The new talk of interleaving, and why you should shut it down.


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, only in the last month or so have I heard players using "interleaving" as an admonishment against GMs. I think it's localized to the West Coast right now, but it's going to spread, and I want you to be prepared for it when it rears its ugly head near you. It'll wreck your games if you're not careful.

The ban on interleaving is not in any rule book, nor the PFS guide. It's not discussed on these forums, either, which is why I think it's a new made-up term. The idea is to prevent GMs from clustering initiatives of similar/copied monsters. Like this:


  • GM groups 4 normal goblins all on the same initiative since they each have the same stat block, but the vampire leader gets her own initiative roll.
  • Player sees 4 goblins move in and get flank, doesn't like getting ganged up on, and says, "No interleaving attacks, that's not fair!"

The idea is to prevent GMs from weaving monsters' actions together in ways that skirt the rules about discrete turns for each character. The problem? The "no interleaving" text doesn't exist anywhere in the rules. It's completely made-up. Additionally, weaving monsters' actions together is no different from using delay and ready actions. Nothing mechanically changes. Example:


  • Using normal grouped initiative, the GM has the goblins run up, all on the same initiative, get flank, and attack with +2s (flank bonus). This involves each monster using a move action to close in, and a standard action to attack. Nobody is getting extra actions or breaking rules, but it apparently seems "unfair" because if the goblins had moved individually, the first to run up & attack would have had no flank bonus for the attack. Or so it appears to the player who has reasoned it out, but see the next bullet point.
  • Alternatively, the "no interleaving" rule suggests that the GM must resolve every monster's turn separately, to avoid the aforementioned issues. However, in this case, the GM has the goblins delay and cluster anyway, then each goblin moves into position and readies on getting a flank, and then the attacks trigger, and each goblin gets the +2 flank bonus anyway.

And that's the problem. "No interleaving" solves nothing. It just drags out fights even more, and makes the GM appear to be a spotlight hog. For example, I am about to run the Sky Key trilogy. The final fight in the first module involves a dozen monsters. If I play each one individually, I will take 12 turns while each player takes one. And that's every round, until they kill the little buggers off.

That's ridiculous. I mean, if you're a better GM than I am and you can take 12 turns each round and not come off like you're dominating the time, then great. You are awesome. But I am not that awesome, and I desperately need to cluster those monsters. In that particular fight, I will have 3 sets of monsters, and for each group, I roll all the attacks & damage dice at the same time. In that way, I can run 6 monsters in about the same time as doing 1 or 2 individually.

The reason I say this is an issue is because I had a real world problem with it. At the last convention I ran, I heard this "no interleaving" admonishment for the first time, mid-fight. I assumed it was a PFS rule I had never heard of before, and I timidly pulled apart grouped initiatives and ran each monster individually. And then our game ran an hour past our allotted time, and bled into the next game, and I had to manage angry players and leadership. And then I looked it up and realized it doesn't exist.

So I'm getting this out there for everyone, right now. If you group monsters, any actions you do in a "grouping" can be reproduced (if you're forced to run monsters individually) using delays and readies. So this is an unnecessary burden that slows down games. If someone demands "no interleaving," just shrug, say all the monsters go into delay until they're all together, and then they move & ready on each other's actions so the attacks go off. Then it's the exact same as clustering similar/same monsters, and the nitpicker is satisfied. Don't let your games slow to a grind.

(Yes, I'm aware that some dumb creatures, such as skeletons and vermin, should not know to get a flank, and thus demanding a GM run each individually might seem to prevent them from getting flank bonuses... at least until the GM just has them do readies. See, the problem isn't solved with "no interleaving." The problem is "the GM is running a mindless creature in a very smart way." That problem can occur with or without interleaving. The solution, if you're upset that a GM had 2 skeletons get flank, is to talk to the GM about monster intelligence, not force him or her to run every damn monster on its own initiative. If you want games to conclude in a reasonable amount of time, don't force GMs to dive into this level of detail and separated rolls. Some of us absolutely cannot run as swiftly under those circumstances.)

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Definitely had to Google that word up, it's a cool one.

I often group monster initiatives for speed of combat. I also split them apart if the monsters are particular nasty (like 90% of the fights in any given level of Bonekeep). However, I also run fast tempo combats, so either way I rarely go to time. In all my tables, I've never had players complain about how I group (or don't group) bad guy initiatives.

