Theres been sporatic bitching about Warhammer Skaven by feminist too. Really. There isnt anything these sociopaths wont take offense at.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 29, 2020, 02:21:51 PM

They aren't archetypes--in a game that can't always decide whether classes are archetypes, mechanical packages, niche protection, or more likely, what proportion of the three.

Of course it's an archetype, by any legitimate definition of the term.  That many different roles can be defined as performers?  Sure, I agree: and the same thing can be said of any other D&D-ish "archetype."  Using the word "fighter" to categorize Conan, D'artagnan, Tempus, Belisarius, Lancelot, Croaker and Paksenarrion is just as broad.  Using the term "magic-user" to define Gandalf, Elric, Egwene, Morgon of Hed, Milamber, Bink, Garion, Mary Poppins and your bog-standard Evul Necromancer is just as all over the place.  D&Ders seem to have little problem managing to square the circle.

Here's the difference:  The fighter is mechanically simple.  There is really nothing in the mechanics to support the archetype except "can hit things" and "can take some hits".  The bard has specific bits taken from a kitchen sink from several different archetypes. 

Now granted, magic makes the whole thing fuzzy.  A wizard by itself is more like the fighter.  You start looking at the spells the wizard can do, you get some of the same kitchen sink mix.  The more a bard depends on spells to be a bard, the more it will get the same effect.

Or if I'm not being clear enough, the bard is in an uncanny valley for most people. 

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 30, 2020, 05:32:37 PM

I ask everyone what they’re going to do at the start of the round...

Is that asked of all the players as a group or do you ask each player individually? What I'm trying to figure out is in what order the players announce their actions and what is the order based on.

Both basically. I layout the scene and what is going on, then ask what they’re going to do in general, which may include their plans as a group, if they have an overarching strategy that requires coordination (such as a group of melee characters moving to block a path between the mountains from incoming enemies while a handful of ranged characters climb onto the surround higher terrain to snipe at the enemies from above, etc.), but also what each character does individually, even if there’s some coordinated strategy involved (does your character climb into the mountains to go ranged or join the melee group blocking the path? And if he climbs up what side of the mountains does he take? etc.).

I collect the intended actions from all players first in whatever order they come up (whoever speaks first), then once I know what everyone is going to do (or at least intends to do) the round starts and flows from there. I usually handle ranged attacks first if they’re ready and within target range at the start of the round (unless they wanna hold off their attack for some strategic reason), then melee already in melee, which I usually assume happen roughly at the same time (melee may attempt to interrupt a ranged attacker if they’re in melee reach; otherwise I tend to resolve ranged attacks first). Then I handle half moves (characters using their full movement that round move half their distance by this point), followed by actions requiring minor preparation (characters moving into melee or firing range, drawing out weapons, etc.). Then finally all actions taking up the whole round (full round actions, full moves, long charge attacks, etc.).

If something happens along the way that messes up a PC’s planned action (enemy caster casted a wall of fire along the path they planned to take, perhaps) I may ask the player again mid-round what they’re going to do, if they still have time to adjust their plans and do something else from their current position. Otherwise it just tends to flow from the actions declared before the round started.