Core Rules Errata

[dymondy2k]

I actually like beginning of round action statements.. That has more of the old school feel to it than waiting for your turn on the initiative to announce it. To me it gives it more of a simultaneous feel, your initiative should happen but it really should feel like its happening in seconds not minutes. Waiting until your turn lets you base your decision too much on what happens before you and that doesn't feel like what happens in the heat of battle. But your right it doesn't explicitly state that in the ruleset.

[Solomoriah]

Even with beginning-of-round announcement, I consider your interpretation of magic missile to be incorrect.

[dymondy2k]

True but its MY interpretation.. I know the rules just say it always hits with no need to make an attack against the creature your aiming at as long as it can be seen. The basic interpretation.. you see it, you hit it.

[Solomoriah]

If you are using beginning-of-round declaration, and a player states that his character is going to throw a rock at an orc, but the orc gets initiative and goes around a corner (100% cover), do you require the player to throw anyway?

Perhaps you do... but ah, the orc has 100% cover, so the stone misses, harmlessly. Though badly written, the magic missile spell does not hit an opponent you cannot see, so similarly, the spell cannot hit the orc either (under the given circumstances). I didn't say "at the time you cast the spell" because, well, I didn't think I'd need to.

And while you may, of course, run your game as you wish, I am the person ultimately responsible for providing "official" (whatever that may mean) interpretations of the rules. (And fixing them when they are badly written, which I will surely do before releasing a 3rd Edition.)

[dymondy2k]

I think that's the fun about calling your actions out in the beginning of the round, because that way things don't always go as you planned. It adds a bit of unpredictability to combat. the rock would skip harmlessly off the wall as would the magic missile. I know that the BFRPG rules don't dictate how to handle combat initiative and it seems BFRPG does allow for that type of play if that's how the DM wants to run it. After playing awhile in a Pathfinder and 4e campaign I like the thought of changing it up a bit in my own campaign.

I do agree that the explanation for the magic missile spell isn't very clear. I noticed its the same text in the D20 SRD as well . I'm really not arguing with your clarification of the spell, what you say makes perfect sense. I'm just having some fun with how I interpret it.

[Hywaywolf]

As a game I also like that actions should be called out at the beginning of the round after initiative order is set. I understand that its more useful to a player if it is done otherwise but I think it would give more of a feel of immediacy to combat. Sometimes it feels like we are just sitting around a brightly lit table discussing tactics rather than feeling like we are in a dungeon room with torches flickering, axes blurring, arrows flying and bodies flinging themselves all over the place. There is usually way to much inter-party planning going on during rounds most times.

In the case of the rock being thrown at an orc who dived behind cover, the attacker should not be able to switch to a new target, reassess the situation and then take an action different than he had prepared himself to take. What he can do is move his position in the hope that he can target the orc from a new angle or take evasive action himself and prepare to attack again the next round. The same should go for 'monsters'. If three bad guys rush one PC and the PC either runs or dies, the others not yet in melee shouldn't be able to switch opponents in that round.

[Solomoriah]

Okay, so you require declaration of actions, and don't allow changes. Imagine I'm playing in your game, and we're facing a group of orcs who are losing and might retreat; I declare that I'm going to "fire an arrow at whatever standing orc I can see."

Do you accept that declaration? If not, why?

[SmootRK]

I tend to declare my "intentions" and not necessarily definitive actions in most cases, and this is the method I urge my players to use as well. This allows for some fudging when the situation changes radically, and has the bonus (when I GM) of allowing me to more freely creatively narrate combat... rather than just feed back the same thing the player said with a success/fail statement.

By the Book, probably not... works for me/us, definitely.

[Hywaywolf]

I am more with the declaring intentions as well. With Solomoriah's example the PC would have the option of shooting the orc or not. I just don't like the idea that whole strategies can be changed inbetween actions of each combatant.

[dymondy2k]

I tend to declare my "intentions" and not necessarily definitive actions in most cases, and this is the method I urge my players to use as well. This allows for some fudging when the situation changes radically, and has the bonus (when I GM) of allowing me to more freely creatively narrate combat... rather than just feed back the same thing the player said with a success/fail statement.
By the Book, probably not... works for me/us, definitely.

I would do the same as Smoot.. Allow the players some leeway or broadness in their declared action. I notice this is how the players do it in the Play by Post games as well.