Hidden player rolls?

[Foximus]

I am looking for a way for players to make hidden rolls - that is, only the player making the roll can see the results (not even the GM). I know players can toss dice around outside of the chat window, but this action does not interact with modifiers feature and it's easy to just drop a die rather than roll it. Is there any functionality that can support this? I searched the forums and Googled relentlessly but this does not seem to be a common request.

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Latest extension for hiding PC init is found in post #44 here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?25668-Hidden-player-rolls&p=227389&viewfull=1#post227389

[Trenloe]

Other than throwing on the desktop, their isn't a way to do this without custom coding (for each type of roll in question) within the specific ruleset.

[kylania]

As the GM under your Options in the top right corner turn ON the Dice Tower.

Then players will see a little Tower icon near the bottom right of the desktop area. Any dice or rolls they drop onto that icon will roll secretly to the GM only.

[Foximus]

As the GM under your Options in the top right corner turn ON the Dice Tower.

Then players will see a little Tower icon near the bottom right of the desktop area. Any dice or rolls they drop onto that icon will roll secretly to the GM only.

Thanks, but this is the inverse of what I am looking for. Is there a way to make the dice tower output the result to the player making the roll and NOT the GM?

[kylania]

Yeah, sorry read your post wrong. :) Other than the desktop roll idea, not sure how to do that.

[Foximus]

Yeah, sorry read your post wrong. :) Other than the desktop roll idea, not sure how to do that.

No problem. It would be great if there was a little checkbox next to the "Modifier" input that says something like "Private" so you can tick it on a roll-by-roll basis if you want to output the result to yourself and nobody else.

I am asking this because I have a requirement to roll initiatives privately in my upcoming campaign - we are going to try this speed factor initiative system (https://theangrygm.com/fine-i-wrote-about-speed-factor-initiative-in-dd-5e/) created by Scott Rehm (The Angry GM). You guys have been quick to respond and helpful so far - any ideas how to pull this off in FG?

[Trenloe]

On second thoughts, the functionality to make the player (or GM roll) "secret" (only the GM sees it) is built into the FG base code (can't be modified by LUA scripting). I don't think you can completely hide the player dice roll (even from the GM). You might be able to hide the resulting text (by modifying the Comm.deliverChatMessage(rMessage); command in the resolveAction function in the CoreRPG manager_actions.lua file. You can add a recipient list to deliverChatMessage (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/refdoc/Comm.xcp#deliverChatMessage) and it might be possible to restrict result info to just the player making the roll. As I mention above, I'm not sure it's possible to hide the rolling dice from the GM though - I've just done a quick test and the GM sees the dice roll.

[Foximus]

On second thoughts, the functionality to make the player (or GM roll) "secret" (only the GM sees it) is built into the FG base code (can't be modified by LUA scripting). I don't think you can completely hide the player dice roll (even from the GM). You might be able to hide the resulting text (by modifying the Comm.deliverChatMessage(rMessage); command in the resolveAction function in the CoreRPG manager_actions.lua file. You can add a recipient list to deliverChatMessage (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/refdoc/Comm.xcp#deliverChatMessage) and it might be possible to restrict result info to just the player making the roll. As I mention above, I'm not sure it's possible to hide the rolling dice from the GM though - I've just done a quick test and the GM sees the dice roll.

Thanks for checking this out, I appreciate it. This may be my backup solution unless I go to an external rolling app.

[JohnD]

Curious as to why the OP would want to do this.

[Trenloe]

Curious as to why the OP would want to do this.
Answered in post #6 above (it was hidden and needed approval).

[Trenloe]

I am asking this because I have a requirement to roll initiatives privately in my upcoming campaign - we are going to try this speed factor initiative system (https://theangrygm.com/fine-i-wrote-about-speed-factor-initiative-in-dd-5e/) created by Scott Rehm (The Angry GM). You guys have been quick to respond and helpful so far - any ideas how to pull this off in FG?
I haven't read all of that, but looking at the examples I don't see anything about the initiative roll being completely private for each player.

Having it private means there is ample opportunity for a player to cheat and go much higher in the order then they actually rolled. If you want to keep the roll private from the other players, then the GM can still see it (get each player to roll INIT in the tower) - after all, the GM should be impartial and not meta-game too much.

