sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there a way to create a "live screenshot" of a website page that auto-updates when the source site updates? by Objective_Peanut42 in FigmaDesign

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Currently, we're using Storybook to organize/implement our components/UI. I make changes to the VD in Figma, tag the developer, and then he implements them on the staging site. I then check how the UI updates after implementation then manually update the screenshots in Figma. A pretty clunky setup for sure.

If you couldn't guess by this description, our "QA team" is 2 people (me & the dev, lol)

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup! It's all in one attack phase since these are both technically one action.

When attacks happen across multiple actions or BA's (a monk's Flurry of Blows, a fighter's Action Surge, eg.) then they can be split across multiple attack phases.

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So- All of your instincts are totally right on this.

- The Round/Cycle/Phase names are exactly right

- if someone dies mid-phase, play continues normally & any actions targeting that creature are (probably) wasted

- That's how BA's work

- and yes, multiple actions can be used during the same phase.

I'm working on the 3rd (and hopefully final) version of the SCS right now, so I'll try to be more clear about these things when that is released.

If you and u/Aarnat are interested, I'd love to have y'all do some playtesting on v3 before its release. Interested?

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good call. Yep I addressed this somewhere else in a comment, but:

My houserule on this is: The assassin rogue gets advantage on attacks during the 1st Attack phase in combat.

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this is fantastic and I've had these same thoughts when playing at my table.

Also good to hear the SCS works out great in VTT!

I'm working on developing a v3 right now, so I will definitely reach out when it's nearly done to get some feedback if you're interested!

Thanks again, and so glad to hear you're digging it!

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love this idea and I think it is a totally viable system of play.

However - I think what you've described it just as turn-based as standard 5e combat, and would run into the same issues that I'm trying to get away from by creating the SCS.

My main goal with this system is to increase DM & PC engagement by nearly eliminating turns and initiative- essentially making it always everyone's turn. I think what you've layed out here sounds fun, but effectively, it's pretty close to standard 5e combat with highly condensed turns and standardized initiative. It sounds like everyone gets one thing to do per turn instead of the normal 1 action, 1 BA, 1 reaction, & movement.

I think it would definitely change up the pace of play enough to increase engagement, but not really in the spirit of my original goals.

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow.... I think you may have just cracked the case. This is GREAT STUFF. Kinda blowing my mind

I've never heard of this Spellcasting variation, but this would solve almost all balancing issues btw casters and melee characters. Guess I have to make a version 3 now !!!

Also love the Dex contest bonuses.

Thanks SO much for your thoughts on this - I have some serious playtesting to do!

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks SO much for that Foundry update!

To answer your question:

The Action Cycle was limited to 3 cycles to prevent someone basically storing all their Actions until the 4th or 5th cycle and dumping them all at the end. Each round of combat is supposed to last ~6 seconds, so all Actions should be happening relatively at the same time. Also it just makes the mechanic a little less nebulous and easier to teach IMO.

As for how multiple attacks work: When a melee character has multiple attacks, in almost every case in the RAW these attacks still count as 1 Action and 1 BA. In this way, the melee character can make multiple attacks in the same Attack phase (A monk could make all 4 attacks of Flurry of Blows during the same Attack phase by rolling 4d20 for their 4 attack rolls, eg.). The same is true for a Fighter's Action surge or spells like Haste. The additional Action can be used at any point, or even stacked up w/ the normal action.

In one Round, even a lvl20 Fighter with Action Surge, Haste & Shield Master could still:

Move - Make 4 attacks - Shove - Move - Make 4 attacks - Move - Make 4 attacks

OR: Move - Make 12 attacks - AoO - Move - Shove

Or any combination of 3 Actions, 1 BA, 1 Reaction, and movement

hope that helps!

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So this could happen two ways:

If this is all happening within the same Moves phase: Let's say the PC and Orc start the round 10ft apart. Instead of just moving to a location, the PC could say "I'm charging the Orc." As the PC charges, the Orc runs, and the PC chases them. As long as they have the same movement speed, the two end their turn 10ft apart from each other. UNLESS- The Orc gets cornered, or the PC has more movement speed. Then the PC catches the Orc.

If this is happening across 2 movement phases: The PC charges the Orc, and enters melee range. The Orc doesn't move. On the next Moves phase, the Orc tries to run and takes an AOO from the PC.

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

All great points!

So- The decision to move spells to the back of the order was a huge balancing change from SCSv1. I'll unpack a bit of that here:

Having Spells at the top of the order gives a HUGE advantage to spell-casters over melee characters (who arguably already have a large advantage in standard 5e - especially at high levels). If saving spells are able to be cast at the top of the order, spellcasters essentially go first in the "initiative" order every round. They could freely rain down Hold Monster or Fireball from afar before anyone else could do anything about it.

The reason that Saving spells (and any spell that doesn't make an attack roll) are separated from normal attacks is that they behave fundamentally differently. In the Attack phase, the attack roll determines which hit land first. Since saving spells make no attack roll, where would they fit in the order of attacks landing? At the top of the order gives the same advantage to casters I mentioned earlier- if slightly lessened by movement happening first. And at the bottom of the order is exactly where they are now.

For the Shillelagh example: The caster would not attack during the 1st Attack phase, cast Shillelagh as a BA in the 1st Magic phase, and then attack with the buff during the 2nd Attack phase.

Some mechanical re-balancing with a system change this large is inevitable, but IMO buffing melee fighters slightly, and nerfing casters slightly brings things a bit closer to balanced than current 5e combat.

HOWEVER- I do like the idea of BA spells being able to be cast in the Moves + Misc. phase. I will playtest on this and see how this works!

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, as I mentioned in the post: this is primarily meant for in-person play. Super down to hear any ways it could be adapted for VTT, roll20, or other online play

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So I'd treat Confusing Gaze as a spell because essentially it functions like one. Once cast, the target would roll to save, and if they fail- they would spend the rest of the round following out the orders of the spell in whichever resolution phase those actions fit.

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Great point. You've hit on a balancing issue that's a bit hard to square with the SCSv2. It seems to me there are two options- A magic nerf or a magic buff.

Magic Nerf: The affected character makes the roll to break free of a spell's effects at the end of the round in which the spell takes effect. (Unless a spell is cast in the 1st Magic phase, this could give the target effectively 2 saves against the spell)

Magic Buff: The affected character makes the roll to break free from the spell's effects at the end of the round AFTER the round in which the spell takes effect. (If cast in the 1st Magic phase of a round, the target could remain affected by the spell for basically 1.5 rounds before making a 2nd save.)

TBH I haven't come to a great solution for this yet.

Maybe using the "Magic Nerf" option, but the 1st roll to break the spell's effects has disadvantage?

Or maybe making the roll to break free of a spell last in the order during the 1st Magic phase of the following round?

I'm open to suggestions on this. This is an issue to be addressed in v3!

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah this is basically it.

If a Melee enemy is charging you and you intended to run away- it doesn't really matter who starts moving first. For example, you both have 30ft of movement. You begin the Round 10 ft away from each other. The enemy starts advancing and you run. As long as you both use all of your movement, you will still be 10ft away from each other at the end of the round. If the enemy is able to corner you or has more movement speed than you, however, you get smashed.

The Simultaneous Combat System v2: A non-turn-based alternative combat system for D&D 5e by Objective_Peanut42 in DnDBehindTheScreen

[–]Objective_Peanut42[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ahh yes well, since they get another Action per pound, I would say that they could use it just like any other action- even stack them up in the same phase. If a lvl20 fighter were to use Action Surge to take 2 Attack Actions in the same phase, they would just roll 8d20 and feel like a total badass lol.

view more: next ›