to declaring actions before initiative is rolled is to create a mechanism for spell disruption. However, I ultimately decided it wasn't worth it. I now rule that a spell caster cannot cast a spell if the caster has already been hit in that combat round. I sometimes forget to enforce that rule, but nothing bad has ever happened as a result. Ease of play is the most important factor for me. A declaration phase does not make the cut under that standard.

[serleran]

I go back and forth on it. I prefer a declaration phase as it helps set the round in order. But, it also ends up with a lot of "I wait until that thing does something" which may as well not even be a thing.

Therefore, I only do declaration in some cases:

1) "Anyone casting a spell this round?"
2) "Anyone using missile weapons?"
3) "Anyone charging?"
4) "Anyone waiting to see what someone else does?"

[alcyone]

I skimmed 1st printing this morning, and couldn't find anything about declaration, except that dodge can be declared anytime if the player has not gone yet. By 3rd printing, some of the stuff about declaring spells was in there.

[Snoring Rock]

This is kind of open for debate or your preference. Some of these are in the book, while others just make sense, while some are just my idea.

To be declared:
Dodge (in the book)
Evade (CKG--I think)
Hold
Offensive Focus (combat maneuver)
Parry (combat maneuver)
Spell Casting (this can be abused where a caster is last in the line up and waits to see what happens or if he gets hit before declaring) I make them declare before initiative is rolled. Rolling bad on initiative should never give you and advantage.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

I'm definitely getting a lot here to consider and discuss with my group. Thanks very much. If we continue playing and enjoying the game, it might be time to consider upgrading.

FWIW, while I'm not a fan of initiative systems in general, I believe that they really change the pace and flavor a combat system.

One of my favorite initiative systems to use in other games was "Determine Order, Declare Slow to Fast, Act Fast to Slow," and one of my favorite "bits" to use with that system was, on the first round of melee, to have a slow moving NPC declare that he was attempting to leave the area of engagement (why? presumably to escape death, but there was always the possibility that he'd return with reinforcements).

This always gave the players something to consider. Do they let him go because he's not actively fighting them anyway? Do they focus on trying to kill him first before he escapes? If so, who focuses on it? All of them, in case one fails? Or just one, perhaps the group's archer?

I find this "bit" totally unworkable in a non-declaration system: when the turn comes up for the slow moving NPC, everyone else has already acted, and he's free to simply walk off the stage. The players are free to try to break combat and give chase, of course, but they typically have their hands full by this time (as it's now round two, and everyone is engaged in combat).

But as someone noted, above, while declarations can add to the possibilities, they can also slow down the game, especially when the battle is in the thick, and everyone's action will usually just be "I attack" anyway.

I'm also finding it hard to join movement and action when on a map. Do they give specifics to where they are moving, pointing to the exact location? Or do they just say they're "moving"? What if they say they're attacking but the opponent moves out of range before the characters gets their move (this has happened a lot in "declare first then roll initiative" games we've tried)? I can't really give any specific examples at the moment, but I'm sure it's something others have seen.

Thus, in my humble opinion:

Declarations: Slow, more options, works best without a map.
No Declarations: Fast, less options, works best with a map.

I can find no option that is "Medium speed, lots of options, works well with map," and it's frustrating me.

[Aramis]

I find this "bit" totally unworkable in a non-declaration system: when the turn comes up for the slow moving NPC, everyone else has already acted, and he's free to simply walk off the stage. The players are free to try to break combat and give chase, of course, but they typically have their hands full by this time (as it's now round two, and everyone is engaged in combat).

After the first round, initiative is best understood as a continuous flow of actions rather than discrete turns where one goes "first" or "last" (unless you are re-rolling every turn, as some do). Remember that DMs often allow one to "hold my action" so it is not difficult for anyone to go "last" in a turn.

In the case of a villain trying to escape his just comeuppance; first, that sounds like sensible play on the DM's part, and second, if the villain is engaged in melee, disengagement is no easy matter regardless of when you go in a turn. You can try to flee normally, thus provoking free on-the-spot attacks from all who surround you, or you can tactically retreat which does allow one to avoid the free attacks but at the expense of only moving half speed, thus allowing the clever players to concentrate their next attacks on the fleeing character. If, on the other hand, the fleeing character is not held down by melee, then why shouldn't the villain flee relatively easily (perhaps twirling his moustace as he does so ) ?

But as someone noted, above, while declarations can add to the possibilities, they can also slow down the game, especially when the battle is in the thick, and everyone's action will usually just be "I attack" anyway.