Also, if you want to make the player INIT rolls completely secret then what are you going to do with the combat tracker? Completely ignore it?

Looking at the article you link and what it says, you can use FG as is - at the beginning of the round have each player state their PC's intent and roll for INIT as normal, but they add their modifiers in the modifier box before making the roll. FG automatically orders the actors in the combat tracker and a lot of the "slowness" of this method is reduced by using FG as is.

[Andraax]

I don't think you can completely hide the player dice roll (even from the GM).

The player just rolls the die on the desktop instead of the chat box or the tower. Only the player will see the roll.

[kylania]

Part of the reason for that whole system is nicely taken care of by FG already!


Rolling initiative every round with a hard stop at the end of each round to declare actions for the next round [must slow down gameplay, right?]. But you have to look at the flip side of that. Notice what I am not doing? I am not tracking initiative. I’m not futzing with little cards. I’m not keeping a list. I’m not doing any of that s$&%. And as I go around the table polling for initiative, each person rolls for initiative, checks the chart, and figures out their total. So the time spent rolling and mathing is covered by other people declaring actions.

FG already does all that calculations for you so the cards, list, math argument is solved just by using FG. The suspense of not knowing what's going to happen when does sound a little exciting though.

Maybe just have the players roll secret Dice Tower initiative with their proper mods and the DM just tells people when they go? Same spirit to the rule and works with current mechanics.

[Trenloe]

Exactly - use FG as is. I still don't see anything in that Speed Factor Initiative article that says the INIT rolls are completely private.

Of course, if you want to house rule it and have the rolls secret from the players then have the players roll in the tower and don't bother using the combat tracker for initiative - because the GM can't hide PCs in the combat tracker from the players. But I think doing it this way would lose a lot of the FG automation that could make this initiative system work faster. Everyone has already declared their intent for the round, so I don't see why you'd want to keep the initiative order secret - other than for a surprise/suspense factor.

[Griogre]

Trenloe's suggestions seems the best work around. I'd also add make sure you set the Option > Combat (GM) Turn: Stop at round start [On] so you can stop and roll init between rounds.

I have personally thought of doing something similar however I think I would use something simpler. Have the party declare actions, DM decides monster actions, then rolls initiative for each side like AD&D. Announce results. Each side executes declarations by base init.

This would have the same result of chaotic ordering per round and be a lot less complicated than the system in the DMG. It should also be faster. My reservation is that for low level parties if the monsters go twice in a row (ie lose init then win int so go "back to back") it might be very dangerous for the party.

[TASagent]

Yeah, I just read though and I don't see a need for players to be able to secretly roll their initiative. In fact, since he says you're supposed to Declare your action and then have everyone roll initiative, it shouldn't factor into their decision-making and thus there's no reason to roll secretly at all (unless you're using a modified version of the system). In fact, since every player and monster will be rerolling their initiative at the beginning of each turn, you can just use the button in the combat tracker to reroll all initiatives, once everyone has locked in their action. I guess you'd then have to modify each by their action modifiers. A little annoying. To do this, either each person adjusts their modifier (and DM handles monsters) before the reroll all button is pressed, or you modify the results afterward.

You know what? Better method: Effects.

You can apply a non-expiring Effect to each character based on their Size that incorporates the Size Modifier. Then, as each locks in their decision, you can apply the appropriate Action modifier, which will expire on next roll. Then hit the roll all.

They would look like this:
Size modifiers:
Tiny Size; INIT:+5;
Small Size; INIT:+2;
Large Size; INIT:-2;

Action Modifiers:
Spellcasting 5; INIT:-5; [ROLL]
Heavy Melee; INIT:-2; [ROLL]

etc

Then you hit Roll All. The size modifiers stay, and the action modifiers all disappear.
Just set these effects up in your Effect window, and drag the appropriate one to each PC and NPC. Then, Menu>Initiative>Roll All.

[Trenloe]

You know what? Better method: Effects.

You can apply a non-expiring Effect to each character based on their Size that incorporates the Size Modifier. Then, as each locks in their decision, you can apply the appropriate Action modifier, which will expire on next roll. Then hit the roll all.

