I'm happy with the proposed defaults btw. Just as long as I'm not always standing in front as a human shield with 1 hit point left

You think I would ever leave you at 1 hp, Hannah?

Now I'm the one who's wounded!

To tell you the truth, I'm less interested in the cat-creatures than I am in what our screaming figure is on top of.


That sounds like a statue of some kind.  That is what I'm interested in.

Not a statue.  Definitely a living creature.

How far away is the tiefling?

I think taking the horses all the way up there is a bad idea, but depending on the distance, we may certainly want to get closer before we dismount.

Approximately 300 feet away.  Not close enough to make yourselves immediate threats (or targets -- clearly the attacking beasts clocked your presence, and decided to stick with their current prey).

One issue which would be immediate apparent to everyone -- the wagon and the cart would have some difficult time going off-road; the terrain is rocky on a level that could pose structural risk to any wheeled vehicle.  The mounts should be able to get through fine; anything else would be considered to be difficult terrain.

As we're about to move into combat, and we have new players, it might be a good time to revisit and re/hash/agree upon how we run combat.

How I've Done it Before

• I call for initiative, everyone rolls and posts their actions, ignoring the initiative order.
• I resolve combat according to the initiative order.

Pros: it's faster; you don't need to wait for someone to post before you can post your action.
Cons: It's harder to coordinate efforts.  For people further down on the init order, the entire battlefield can have changed before it's your turn.  It can make Reactions incredibly hard to use effectively, since you don't see what the enemy is doing until I resolve the combat.

We could Follow the Initiative Order
No prizes for figuring out how this works.  I do this in another game with 4 players, and it seems to work better than I thought it would -- but with 6 players, this could get rather slow.

• I call for initiative, everyone rolls initiative.
• Each person is called out specifically for their turn in combat, following the init order.
• Each turn is resolved, and I call out the next person, etc.

Pros: It's easier to keep track of who's done what, and to plan your actions.  Reactions are a cinch, since you could interject at any time.
Cons: It's slow.  In a medium which is already slow.  If someone's not around for whatever reason, it gets really slow.

We could Hybridise It

• I call for initiative, everyone rolls initiative.
• I call out groups of people (init rolls from 21-25, init rolls from 16-20, etc.)
• Each group of actions is resolved, and I call out the next group, etc.

Pros & Cons: Half and half of the above.

---

Thoughts?  Ideas?  Questions?
This message was last updated by the GM at 04:24, Thu 29 June 2023.

I vote for keep on with how we've done it so far.

i say if it aint broke, dont fix it

Agreed with Jason and hannah

Prefer how it's done before.  It's how I run my games too.  I will do the odd mid-round pause if there is a significant change (like in the last battle many of you were in) but otherwise run it just like you said.

I've played in games in which we've done it like you have in the past.  It is faster, and it's gone well.  I'm with everyone else.  Door number One, please.

My vote also goes to the consensus, don't change what works well

I'm still good with Lucy's action.  So far.

I'll keep the same action

Thanks team.

For the record, when I need to interrupt the round like I did here, my default assumption is that you're keeping the same action unless you tell me otherwise.

that i am fine with

Sounds good to me too.

Is this Insight vs Deception?  Or is this straight Wis vs straight Cha?

I would say it's skill vs skill.

Thanks.

BTW, Which moorbounder is the just south of Kursak right now?  1, 2, 3, or 4?  I ask because Insightful Fighting lasts 1 minute.

#3 is just below Kursak right now.

If you're using AboveVTT, you should be able to mouse over the token and get the specific name.  At least it works for me when I view it as a player (which is how I take the screenshots).

That's cool.  I didn't know you could do that.  I'm using AboveVTT, and highly recommend it.  Very neat feature.

In reply to Lucidity Velderan (msg # 935):

Yeah, it's a semi-recent change in semantics to make things easier, and to allow for the skill customization of Tasha's to be shown. In early 5E, when we were all filling out character sheets, a lot of people didn't bother writing bonuses on any skill they weren't proficient in, but when the DM would ask for a check and they weren't proficient, they'd have to ask which attribute was tied to the skill in question to figure it out. This style answers both sides.

A Wisdom (Insight) check is a Wisdom check where, if you're proficient with Insight, you add your proficiency bonus. An Insight check is a Wisdom check where you add your proficiency bonus if you're proficient. Same thing, different wording.

Tasha's (might have been Xanathar's) introduced the official idea of using alternative attributes for skill checks. A Strength (Intimidation) check as opposed to a Charisma (Intimidate) check will both use your proficiency for the skill, but the attribute bonus you add to it is different based on the situation. A big, ugly barbarian might have an 8 Cha but an 18 Str, and its the Strength that makes them intimidating. Hermione could intimidate other little wizards with her Intelligence (Intimidate) checks.

That makes sense.  And the system makes much more sense than the old 3.5 / Pathfinder static definition of skills.