This is one of the key points I would emphasise in any attempt to house rule C&C. Speedy, quick tempo round resolutions is a hallmark of C&C. It is always a temptation to "fix" it for "realism" reasons or not making it so simplistic, or whatever, but to my mind, having played many various ways, simple and quick beats almost all other variations because it allows the cinematic flow of the game to predominate. YMMV of course

[KeyIXTheHermit]

After the first round, initiative is best understood as a continuous flow of actions rather than discrete turns where one goes "first" or "last" (unless you are re-rolling every turn, as some do).

I hope I don't derail my own thread here, because the declaration phase, or lack thereof, is my key question, but this is the second time I've seen a reference to "one initiative roll for the entire combat."

My early edition of the game doesn't even give that as an option; the only options are individual initiative or group initiative if the CK feels the number of combatants on each side are so large that individual initiative would slow things down unnecessarily.

Even though our group is small, we have several allies, which means about 10 characters on the PC side. I generally default to group initiative, especially given that the results are random anyway (i.e. individual abilities don't factor into the rolls).

When I do use Individual Initiative, I have an odd house rule of my own design that PC's and important NPC's use an individual roll, and use a d10, but "grouped" characters (e.g. allies, goblins, skeletons, etc) act on a d6. (The increased chance of a better roll for individuals expresses their inherent better abilities and free will, but doesn't guarantee they'll go first).

I haven't tried or used one initiative roll for the whole round. Is this a thing? Is it common? Is it "official" anywhere (specifically in C&C; I know it's in 3.x). Do you use the whole rule where Dex modifies the roll? Do you use a d20? I'll consider it if that's what "all the cool kids are doing," but I was unaware that this was commonly used.

[Aramis]

There are two different ideas here. One is group vs individual initiative. The other is round by round initiative versus roll once at the beginning and just keep rolling over the list of actors each round.

The way we usually do it is all individual PCs roll for themselves once, at the beginning of combat, with a straight d10, and that # also applies to their henchmen or summoned creatures etc.. The DM rolls once for all his various forces combined, but he rolls another roll if another group joins in the fray a few rounds later. Thus the DMs turn usually takes awhile as he runs through all his actions

That's pretty simple As I said, our goal is usually Maximum Fun Minimum Figurin' (tm), so we want a simple initiative system

[Relaxo]

What worked for me was always, roll initiative, and if the PCs win, ask them what they are doing. Then the NPCs react. or visa versa, as in, roll initiaive, PCs lose, Hey, this guy hits you, this guy misses you, this happens... etc etc... if you lose initiative, youre on the defensive, so planning/declaring can't really work.

I honestly have no idea if this is from 1st ed, OE, 2nd ed AD&D that I cut my teeth on... it just sort of worked and felt good for my groups.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

One more brief off-topic question here for the newbie, and then hopefully back on topic:

Is there any way to note that I've read a comment? For example, Facebook lets you "Like" a comment so that you know it's read. A lot of very nice people are giving me a lot of great information, and I'd like to let them know that I've read and appreciated it, but I see no way to do that without posting an actual "thanks" and clogging up the thread.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

What worked for me was always, roll initiative, and if the PCs win, ask them what they are doing. Then the NPCs react. or visa versa, as in, roll initiaive, PCs lose, Hey, this guy hits you, this guy misses you, this happens... etc etc... if you lose initiative, youre on the defensive, so planning/declaring can't really work.

Relaxo, just being sure I understand your system: Roll initiative first, then have the winner declare actions? Or are they just doing it as they go, as per the normal system?

It sounds like you mean, "Roll initiative first, then the winning side declares actions, then the losing side declares actions, then the actions are carried out." But I could be misunderstanding you.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

I just read this whole thread to my wife, who is in my group, and after reading Relaxo's post, she started talking and thinking aloud, and came up with a wonderful alternative that I'd never thought of.

She essentially created a hybrid of both systems I like:

Roll group initiative, once for each side. Losing side declares out loud what they are doing, then winning side declares what they are doing. Actions occur winning side first. Because it's group initiative, exact order of declaration isn't important, unless one character on a side is waiting on another character on the same side to act.

I like it. I don't know if it will work for us, because we haven't tried it yet, but I'm thinking we'll give it a playtest before the next session, and if we like it, bring it up to the group!

In the meantime, I am still reading with interest anything anyone has to say. We would never have thought of this without Relaxo's comment, so maybe other comments may give us even more ideas.

EDIT: I realize this doesn't solve my problem with trying to blend basic "story-based" movement with more precise tactical board movement, but I'm hoping that if we lay out some same situations and put our minds to it, we can figure out how to be descriptive and narrative while still choosing to only move three squares so you can attack.

In early games, we did away with maps and minis entirely: two forces opposing each other, attacking in the same round, simply met in the middle of the battlefield. There was no, "this one moves up to here and this one moves down to there." But my group really wants the minis-battles, so I'm trying to find a way to please everyone, myself included, who would like the combats to be more like an action movie with incredible set pieces and less like a game of Chess or Checkers, which sometimes they devolve it into, despite their best intentions.