Exercise good judgement and explain your reasoning to your players. I understand where these players are coming from. I've been burned by GMs that grouped difficult creatures into one initiative. The best example is the 13 vampire sorcerers that won initiative and hit us with 13 simultaneous fireballs before we could act. We explained to the GM that now everyone in the party was dead, which was pretty unfair, so we asked the GM to split up their initiative for us. He agreed that it was pretty lame, rewound the combat and rolled up more initiatives. No harm, no foul, just a memorable story to tell.

If everyone involved is mature about this, it is a non-issue. Just like 99% of other issues in PFS.


Walter Sheppard wrote:
13 vampire sorcerers that won initiative and hit us with 13 simultaneous fireballs before we could act.

I agree that is crazy bad, and I want to make sure that my opening post is distanced from that. I'm not suggesting a game like that. I cluster in small similar groups. If I had 13 sorcerers, all the same, I'd probably split it into 2 or 3 groups and each would have a different plan of attack (some fireballing, some buffing, etc). If I was worried about the fireball group decimating everyone before anyone else could act, I'd just do a bunch of individual init rolls, and put the group on the lowest init (to represent them all delaying to their slowest buddy), and then have them go. That keeps clustering but at the init they would have had individually. That should allow the PCs time to get in a swing or two, unless the sorcs all rolled amazingly well (but if that happens, then the PCs are all going to die anyway, whether grouped or individual).

Also, that wasn't a PFS module, was it? I cannot imagine a module that has 13 sorcerers all on simultaneous Fireball duty. Seems like an unfair setup, which PFS tries to avoid. Usually.

Silver Crusade 5/5

My usual method for this is to break things up as well as I can. If there is one leader and six cronies, I would have initiatives for the leader and two sets of three cronies. If a fight looks particularly hairy I'll break the initiatives up further as needed. Since you mentioned the wave fight at the end of Scions 1, I handled it by having each wave leader go on their own initiative, with the cronies from each wave on a separate initiative. If a combat is dangerous enough, like say a group of flying archers and their leader that hastes them on the first round of combat, then I would divide it down even further to each participant on their own init, to prevent someone from getting pincushioned before they had a chance to act.

Scarab Sages

Walter Sheppard wrote:
I've been burned by GMs that grouped difficult creatures into one initiative. The best example is the 13 vampire sorcerers that won initiative and hit us with 13 simultaneous fireballs

Quite literally burned.

I think the point that you can all delay to achieve the same effect is true but has one significant difference which is that the group is far less likely to go before the players. In the above example situation, I imagine that would have made a huge difference. If you see 13 vampire sorcerers and don't think to spread out, you probably only have yourself to blame.
So, if you do group for convenience, I would suggest rolling initiative for every member in the group and keeping the lowest.


UndeadMitch, yeah, that's almost exactly how I do it, and pretty much what I'm suggesting is a "good" or "normal" way to run combat. It keeps the game moving swiftly.

I don't think I've ever fully broken a group down to each individual by choice, though. Close, but not 100%. I'd rather just delay them on the slowest init of their group and cluster them -- that gives the PCs some chance to act, but keep me from hogging turns & time. Same net result, however, so if it works, it works.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I always roll each individual initiative, especially when online on Roll20, as the tracker makes it much easier to do so. I don't really see this to be a problem, or rather not the root of the problem. The real problem is the conflict between the player and the GM.

Sovereign Court 3/5

I always group up mosters of the same type. I never had problems in PFS.

I cannot recall any scenario, where this was an issue. Ran Scions of the Sky Key Part 1 on monday and agree that it would be annoying having all the critters split up.


niconorsk wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I've been burned by GMs that grouped difficult creatures into one initiative. The best example is the 13 vampire sorcerers that won initiative and hit us with 13 simultaneous fireballs

Quite literally burned.

I think the point that you can all delay to achieve the same effect is true but has one significant difference which is that the group is far less likely to go before the players. In the above example situation, I imagine that would have made a huge difference. If you see 13 vampire sorcerers and don't think to spread out, you probably only have yourself to blame.
So, if you do group for convenience, I would suggest rolling initiative for every member in the group and keeping the lowest.

This is why players have a problem with grouping monsters on the same initiative. Yes you can just delay everyone but if you don't roll for every monster and take the lowest, the monsters get an advantage over the players. Also my understanding in the goblin scenario is that you would group all four under one initiative, have them all take moves for flanking then take their standards. Wouldn't that provide 1 to 2 goblins with bonuses they wouldn't otherwise have using a delay action.