They would look like this:
Size modifiers:
Tiny Size; INIT:+5;
Small Size; INIT:+2;
Large Size; INIT:-2;

Action Modifiers:
Spellcasting 5; INIT:-5; [ROLL]
Heavy Melee; INIT:-2; [ROLL]

etc

Then you hit Roll All. The size modifiers stay, and the action modifiers all disappear.
Just set these effects up in your Effect window, and drag the appropriate one to each PC and NPC. Then, Menu>Initiative>Roll All.
Great idea.

You could have the size mod built into the base INIT roll (in the "Misc" field), and then only use [ROLL] effects for the stated actions.

[TASagent]

You could have the size mod built into the base INIT roll (in the "Misc" field), and then only use [ROLL] effects for the stated actions.

That is true for players, but you'd still want this for Monsters unless you were homebrewing everything.
And you'd definitely want to combine it with the option that Griogre mentioned that stops combat at the end of each round.

[Foximus]

I haven't read all of that, but looking at the examples I don't see anything about the initiative roll being completely private for each player.

Agreed, the system does not explicitly say that the rolls should be private for each player - I concluded this by reading the example showing how a round would play out. The GM starts the count down from 25 or so, and players speak up as their INIT number is called and take their actions. I feel like the suspense of seeing how a round plays out is the main draw for trying this (aside from speed factor re-balancing which is kind of a separate feature).


Having it private means there is ample opportunity for a player to cheat and go much higher in the order then they actually rolled.

Understood, but I trust my players and this is a risk I'm willing to take. My aim to not use the desktop roll in FG is so they can make use of modifiers and don't need to worry about the trajectory of throwing the die when they drop it to get a "true" roll out of the attempt.


If you want to keep the roll private from the other players, then the GM can still see it (get each player to roll INIT in the tower) - after all, the GM should be impartial and not meta-game too much.

Right, but then the player cannot see their own roll (if my testing of the tower is accurate). This would mean the GM has to tell each player when it's their turn. I think this loses some of the engagement in the system where the player knows his/her INIT roll and is on the edge of his/her seat as the number counts down closer and closer (e.g. will the X finish his cast before you get to move out of the way?! 13... 12... 11... nope :()


Also, if you want to make the player INIT rolls completely secret then what are you going to do with the combat tracker? Completely ignore it?

Great point, and I have been thinking about this a bit. We would have to use raw d20 rolls with manual modifiers rather than the built-in INIT macro on character sheets to prevent the number from being auto-inserted into the combat tracker. That way, players can still reference the combat tracker for things like debuffs/status/effects etc. keeping in mind that the order of turns in the tracker is not being used. What do you think, is there a better way to handle this? I'm still stuck at players being unable to see their own result using the dice tower.


Looking at the article you link and what it says, you can use FG as is - at the beginning of the round have each player state their PC's intent and roll for INIT as normal, but they add their modifiers in the modifier box before making the roll. FG automatically orders the actors in the combat tracker and a lot of the "slowness" of this method is reduced by using FG as is.

I agree that FG does a great job of reducing the "slowness" associated with this approach by using the default tracker. However, I really do want to keep the turn order a secret and driven by the players each round which means we can't have the INIT results appear in the combat tracker and each player needs to know his/her own result.

Sorry for my delayed response and thanks for the thoughtful consideration so far! I really appreciate it.

[kylania]

Actually, the fact that you only ever take the worst penalty and the only values* are -2/-5 or +2/+5 makes this sync with FG's mod stack buttons super easy! Just have to decide if you want the players to all know their init or find out when the DM tells them to go I guess, otherwise looks like it'll work well.

[Foximus]

That is true for players, but you'd still want this for Monsters unless you were homebrewing everything.
And you'd definitely want to combine it with the option that Griogre mentioned that stops combat at the end of each round.

Great input, thanks! The problem is dealing with players being able to see turn order at the top of the round after the "Roll All Initiatives." This is an issue because although players declare their actions prior to rolling initiative, they do still have the ability to make some decisions during their turn. They can choose specifically where to move to attempt their stated action, or they could forgo their turn entirely if they know another actor's turn would ruin their intended plan.