[alcyone]

Dark Dungeons has an individual initiative method where you can elect to hear the monster's actions in exchange for a penalty to initiative.

During the declaration phase, PCs can elect to declare before or after the monsters. Those who declare before get a +1 to their roll. Those who declare after hearing what the monsters do get a -1 penalty, but of course have the advantage of not having to do something that doesn't make sense after hearing the monsters. In this method, of course, the DM does not keep the monster actions secret.

If you search the boards, you'll find lots of initiative discussions over the years.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

During the declaration phase, PCs can elect to declare before or after the monsters. Those who declare before get a +1 to their roll. Those who declare after hearing what the monsters do get a -1 penalty, but of course have the advantage of getting of not having to do something that doesn't make sense after hearing the monsters. In this method, of course, the DM does not keep the monster actions secret.

That is odd and interesting! I will have to read that to the Missus and see what she says! It's a bit further afield of the game than I think either of us wanted to go, but who knows, she might really take to it. I've heard a lot of ideas, but I have to admit, I've never heard of that one before.

Edit: I presume it uses a d6 for the initiative roll? A d10 or higher seems too large a range for a +1`bonus/penalty.

[alcyone]

Edit: I presume it uses a d6 for the initiative roll? A d10 or higher seems too large a range for a +1`bonus/penalty.

Yes, 1d6, plus dex mod where appropriate and halflings always get +1.

Dark Dungeons is a Rules Cyclopedia retroclone. http://www.gratisgames.webspace.virginmedia.com/

I tried this method when I played Dark Dungeons. It worked reasonably well at the table when people remembered it, but then we did PbP and VTT games and it was too slow for that.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Ah, ok. I still have a copy or two (or ten) of Cyclopedia, so I'd probably just play that in that case, although I'm not against house ruling the crap out of it, so I might check it out and see what other odd ideas it has. Given the name, I presume it is mildly subversive, which is always a good thing in my opinion.

[Relaxo]

It sounds like you mean, "Roll initiative first, then the winning side declares actions, then the losing side declares actions, then the actions are carried out." But I could be misunderstanding you.

That's what I meant. but your next post is better! losing side declare first, risking their idea/actoin becoming outdated, so to speak. that's the spirit of what i tried to do, to make the intiative very special and advantageous, like in real like, not just to keep the order of moves easy to follow.

It could be more fluid at times: with lots of newbs at the table, I've sometimes asked everyone to sit in intiative order (clockwise starting at my left) or simply gone in the order they were sitting in, basically skipping initative rolls (using party initiative).

does that make sense?

[Relaxo]

And it worked pretty well for us story wise... I never used minis until there were a dozen or more combatants to track.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

That's what I meant. but your next post is better! losing side declare first, risking their idea/actoin becoming outdated, so to speak. that's the spirit of what i tried to do, to make the intiative very special and advantageous, like in real like, not just to keep the order of moves easy to follow.

It could be more fluid at times: with lots of newbs at the table, I've sometimes asked everyone to sit in intiative order (clockwise starting at my left) or simply gone in the order they were sitting in, basically skipping initative rolls (using party initiative).

Thanks! I told the Missus (who actually came up with the idea) and she was flattered. She's pretty new to the hobby (I'm an old hand), so she's sometimes afraid her contributions won't be well-received.

I like the idea of just going around the table; GURPS Third even suggested that as an optional system, if you didn't want to go in Move order because you found it to complicated.

We've tried not using initiative at all, and starting with whoever first said they were attacking first, then going in some order based on story, logic, or seating, or whatever worked. The problem we ran into was it seemed unfair for everyone else past the first two fighters, as it was so random who went next. We solved that by having ALL combat be simultaneous. That worked, except... it slowed combat waaaaaaay down. Big Warrior kills a Goblin, but Goblin still gets a turn. It got tedious, and was slow. I still don't hate it, but there are faster ways.

We still have no way of reconciling movement on a board with advance declarations, however. We're hoping we can make it work with some playtesting. As for now, though, declaring "The fighters form a line in the front, while the Rogue stands behind us, protecting the Mage in case any enemies get through," makes sense. Trying to explain where you're going to be moving on a constantly moving board battlefield just doesn't work as well.