I guess what I'm saying is that a majority of the time it's probably a non issue but the slight differences can push encounters closer in the encounters favor. Why not just delay every individual you want to group so that they are effectively grouped then run all their actions individually in a row?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you wanted to just group up all the monsters of a same type wouldn't it be more reasonable using the Pathfinder rules to delay all creatures till the lowest initiative and then have them all act? I've seen "grouping" be an issue in a few PFS games where it's created massive damage where the player just can't get healed by someone in time due to 6 critters attacking all at once. I'm not saying it's a serious issue though but if you really want to "group" creatures I think delaying is probably the most rules based and rules allowed method.

EDIT: Looks like Captain Netz has the same idea as me. I, the ninja, got ninja'ed.


Captain Netz wrote:
Also my understanding in the goblin scenario is that you would group all four under one initiative, have them all take moves for flanking then take their standards. Wouldn't that provide 1 to 2 goblins with bonuses they wouldn't otherwise have using a delay action.

How do they get a bonus they wouldn't otherwise get?

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Previous discussion on this topic HERE.

I tend to group initiatives when I have several creatures of the same type, but I've taken to checking that this is OK with the players at the start of combat (and being clear that the only reason I'm doing it for is to save time). I would roll initiatives individually if a player requested, but I can't recall an occasion when they have done so.

5/5 *****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I always roll each individual initiative, especially when online on Roll20, as the tracker makes it much easier to do so. I don't really see this to be a problem, or rather not the root of the problem. The real problem is the conflict between the player and the GM.

I do exactly the same on Roll20 and in face to face games. It isn't particularly difficult and the majority of monster turns are quick and simple, they tend to have far fewer options than PC's and you are often stuck with scripted tactics in any event.

5/5 *****

Paz wrote:

Previous discussion on this topic HERE.

I tend to group initiatives when I have several creatures of the same type, but I've taken to checking that this is OK with the players at the start of combat (and being clear that the only reason I'm doing it for is to save time). I would roll initiatives individually if a player requested, but I can't recall an occasion when they have done so.

I find when I am running face to face that it is easier to preroll initiative which saves a lot of time. I just put them numbers on my prep sheets.


aboyd wrote:
Captain Netz wrote:
Also my understanding in the goblin scenario is that you would group all four under one initiative, have them all take moves for flanking then take their standards. Wouldn't that provide 1 to 2 goblins with bonuses they wouldn't otherwise have using a delay action.
How do they get a bonus they wouldn't otherwise get?

Because they all move into flanking then all take their attacks, which they couldn't do with delay actions. Even with delay, each would take his full action in turn just on the later initiative, which means the first to move wouldn't have a flank when he attacked.

Also, as Captain Netz said, if they delay, they'll be acting on the lowest initiative of the 4 rolled, rather than on the first one rolled. That's likely to be after a few more PCs have acted.


thejeff wrote:
Because they all move into flanking then all take their attacks, which they couldn't do with delay actions. Even with delay, each would take his full action in turn just on the later initiative, which means the first to move wouldn't have a flank when he attacked.

Hmm... you & Captain Netz must not have read the opening post in this topic. It specifically addressed that.

thejeff wrote:
Also, as Captain Netz said, if they delay, they'll be acting on the lowest initiative of the 4 rolled, rather than on the first one rolled. That's likely to be after a few more PCs have acted.

Subsequent posts in the topic addressed that, too.

Neither are issues. Grouping monsters gives no flank advantage, and the initiative advantage is bypassed trivially by rolling all inits & using lowest in each group. That was kind of the point of the topic -- if you tell the GM to run individually, you solve nothing but you do drag out the combat encounters.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

thejeff wrote:
Because they all move into flanking then all take their attacks, which they couldn't do with delay actions. Even with delay, each would take his full action in turn just on the later initiative, which means the first to move wouldn't have a flank when he attacked.

The first goblin moves into place, then readies an action to attack as soon as he has a flanking partner.

The second goblin moves into place (flanking); this triggers the first goblin's readied action and he attacks, then the second goblin attacks. Both get the flank bonus (and sneak attack etc.).


aboyd wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Because they all move into flanking then all take their attacks, which they couldn't do with delay actions. Even with delay, each would take his full action in turn just on the later initiative, which means the first to move wouldn't have a flank when he attacked.