Consider a healer who wants to attempt to save a wounded wizard surrounded by goblins. If he knows that the wizard rolled extremely poorly for his initiative and will and will likely not survive the stated goblin actions (stabby-stab the squish-squish!) regardless of healing, he could choose to pass his turn to save the spell slot and try to heal the wizard out of DYING status next turn.

That's just an example that popped into my head, but I am sure there are others. Regardless, I really think the key to this system is the excitement/suspense that plays out over the round when the INIT rolls are not public.

I do love the idea of using effects to handle the modifiers, but this is still means the INIT results would be publicly visible. Maybe I just ask my players to leave the combat tracker closed? I mean, if I trust them to roll privately and not fudge anything, I should trust them to keep the tracker closed too huh?

[Foximus]

Actually, the fact that you only ever take the worst penalty and the only values* are -2/-5 or +2/+5 makes this sync with FG's mod stack buttons super easy! Just have to decide if you want the players to all know their init or find out when the DM tells them to go I guess, otherwise looks like it'll work well.

Thanks for the input! I am brand new to FG so I am unfamiliar with the mod stack buttons but I will look into them!

[Trenloe]

However, I really do want to keep the turn order a secret and driven by the players each round which means we can't have the INIT results appear in the combat tracker and each player needs to know his/her own result.
The only way I can think of doing this is to whisper the init result to each player. The quickest way to do this is to type the number in the chat entry control (don't press enter) and drag the number to the PC portrait on the desktop - this will be whispered to just the owning player of that PC. Unfortunately, dragging the actual result of the roll directly from the chat window to the portrait isn't treated like a whisper - all players see it.

[Trenloe]

I do love the idea of using effects to handle the modifiers, but this is still means the INIT results would be publicly visible. Maybe I just ask my players to leave the combat tracker closed? I mean, if I trust them to roll privately and not fudge anything, I should trust them to keep the tracker closed too huh?
Or, try this extension I've just made (attached below) - it removes the init field from the player side CT entries.

Info on installing extensions here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Data_Files_Overview#Extensions

Then activate the "5E CT No PC Init" extension.

This removes the Init field from each PC entry in the CT on the player side, and has static ordering - the ordering should basically stay in the order that they were added to the CT.

See post #44 for the latest extension: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?25668-Hidden-player-rolls&p=227389&viewfull=1#post227389

[TASagent]

Step 1: Open a thread about your problem
Step 2: Receive custom programming addressing your problem
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Profit

[kylania]

I mean, if I trust them to roll privately and not fudge anything, I should trust them to keep the tracker closed too huh?

The problem is the combat tracker is for far more than just init order. Targeting, effects, health status, healing, situational awareness, lots of reasons for everyone to have the combat tracker open. I'm not sure losing all of that is worth the 'only the individual player knows when they go' aspect of this system.

[Foximus]

Or, try this extension I've just made (attached below) - it removes the init field from the player side CT entries.

Info on installing extensions here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Data_Files_Overview#Extensions

Then activate the "5E CT No PC Init" extension.

This removes the Init field from each PC entry in the CT and has static ordering - the ordering should basically stay in the order that they were added to the CT.

Holy crap, this is perfect! You are the man! Send me a donation link if you have one, I owe you! :D

Also if you want to slap together an programmatic way for players to see their results from the dice tower or something, I wouldn't turn it down ;)

Seriously though, I can't thank you enough for this. I dropped $250 on FG on a whim because I was a player in another FG campaign last year and loved what I saw. This issue was going to be a pain for me and you just knocked it out in an afternoon! 11/10, thanks a million!


Step 1: Open a thread about your problem
Step 2: Receive custom programming addressing your problem
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Profit

Right? For a first time poster no less. Incredibly awesome!

[Foximus]

The problem is the combat tracker is for far more than just init order. Targeting, effects, health status, healing, situational awareness, lots of reasons for everyone to have the combat tracker open. I'm not sure losing all of that is worth the 'only the individual player knows when they go' aspect of this system.

