Necromancing a thread:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricNieudan/posts/SKNBZwombD2
That was about a year ago. Is that still considered the appropriate procedure? I ask because at the moment in the v1.1 of the rules, I think most of that can be inferred from the rules except step 6...
"6. Have all NPCs done something? If not, the referee describes what they do and gives whoever is affected a chance to react - this can involve an out-of-sequence check, for instance to avoid an attack or spell. "
that idea doesn't seem to be anywhere in the rules; rather, it feels directly contradicted by the rules that seem to be clear that only PC's take turns.
It makes perfect sense, and also helps explain my confusion about exactly what shields do. I like this procedure a lot. Just making sure I haven't missed a post that changes/alters it.
Yup, still relevant. Actually, this procedure is in the final draft pretty much as I wrote it then =)
ReplyDeleteRe. step 6, it's just a safeguard. NPCs don't have turns of their own, but it may happen that one of them wasn't involved in players' actions. So you need to describe what they do at the end of the turn. And if this impacts one or more PCs, another check may be needed.
Now this is fluid, no-initiative combat: you can just fold this check into the next round, starting with whoever has to react to the forgotten NPC's action. I just added step 6 to stay within the go-around-the-table framework.
Step 6 makes a lot of sense to me, all the rest of it is clearer with the presence of step 6. So I'm glad it will be in the final draft! :-)
ReplyDeleteVery helpful! :-)
ReplyDeleteWait; version 1.1? I'm using 1.0. Where is 1.1?
ReplyDeleteV1.1 of MMZ, not the final manuscript. At least I think that is what Hans Messersmith means.
ReplyDelete