Hmm... you & Captain Netz must not have read the opening post in this topic. It specifically addressed that.

thejeff wrote:
Also, as Captain Netz said, if they delay, they'll be acting on the lowest initiative of the 4 rolled, rather than on the first one rolled. That's likely to be after a few more PCs have acted.

Subsequent posts in the topic addressed that, too.

Neither are issues. Grouping monsters gives no flank advantage, and the initiative advantage is bypassed trivially by rolling all inits & using lowest in each group. That was kind of the point of the topic -- if you tell the GM to run individually, you solve nothing but you do drag out the combat encounters.

I've never seen anyone grouping monsters together roll more than one initiative. In theory it works.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Tony,

Having the monsters interleaved in initiative is not identical to delaying and readying. It is, in most circumstances, very close. There are corner cases, however, where some monsters who would have to ready without interleaving can full attack when it is used.

This doesn't matter when you are using monsters with only single attacks, but 'pouncing' can be dramatically affected by it. Attacks of opportunity or readied actions by the PC's can be changed by the order in which turns are done on the monster's part, which could prevent some critters making it to their desired locations, and preventing monster readied from happening at all.

As I said, it is mostly very close to the same, but sometimes, usually in more complicated situations, it is not. Our example on Monday last was a simple one of unintelligent monsters (vermin) not having the brainpower to ready actions. I can come this Monday, and we can work out some situations where it is different.

Now, I am not addressing the situation where the GM doesn't understand how readying and delaying work, but that can be a problem too.

And then, as others have pointed out, if the monsters are to be considered delaying to act on the same initiative count, that is going to result in them acting at the lowest initiative count of the group. This can be a lot like a witch's Misfortune Hex, and will tend to make grouped creatures act late in the initiative order.

Grand Lodge 5/5

PErsonally, I use Walter's approach. I tend to try to avoid having more than 3 creatures on the same initiative. I've seen several occasions where "wave initiative" (that's the term that started getting used around here) has made a combat harder than it should have been. I've also seen cases where it made a combat *easier* than it should have been.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing interleaving would do that you couldn't otherwise do by the rules is to full attack flank/sneak attack.

By the rules, this works.

Goblin A 5 foots up. Readies for flank.

Goblin B 5 foots up, attacks. Goblin As flank attack goes off.

*

But by the rules, this won't work:

Goblins A and B 5 foot up and sneak attack at the same time and full attack.

As long as you're making that distinction its a matter of preference, Even the core rule book groups skeletons in its exmpale.

The Exchange 5/5

Player A:"I delay until after that goblin goes"
Judge:"goblins all go in a solid group -what are you trying to pull? Not going to let you pull that at my table!"

The problem here is the relationship between the judge and the player... Not the way the imitative system is working....

4/5 *

Given that PFS rarely has enough opponents to make it cumbersome, I usually roll every creature's initiative separately. Sometimes I group them (but I'm careful to not let this give me 13 fireballs before the party acts). Some people seem to mistake a bunch of monsters having the same initiative score, and the monsters all going as a group, intermixing move actions and then combat actions. This isn't a war game with "move" and "fire" phases; each creature completes its turn before the next one starts. Yes, with readied actions it can seem like it doesn't matter, but there are cases when it does.

The Core Rulebook has this to say on the matter, which should settle it pretty conclusively:

Core Rulebook wrote:
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.

Yes, it is a time-honored tradition for GMs (and DMs before them) to group initiative. Just like it was a time-honored tradition for GMs to always be right. Pretty sure PFS doesn't live in those days anymore, though.

4/5 *

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Even the core rule book groups skeletons in its exmpale.

Yeah, you're right - but that breaks the rules.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

While I frequently group like monsters in initiative, I always treat them as having distinct initiatives when it comes to mechanical issues. While I may, for example, have all the monsters move and then have them all attack, I do not do so in a manner that the Ready or Delay actions would not allow for. In the specific case of flanking, I always state that the first one to move up is using the Ready action to attack when it gets flank.

4/5 *

Yeah, I think this is the best of both worlds, trollbill. Although, when the bad guys have significant first-strike capabilities like sneak attack, and I happen to roll high for the group, I tend to then roll for the rest or at least make two smaller groups to get around the "13 vampire sorcerers casting fireball at a flatfooted party" issue mentioned above.