[Captain_K]

Without reading ANY of the above, other than your question... We use a small white board. We roll a d10, add dex modifier and possibly +1 to your roll if DEX is a prime. Write down each PC name and the monsters too (either as a group or occasionally as a few individuals or smaller groups - CK choice). Then we start at the top and work down the list. I let the PCs react to what's around them and what has happened before them... BUT casting in combat or casting where you can be struck is tricky - really still working that out. Most PCs are pretty linear in what they will do, melee or spell and this method works quickly and well about 90% of the time. We keep that round of initiative the whole battle. PCs or monsters can "save their initiative" and drop back through the ranks if they want. To keep things moving a Player keeps the list and calls out each round who's up next, who's on deck, and who's in the hole... at these three simple calls is when the PCs must really be "picking" or final planning their actions coming up right next. Spell casters MUST have their spells in mind with their books open ready to read any detail of the spell I ask for.... (which I do since they're still learning and making them read it helps them learn). Yeah the movement can be a bit jumpy when all stand static until its their turn then bam they move 20 to 60 feet, but it is just a game simulation of "action", all or most rules work both ways. On average it usually works out fair for all, if not ideal for each.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Without reading ANY of the above, other than your question...

We're really having a time with this. The big problem is that everyone wants to use maps and minis, and that makes declaration weird. I mean, when declaring, do you say where you're moving to? What happens when the board changes because someone else got to move first? Do you lose your turn if the action you planned won't work because things changed? Or do you let the players adjust "on the fly" to changing conditions? And if you do, then what was the point of making them declare in the first place?

We've played two games in two days, with a third planned for tomorrow (it's really been one big adventure, but we've had to break it up to three days so far). Because we're hack and slash dungeon crawlers, that's what we're doing. Yesterday was an above ground Lich Lord and his skeleton and zombie army; today we're below ground in the maze of a Minotaur and a Minotaur Lord (and all the smaller critters that live in their dungeons). This is all part of a larger story, with which killing the Minotaur Lord is the ultimate goal.

On the first part of the journey, I had the PC's and major NPC's roll individually on d10, and "grouped characters" (allies and lesser monsters) roll d6. Then they declared in order, from slowest to fastest. Once all actions were accounted for, they acted in order from fastest to slowest. It worked, but it slowed the game down quite a bit, and I wanted something a little faster.

On the second part of the journey, I decided what the NPC's were doing, then had the players state their actions for the round, then both sides rolled a d10 to decide who went first. That was much faster, but we ran into the problem of, "If you lose initiative, then the other side goes first, and most of your planned actions will no longer work." So, it's speed versus functionality, as far as I'm concerned.

Out of curiosity, tomorrow I plan on having them roll one d10 per side, then force the losing side to declare actions. The winning side won't have to declare, they'll just do their actions based on what the losing side says they're gonna do (e.g. if the losing side says they're going to shoot arrows at the winning side, they may decide to duck and cover rather than charge). I feel that this has real possibility, but it doesn't make any sense. I understand the faster characters being able to respond to the slower characters when you take speed and intelligence into account, but if you don't, it's just random.

Obviously, for us, the first system we tried seems to work the best, but I just wish it wasn't so slow. Including allies, there are sometimes more than 10 characters to a side, so even simple battles can have over 20 characters in them. Rolling for them all (and I use initiative every round; no one in my group likes one initiative roll per combat, including me) just really drags the game down the longer it continues.

[Aramis]

What happens when the board changes because someone else got to move first? Do you lose your turn if the action you planned won't work because things changed? Or do you let the players adjust "on the fly" to changing conditions? And if you do, then what was the point of making them declare in the first place?

This is the key element of any strong declaration system. It leads to many many situations where PC A crosses the declared line of fire of PC B, or player D mysteriously changes his declared action based on the declaration of another player, even though he had no way to pre know that. So there is a whole bushel of slow downs and rules discussions

If you are adding a tactical element to the game with minis and maps, adding an additional layer of complexification with a strong declaration system might bog down the game too much

[KeyIXTheHermit]

If you are adding a tactical element to the game with minis and maps, adding an additional layer of complexification with a strong declaration system might bog down the game too much

You are so right! And today I spent some time showing my newbie players how games look if you don't use maps and minis. We did some quick scenarios before the actual game, just seeing how they would be done normally. Consensus: That's fine if we don't have maps and minis, but they prefer the grid. We might play some other games at some future point, like a Supers game, and that will be played all theater of the mind. I also got them to agree to not using maps and minis for scenes that would be unwieldy to use them on, like if we lack the appropriate mini or anything approaching them, or if size considerations cause them to not work (giants and dragons, for example, although they're too low level for those anyway).

After some sitting and thinking, I found peace with our system for tomorrow: Roll initiative first, then have the losing side declare, then have the winning side declare/act. My problem is it's a group system, so I was having trouble finding the logic in the system. But after thinking about it, if you're considering multiple characters, some will be more combat savvy than others, or may be more "on the ball" than others, so it makes sense that two groups opposing each other, if you're looking at each side as a whole, will average to the middle. A random roll for each side actually makes sense.

[Aramis]

Remember, at the end of the day, initiative is just an "I go, you go" system. As long as everyone is getting a fair turn and the game is flowing, you are doing it correctly.