Excellent points, but Trenloe just went all superman on the issue and built an extension that solves the tracker problem flawlessly! :D

[TASagent]

Also if you want to slap together an programmatic way for players to see their results from the dice tower or something, I wouldn't turn it down ;)

It sounds like what you really want is for the Players to get to know just their initiative value, not necessarily allowing them to see the value they rolled into the dice tower. Is this correct?

If it were possible (I'm sure it is), it seems it might be a superior solution if the "Roll All Initiatives" button reported to each player the initiative he rolled. That way you can make sure any action penatly effects are properly distributed to each of the players and monsters prior to their roll. If you really did want the players to handle their own initiatives and modifiers, then they would need a way to share initiative rolls with just the DM. But do you really want to remove the feature of the Dice Tower, or are you saying to change that behavior because it seems the most expedient? In my games it has helped reduce search/bluff/stealth/etc related metagaming.

[Trenloe]

Also if you want to slap together an programmatic way for players to see their results from the dice tower or something, I wouldn't turn it down ;)
I think it will be easiest (and less future maintenance) to display the current init in the combat tracker for just the owning player - i.e. all current initiative is hidden for each player, except for PCs that they control.

I'll update the extension soon(ish). But now I have a friend's birthday party to go to. Hopefully there'll be jelly and ice-cream...

[jshauber]

Holy crap, this is perfect! You are the man! Send me a donation link if you have one, I owe you! :D

11/10, thanks a million!

AND THAT IS WHY Fantasy Grounds is the BEST VTT out there. Try doing that with any of the others.

[Foximus]

AND THAT IS WHY Fantasy Grounds is the BEST VTT out there. Try doing that with any of the others.

It didn't take long to convince me! I bought a 1-year mentor license on Roll20 when it first released and never experienced anything like this. I'm on the FG boards for 1 day and guys like Trenloe, TASagent and a few others are all but force feeding me solutions to my problems. It's incredible!

When I first started browsing the Tavern I figured it was a long shot to even get a response, let alone a working solution. Color me impressed!


I think it will be easiest (and less future maintenance) to display the current init in the combat tracker for just the owning player - i.e. all current initiative is hidden for each player, except for PCs that they control.

I'll update the extension soon(ish). But now I have a friend's birthday party to go to. Hopefully there'll be jelly and ice-cream...

Great idea - that would work perfectly! No worries at all, the solution you built me so far is great regardless. It's just 1 more step for me to send a few whispers after the rolls.

Have a great time at the party! Do they deliver ice cream in Denver? Just PM me your favorite flavors and where to send it! If not, a few pizzas or something. I am 100% serious.

[Pauper]

What you really want isn't specifically a hidden roll (though that would work) -- the ideal implementation would be hidden initiative. Let the game handle the initiative rolls and then, once each turn is over, move to the next player's turn without re-adjusting the combat order, so anybody could get their turn at any time, and the order of the characters on the combat tracker doesn't signify the turn order. And next round, re-roll the hidden initiative using the same modifiers so the order differs.

It might actually burn some players out who aren't used to keeping focus on the game between their own turns, but it would make a great change-of-pace from the typical initiative system.

Edit: I wrote this between the time I read the first six posts and the time Trenloe wrote his extension. I still think the idea I write above is a good one, but Trenloe's extension is absolutely workable. Great job!

[Trenloe]

What you really want isn't specifically a hidden roll (though that would work) -- the ideal implementation would be hidden initiative.
That's exactly what my extension does. The GM sees the order as normal but the players have no idea and for them it will appear to be jumping all over the place.

[Pauper]

You're right -- I read early, and posted late, and didn't check to see what else had been updated.

In my defense, normally message boards (and applications) don't get updated like that in a matter of hours!

--
Pauper

[kylania]

The Modifer box works for this extension but the +2/+5 buttons don't seem to apply to rolls dragged to the Dice Tower from the Init box.

[TASagent]

Foximus, I'm curious, it seems you want the players using only the information regarding their own initiative role when acting on their own turn. Have you played successfully with this sort of information embargo before? Do you have prohibitions on players inadvertently (or otherwise) revealing information about their initiative role? I have trouble imaging this playing out in a particularly effective way. A commonish scenario comes to mind:

Cleric (Init 20): "I'm going to heal Rogue because Fighter declared his intent to use his second wind"
Fighter (Init -1): "Uh... You might want to use your heal on me anyway. Just in case."