When a typical party of 6 PFS players is fighting 4 goblins, it almost never matters, but it is important to make sure that we as GMs don't let grouping initiative turn into true "interleaving" of attacks.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, if I ever ran into a situation in PFS that had 13 vampire sorcerers I certainly might reconsider how I do it.

As a player, the only times I can recall having serious problems with all the monsters going on the same initiative went something like this:

1) Monsters all go and take me down to negative.
2) I go and lie there pathetically wasting my turn as I bleed to death.
3) The cleric goes and heals me.
4) Monsters all go and take me back down to negative before I can get an action.
5) I go and lie there pathetically again wasting my turn.
6) Cleric goes and heals me again in order to keep me alive but the order insures I never actually get a turn.

It doesn't happen very often, but I admit it is very annoying when it does.

Grand Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A few examples...

I have played Murder on the Silken Caravan with *cough GM Lamplighter *cough. NOT grouping monsters together would make for an insanely long fight.

I have GMed Ruby Phoenix Tournament and I always rolled individually for each fight (1 to 4/5 monsters per fight). Not a problem.

I have GMed Wounded Wisp. For the last fight, I rolled individually since most monsters have different initiative. It was a longer fight but I wanted to give the party the feeling they were fighting a well balanced group of adventurers.

So for me, I guess I tend to adjust my style depending on the situation, the time left, how many people are in the party and how many monsters there are, so basically, common sense. For Murder on the Silken Caravan, it makes NO SENSE to roll individually... while for Ruby Phoenix, it is almost a necessity!

Shadow Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant

There are some fights where grouping the enemies makes sense. A few weeks ago, I played a high level game where there were waves of 4-8 monsters and the GM rolled for each one. It took him longer to roll and put them in initiative than it did for us to kill them. We all would have been fine if he'd have just put them on the same initiative. That game ran 6 hours and using the separate initiatives was a part of why it took so long.

For smaller fights I'll occasionally roll individual initiatives, but when I do group them together, they each act separately. So I have goblin one take his entire turn, then goblin 2, then 3, etc. They should never all move then all attack from the new location since it doesn't work that way.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As someone who tends to GM over play-by-post, there is no way I'm running individual imitative for all the monsters. It would take a week for a single combat round.

As for tactical coordination, that depends on the intelligence/wisdom of the monsters in the group as well as the leader directing them and will use things like readying for flanks as appropriate.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

One thing interleaving would do that you couldn't otherwise do by the rules is to full attack flank/sneak attack.

By the rules, this works.

Goblin A 5 foots up. Readies for flank.

Goblin B 5 foots up, attacks. Goblin As flank attack goes off.

*

But by the rules, this won't work:

Goblins A and B 5 foot up and sneak attack at the same time and full attack.

As long as you're making that distinction its a matter of preference, Even the core rule book groups skeletons in its exmpale.

I think you're suggesting that because goblin A did a ready and a ready is only a standard action, it can't get a full attack if it has multiple attacks. Yes? So a GM who is "interleaving" at high levels might give the monster a full attack with flank & sneak, even though he should only give the readied monster a standard attack with flank & sneak.

I get it. That's an edge case for high-level games that GMs should be aware of, but I've never experienced it. If it were an issue for me I'd rather keep "interleaving" a group with standard actions than to be told "no interleaving."

1/5 **

Personally, if the monsters are clever and practiced at working together -- say, a group of rogues -- I'll have one move up and ready an attack until the target is flanked. Mindless skeletons, however, I won't.

In either case, I don't allow the readying creature a full attack; that seems obviously illegal. The readying alternative, however, is perfectly legal, and applying a label ("interleaving") doesn't make it any less so. Besides, doesn't this game have more than enough terminology already? :-)


There are actually rules preventing what you describe in the OP:

"At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.....If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll to determine which one of them goes before the other."

and a bit further on:

"Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."

So you are absolutely breaking the rules when you 'interleave' as you describe it. The scenario you describe (delaying and readying) is a false comparison because a) readied actions work differently when full round actions are involved and b) You aren't delaying all creatures down to the lowest initiative roll. You are giving your creatures an unfair advantage which is outside of the rules.

Yes, a lot of DMs group initiative order to save time. This makes the fight more 'swingy' (IE they all go last or they all go first), which is bad, but understandable when there are time constraints. You are not just grouping initiative order though. You are taking discreet character turns and mixing them together. This is very bad and you shouldn't do it. There's no excuse for 'time saving' - moving everyone first and then attacking is not appreciably faster.

