Goodman Games

Hey all,

This is a two part question about holding actions.

My group is addicted to holding their actions when monsters use tactics. For example, when a monster retreats into a room, I will have all but 1 player hold their action and then the player will creep in. When the monster (who also held an action) starts to attack, all of the players launch their actions and attack the monster, usually killing him. So first question- assuming I don't bend the rules, who gets to attack first in the above scenario? What is the order/stack as you see it? Maybe I missed this in the rules, do I have it right?

Second question: my opinion of the above is that it ruins DCC. It becomes a chess game when it should be an exciting adventure. Should I just not allow held actions and simply use surprise rules before combat? How can I alter the rules and still provide the players meaningful choices?

Any advice would aid me. Thanks all,
David Rose

I generally haven't seen much value in held actions and prefer the surprise approach. Remember, meaningful choices aren't limited to tactical choices.

I rule that holding your action generally cedes initiative to the monster. Your action may take place as the monster attacks, or just after, but the monster still gets to go.

Blutimate wrote:Hey all,

This is a two part question about holding actions.

My group is addicted to holding their actions when monsters use tactics. For example, when a monster retreats into a room, I will have all but 1 player hold their action and then the player will creep in. When the monster (who also held an action) starts to attack, all of the players launch their actions and attack the monster, usually killing him. So first question- assuming I don't bend the rules, who gets to attack first in the above scenario? What is the order/stack as you see it? Maybe I missed this in the rules, do I have it right?

Second question: my opinion of the above is that it ruins DCC. It becomes a chess game when it should be an exciting adventure. Should I just not allow held actions and simply use surprise rules before combat? How can I alter the rules and still provide the players meaningful choices?

Any advice would aid me. Thanks all,
David Rose

As soon as the monster has retreated into the room that combat is over; when the the PC creeps in it starts again and the rest of the party can't react until the creepy PC and the monster have fought a round of combat on their own (Starting with a one on one initiative). Remember the combat sequence is not rigid; it's just a suggested sequence for resolving what takes place in a typical 10 seconds of combat. You can change it whenever you like

And yes it does ruin the game so don't allow it

Blutimate wrote:Hey all,

This is a two part question about holding actions.

My group is addicted to holding their actions when monsters use tactics. For example, when a monster retreats into a room, I will have all but 1 player hold their action and then the player will creep in. When the monster (who also held an action) starts to attack, all of the players launch their actions and attack the monster, usually killing him. So first question- assuming I don't bend the rules, who gets to attack first in the above scenario? What is the order/stack as you see it? Maybe I missed this in the rules, do I have it right?

Second question: my opinion of the above is that it ruins DCC. It becomes a chess game when it should be an exciting adventure. Should I just not allow held actions and simply use surprise rules before combat? How can I alter the rules and still provide the players meaningful choices?

Any advice would aid me. Thanks all,
David Rose

attack always trumps move when in doubt. at least in my initative book

I agree that it sounds like "combat" is over, regardless of player intentions. There is a pause in the action. No one can definitively predict when it will kick in again... Once a declared action kicks things off again, roll for initiative!

If the creeping character is being stealthy, that PC may well get a free attack. But the characters don't necessarily have a better reaction time than the monster — that's what initiative tells you!

This is part of why I like a new initiative each round.

I'd probably make a house rule involving an Agility check if you want to interrupt an action. If you make it, you interrupt and go first. If you fail, you're just barely too slow and the monster's action goes off first.

All great posts. Ultimately, I am going to have to digest all of these cool suggestions and come up with something that my players won't balk at (they can be stubborn about rules).

When I run my convention games, I think I'll opt for no hold actions.

Rerolling initiatives every round feels crunchy and may break up and slow down an otherwise exciting combat.

I really like the idea of putting your initiative at the bottom of the stack (in effect, delaying your action instead of holding) instead of the Magic the Gathering "stack" as it was (well, before you did that, I did this). I think this fits into the spirit of the game. I also like the idea of rolling an agility check or doing 1 on 1 initiative. These are all superb things I had never heard of.

Now, if the party lets a monster run away or sneak off, I think I like the idea that the monster may even pull in other monsters from other encounters. Combat has ended and if the players dare to move forward, combat starts again and the monster has a chance of getting a leg up on the party and attacking first (although, since they are aware that there is indeed a monster there, it is unlikely going to be a surprise).

Thanks all!

David Rose

I suggest you do unto them what they are doing to the monsters; that tends to correct their perspective on stuff like this.

Blutimate wrote:Rerolling initiatives every round feels crunchy and may break up and slow down an otherwise exciting combat.

I hear you. I don't do it 100% of the time. But it does make things unpredictable, which arguably a combat should be... and that, too, can be exciting.