Did Fighter violate the rules? What if he really meant because he was currently the target of so many enemies that he thinks he needs the extra hit points? What if he really meant that he thinks he goes last, but says it's because he thinks he needs the extra hit points. Regardless of whether they're trying to circumvent the rules or not, it really feels like the initiative that each player knows he has will color how he assess the situation, and if you allow them to talk at all they will inadvertently share a good deal of that information.

In the end I'm wondering: How effective is shielding players from knowing eachother's initiative in practice?

[kylania]

TAS, the players don't know thing comes from the system, here's the example combat where you see everyone declares first then no one knows who goes till the init comes up and someone says "I swing and attack!". I can see the appeal of this format, gets people involved more in the order by letting them count down and is more kinetic during combat since it's not the same ol' order.



DM: Next round. The kobolds keep their spears up, and it looks like they are going to continue to press the attack. The archer is readying another shot.
Alice: I’m going to attack with my battleaxe!
Bob: I’ll shoot my bow!
Carol: I’m going to cast smiting smite, drop my shield, and attack with my longsword in two hands.
DM: Okay, everyone roll initiative. 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17…
Bob: I go on 17! I dart out from the boulder, fire at the kobold archer, and dart back behind cover.
DM: Solid hit. The archer is badly injured! Continue the count?
Bob: 16, 15, 14…
DM: The kobold spearmen dart forward, attacking Alice! One harries her, but doesn’t hit. The other stabs her hard, punching through her armor and dealing damage. 13, 12…
Alice: On 12, Alice rears back and hacks at the kobold that stabbed her with her battleaxe! A hit!
DM: The kobold dies. Continue the count?
Alice: 11…
DM: The archer peeks his head from behind the barricade, launching an arrow at Carol!
Carol: It hits!
DM: Does it? You haven’t dropped your shield yet.
Carol: Oh! Then it doesn’t.
DM: It thunks into your shield. 10… 9… 8…


Here's a quote from the article about why players not knowing the order is a big part of this system:


It also makes the combat more haphazard. Players can’t learn the order because it changes every round. You never know when you are going to go or when anyone else is going to go. Sometimes, your action might be rendered useless because you can’t get to a target. Likewise, you might actually be able to screw a slow monster just by staying out of his reach and ruining his actions. The point is, not only does initiative change every round, it changes between decision and action. It’s a lot more frantic. A lot less planned. A lot more on the fly. A lot less like a chess game.

Full article to avoid scrolling back a few pages: https://theangrygm.com/fine-i-wrote-about-speed-factor-initiative-in-dd-5e/

[Foximus]

Foximus, I'm curious, it seems you want the players using only the information regarding their own initiative role when acting on their own turn. Have you played successfully with this sort of information embargo before? Do you have prohibitions on players inadvertently (or otherwise) revealing information about their initiative role? I have trouble imaging this playing out in a particularly effective way. A commonish scenario comes to mind:

Cleric (Init 20): "I'm going to heal Rogue because Fighter declared his intent to use his second wind"
Fighter (Init -1): "Uh... You might want to use your heal on me anyway. Just in case."

Did Fighter violate the rules? What if he really meant because he was currently the target of so many enemies that he thinks he needs the extra hit points? What if he really meant that he thinks he goes last, but says it's because he thinks he needs the extra hit points. Regardless of whether they're trying to circumvent the rules or not, it really feels like the initiative that each player knows he has will color how he assess the situation, and if you allow them to talk at all they will inadvertently share a good deal of that information.

In the end I'm wondering: How effective is shielding players from knowing eachother's initiative in practice?

Valid concerns. In the example you give, the Fighter wouldn't know that his Init result was -1 prior to the Cleric making his declaration. All monsters declare actions first, then all players declare actions one at a time in any order, free to converse, strategize and change their minds at this point. Once they all "lock in" their actions and determine their speed modifiers, we apply the appropriate effects to modify their upcoming initiative rolls, and then initiative is rolled for all players and monsters simultaneously.