Having your goblins use readied actions achieves the same thing in your example, as you note, without any time increase - why invent this new houserule?

Liberty's Edge 2/5 5/5 **

Blakmane wrote:
This is very bad and you shouldn't do it.

You are free to not have me as your GM then.

1/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blakmane wrote:
"When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."

A strict reading of that sentence precludes any use of the ready action. As the ready action exists, I think we can reasonably infer that that wasn't the intent.


Shisumo wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
This is very bad and you shouldn't do it.
You are free to not have me as your GM then.

Pathfinder works under a discreet turn system. If you are a PFS GM, you don't get to break rules when you see fit.

If you aren't a PFS GM, you're free to do whatever you wish, of course.


There are some slight differences between readying and grouping. In many cases they are the same, but not always.

I look at it based on threat. Here's how I do it:

Creatures significantly higher CR than party level or who have a special threat are always rolled individually. Creatures near party level can go in groups of about four. Creatures significantly below party level can be grouped in any way convenient.

So the fireball sorcerers go individually, but you can have a horde of kobolds.


Aaron Motta wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
"When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."
A strict reading of that sentence precludes any use of the ready action. As the ready action exists, I think we can reasonably infer that that wasn't the intent.

Specific > general. The text specifically calls out exceptions to the above rule: namely, readied actions, attacks of opportunity, immediate actions. There's no conflict there.

1/5 **

Blakmane wrote:
Aaron Motta wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
"When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."
A strict reading of that sentence precludes any use of the ready action. As the ready action exists, I think we can reasonably infer that that wasn't the intent.
Specific > general. The text specifically calls out exceptions to the above rule: namely, readied actions, attacks of opportunity, immediate actions. There's no conflict there.

So to be clear, then, you don't think that:

* Rogue 1 moves up and readies for the flank
* Rogue 2 moves into the flank
* Rogue 1 takes the attack action (NOT the full attack action)

...is against the rules, correct?

Just want to be sure we're on the same page. :)

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

aboyd wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

One thing interleaving would do that you couldn't otherwise do by the rules is to full attack flank/sneak attack.

By the rules, this works.

Goblin A 5 foots up. Readies for flank.

Goblin B 5 foots up, attacks. Goblin As flank attack goes off.

*

But by the rules, this won't work:

Goblins A and B 5 foot up and sneak attack at the same time and full attack.

As long as you're making that distinction its a matter of preference, Even the core rule book groups skeletons in its exmpale.

I think you're suggesting that because goblin A did a ready and a ready is only a standard action, it can't get a full attack if it has multiple attacks. Yes? So a GM who is "interleaving" at high levels might give the monster a full attack with flank & sneak, even though he should only give the readied monster a standard attack with flank & sneak.

I get it. That's an edge case for high-level games that GMs should be aware of, but I've never experienced it. If it were an issue for me I'd rather keep "interleaving" a group with standard actions than to be told "no interleaving."

It is the canonical example that comes up when people are discussing this problem. The problem with interleaving (in my opinion) is more that the Gm gets in the habit of moving all monsters and then making all attacks, and as a result can forget and give a monster full attack + sneak by accident when he should have had one or the other.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Especially since interleaving is most often used when a GM is rushed, or has a lot of monsters to track, or both.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't keep track of who's-who on the forums, but you apparently know me personally, so I'll word my response personally, as if we were playing together.

DesolateHarmony wrote:
There are corner cases, however, where some monsters who would have to ready without interleaving can full attack when it is used.

If this is the case, my suggestion would be to call out the issue with the full attack, when it happens, rather than with interleaving in general, which by your own assessment is generally benign.

The reason at least in my case is that I had a very negative personal experience with this issue at a recent convention. A player wouldn't stop second-guessing my monsters and their moves, citing "no interleaving." So I broke apart the monsters into individual initiatives, and then used delays and readies to execute the exact same attacks that he objected to anyway. 100% legit, by the rules. So his correction of my "bad GMing" resulted in no changed outcome, but gained me a huge political problem when I was chastised for running a game overly long. If a player is going to be a backseat driver for the GM and that backseat driving results in no material change but the GM gets yelled at, well, that GM might have a reason to be upset with the player.

I would really, seriously, ask you to not cause the GM difficulty if the rules-lawyering will result in no actual gameplay change. If you see an edge case that damages the PCs and actually changes the outcome, sure, flag it. In the case that provoked me into starting this topic, there was no edge case. There was nothing. My module just ran an hour overtime for no good reason.