Keeping this in mind, the Fighter would not know that his Init result was -1 until both he and the cleric had declared their actions (along with everyone else at the table). As a result, the Cleric has already chosen a spell he intends to cast and the target he intends to cast it on, so he is locked into his choice. He can choose to forfeit his turn if he does not like how the round has played out when his turn comes up. This lets players choose high/low risk actions for upcoming rounds based on how likely the action is to both succeed and be effective at the point it is triggered.

If the Fighter is so low on health that he is relying on his self-healing ability to stay alive else he could die this round, it's up to those players to decide whether or not they want to risk the Cleric declaring a heal on a different target and potentially let the Fighter go down.

TL;DR I expect the players to talk back and forth freely to determine a solid set of tactics on a round-by-round basis, before initiative is rolled.

Does that make more sense?

[damned]

it sounds like a fun option that also adds some more realism into the combat sequence and strategy

[TASagent]

Foximus, the resource you linked before indicates that the players pick what they're doing, but not their target. Sounds like you are further increasing the restrictions on their in-round decision-making ability, which is of course fine.

I inferred that you were using a similar level of restriction when you described the players having some control when it's their turn to act, but it seems that's not the case. That explains why my scenario doesn't occur for you.

[TASagent]

Kylania, the example you posted from the article perfectly fits my example because in it the players decide their actions before, but not their targets until it's their turn. They are given the freedom to select their target when it's time to take the action. Foximus elaborated that he is putting further restrictions on their actions, which makes it less of a big deal.

[Foximus]

Foximus, the resource you linked before indicates that the players pick what they're doing, but not their target. Sounds like you are further increasing the restrictions on their in-round decision-making ability, which is of course fine.

I inferred that you were using a similar level of restriction when you described the players having some control when it's their turn to act, but it seems that's not the case. That explains why my scenario doesn't occur for you.

Fair point, I may have been out celebratory drinking because of my brand new extension :P. You are right. In his system, Scott states that targets (in addition to specific movements) need not be specified during action declaration. It has been a bit since I've read through the details but I think a Fighter screaming for healing during the healer's turn or confidently waving off the potential heal isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Trenloe]

Updated extension (v1.1) attached below.

This extension shows the init field for owned PCs. It will show the fields if the PC is owned when the Combat Tracker is first opened. But if the PC is selected (or cleared) after the Combat Tracker has been opened for the first time then the fields won't update until Initiative is next rolled. Closing and Opening the combat tracker won't affect this as the fields are only initiated the first time the CT is opened, or when Init is rolled (or changed). The simplest way to update the fields is to roll init for all of the PCs, or to reset init (if there is an init value already in the fields). Basically, the Init field will show/hide itself in the client CT based off the local PC ownership each time the init value changes.

[Foximus]

Updated extension (v1.1) attached below.

This extension shows the init field for owned PCs. It will show the fields if the PC is owned when the Combat Tracker is first opened. But if the PC is selected (or cleared) after the Combat Tracker has been opened for the first time then the fields won't update until Initiative is next rolled. Closing and Opening the combat tracker won't affect this as the fields are only initiated the first time the CT is opened, or when Init is rolled (or changed). The simplest way to update the fields is to roll init for all of the PCs, or to reset init (if there is an init value already in the fields). Basically, the Init field will show/hide itself in the client CT based off the local PC ownership each time the init value changes.

Thank you Trenloe, you're a game saver. I'm sure the extension works flawlessly, but I will install it tomorrow and report back.

I hope the party was fun and you didn't spend too much time on this! Still waiting on that donation/paypal link :)

[damned]

Thank you Trenloe, you're a game saver. I'm sure the extension works flawlessly, but I will install it tomorrow and report back.

I hope the party was fun and you didn't spend too much time on this! Still waiting on that donation/paypal link :)

You can always give him some reputation via the star below his post.

[dulux-oz]

You can always give him some reputation via the star below his post.

Hasn't he got enough? :p

Then again, I suppose you can never have too much. :)

[Foximus]

You can always give him some reputation via the star below his post.

Already did!

The extension works great (as expected) and I have set up all of the effects to handle the speed factors which are working perfectly as well. Thanks for your help everyone!