So, here's the personal part: now that you know I have had a very bad experience with this, would you please extend me a courtesy and not invoke this BS phrasing and notion unless something I'm doing is actually violating one of those edge cases? And if I do violate it, would you flag the actual action rather than a blanket ban on all interleaving, when 99% of interleaving is perfectly viable using delays and readies?

Liberty's Edge 2/5 5/5 **

Blakmane wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
This is very bad and you shouldn't do it.
You are free to not have me as your GM then.
Pathfinder works under a discreet turn system. If you are a PFS GM, you don't get to break rules when you see fit.

I do, in fact, get to do so if I believe that doing so is going to negatively impact the amount of fun being had at the table and prevent me from getting my table finished in the allotted time. As aboyd has just noted, the vast majority of the time there is no practical change in the outcome of the mod itself, just an increased sense of hostility between players and GM and an increased run time, both of which are bad for PFS overall.

1/5

hmmm

4/5 *

No, not in PFS you don't.

4/5 *

The GM is not the arbiter of fun. Grouping initiative is a shortcut for GMs, and as long as it doesn't stray into the rule-breaking described above, *and the players don't mind*, then go for it. In the OP's case, the players mind.

The idea that it rarely causes problems is frankly GM bias. Say a player delays - something that happens in almost every game I've ever been involved in. By moving all the goblins (or whatever) first and then rolling all of their attacks, you prevent the player from being able to come off delay after a goblin's attack or to react to the situation, which is what delay is for in the first place.

The game is sequential. Everyone rolls initiative. If this slows the GM down, there are ways to improve that - I've had to work hard on being able to run monsters as fast as I need to, since I'm more of a story guy than a stats guy. For example, when I prep the scenario, I make NPC cards with stats on them and putting them in initiative order takes a minute or so up front, but makes everything run much smoother.

Liberty's Edge 2/5 5/5 **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

The idea that it rarely causes problems is frankly GM bias. Say a player delays - something that happens in almost every game I've ever been involved in. By moving all the goblins (or whatever) first and then rolling all of their attacks, you prevent the player from being able to come off delay after a goblin's attack or to react to the situation, which is what delay is for in the first place.

That's a completely different issue. If the monsters start to move and there's a delaying player, then ignoring that player's desire to step in is definitely a problem - but not one caused by grouping monsters together. That's a GM who's not paying attention to her players, and has nothing to do with the initiative issue; it'd be a problem regardless.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:
The GM is not the arbiter of fun. Grouping initiative is a shortcut for GMs, and as long as it doesn't stray into the rule-breaking described above, *and the players don't mind*, then go for it. In the OP's case, the players mind.

How much does this really happen, where the players insist on every monster having its own imitative roll? I've never seen it.

I take care to have the monsters take their turn in order and use readied actions if they want to do something tactical that requires it.

As for the coming out of delay within a group of monsters, that's not a problem. I just give the PCs a bit of an advantage by putting them back in initiative before all the monsters in that group rather than splitting the group up. The player can simply delay again next round if they still wish to act in the middle of the group.

Personally I don't like when GMs pre-roll initiative. How do I know the GM didn't fudge those numbers? Then again, I don't like when GMs roll dice behind a screen at all in PFS. I roll all my dice in the open when I GM.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I do team up similar monsters and roll initiative for them all at once. But then I do execute them one by one, so that any interplay of readied actions/flanks is transparent to everyone.

I do think executing these things serially matters. It reduces the odds of mistakes, and it also reduces the perception of the players that such mistakes are being made (even if the GM is doing everything correctly). A GM who's being mysterious about how the monsters do what they do, doesn't increase trust.

Also, a player might want to do something between the actions of monster #1 and #2, like use an AoO or Immediate ability to change the situation.

Sometimes you want to do something like delay until one of the enemies has acted, but before the others do. Maybe you want to corner the enemy that moved into the room first. That's not possible if the GM is grouping enemies together too rigidly.

So I'll use teams as a convenience, but I'm willing to split them up if that becomes desirable.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interleaving is incorrect word usage. This is not discrete clumping if computer data sets or adding a blank page to a book between printed pages.

While the clumping of data sets us almost correct, it does not apply in this situation. Why can't they just say, no clumping!

1 to 50 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / The new talk of interleaving, and why you should shut it down. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.