Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Draegun Fury 12-13-06, 03:35 PM	Hey, I have an idea (still in Brainstorming stage, not play tested), and I thought I'd run it by you guys to think what you all thought. Basically, characters roll for Initiative like normal, and the results are recorded. However, here's where it differs, every time a Character takes an action*, his initiative is reduced by 5. So if he moves (A Move Action) his INIT is reduced by 5. If this results in a change in the order of initiative then his turn is "Paused", if it doesn't change the order of INIT then he may take another action (up to the normal total actions allowed per turn). Note, if a character makes a Full Attack action, each attack (for purposes of INIT Count) is trated as a Standard Action. Also Note, the extra attack granted by Haste, or by a weapon of Speed, counts as a Free Action. So what do you all think? Basically I developed this to better simulate the fluid motion of combat (eg: No high level Fighter stands there and takes four hits then has his opponent stand there and cop four hits) I'm aware that this might slow down play, however I believe that it would only do so for the first few sessions, but once player's and the DM get used to it, it will run smoother (and perhaps even create the illusion of the fight running quicker (in real time) but lasting longer (in game time)) *Not including Free actions or Swift actions. Cheers. PS: I'm also thinking of Changing Improved INIT to a +5 bonus, and allowing it to be taken multiple times, with its effects stacking. EDIT: Please note, INIT Counts reset at the start of each round (do not reroll INIT just reset to the first round's Order).
Wayside 12-13-06, 05:26 PM	It will definetely slow down combat a lot, and although it looks interesting at first, it is riddled with problems. One problem i see with it right off the bat: a fighter (Init 18) with 4 attacks takes his free 5-foot step forward and begins a full attack on an enemy archer (init 15) . His first attack occurs and his initiative drops to 13. The archer then takes his free 5-foot step back and starts a full attack firing his first of 4 arrows at the fighter which drops his initiative to 10. The fighter's remaining 3 attacks are completely wasted on an empty space. And the archer fires his next 3 arrows into the fighter unhindered. This will also result in a constant dig into deeper and deeper negative numbers. Another major problem. The system only really adds this diversity when combatants all take similar actions. For example, a high level caster takes his turn to cast a spell, -5 initiative. A high level two weapon fighter makes 6 attacks...-30 initiative. the two weapon fighter now always goes last and the mage always goes first, in addition, any new combatants will automatically go before the fighter (and most likely the mage). EDIT: The second problem could be fixed by having the initiative count rerolled or reset each round.
fatal error 12-13-06, 05:32 PM	It will definetely slow down combat a lot, but it also adds realism to the combat and puts a heavier emphasise on initiative. One problem i see with it right off the bat: a fighter (Init 18) with 4 attacks takes his free 5-foot step forward and begins a full attack on an enemy archer (init 15) . His first attack occurs and his initiative drops to 13. The archer then takes his free 5-foot step back and starts a full attack firing his first of 4 arrows at the fighter which drops his initiative to 10. The fighter's remaining 3 attacks are completely wasted on an empty space. And the archer fires his next 3 arrows into the fighter unhindered. Yea, anything non-melee, or even anything with reach, is getting a sizable boost from situations like this. Also, it may slow things down a lot with people trying to play out the entire round in their mind before making a move, so as to garner the most advantage possible. Oh, and 5ft steps will be a mess if you allow people to change actions. Player "I take a 5ft-step and swing once (Standard action, intending to make a full attack)." DM "Okay, the monster strikes and takes a 5ft-step back (Standard action)." Player "Oh, well then I can't attack him on this action, I guess I'll move up to him." DM "You can't. You can't take a 5ft-step in addition to normal movement."
memberZ 12-13-06, 05:35 PM	I see this as screeching combat to a snails pace at best. Even worse it's highly exploitable. Tank runs up to group of orcs 1/2 his action is up. The orcs just leave him there and as a group run over to the wizard and surrounds him/her. Tank now needs to run back? Meanwhile the wizard is cut to pieces. A charge, full round action so the tank barrels toward the enemy. On the enemies 1/2 turn he just walks away. Then the tanks swing turn comes, as no one is around. D'oh! The scout moves to activate their skirmish ability. The bad guy or pc notices the scout lining him up and on his move action ducks behind a tree or around the corner. Scout action turn comes and his victim is gone. How about upper level multiple attacks of 3 or more? One attack a -5 to init. then on their second attack they swing 2 times? The Raw mechanic is not fluid but it does it's best to speed up combat and not bog it down to a "ok everyone take a 5 foot step. Anyone attacking? No, ok then another 5 foot step". If you really want the flavor of a fluid combat why not reintroduce weapon speeds too. It takes longer to swing the great maul than a short sword.
Eikcuf 12-13-06, 05:52 PM	If my memory serves me a round is about 10sec. If this is true then its not quitehigh level Fighter stands there and takes four hits then has his opponent stand there and cop four hits So.What about delaying all damage untill the end of the round? A 10 sec damage delay dosen't seem to bad to me.
Draegun Fury 12-13-06, 08:23 PM	Wow, I never saw the problem with the humble old 5ft. Step. Now, (since I don't just want to abandon this, YET), I'll ask, what if I adapt 5ft. Steps, into a Free 1ft. Step with every action? Someone said this will slow the game as everyone plans theirround, I wouldn't mind this too much, I love strategy and good tactics. Please note I want to focus on the mechanical/balance aspects of this, I can then playtest it to see its practicality/use. Wayside, I had meant to include a reset counter each round, but forgot, I'll include it in the first post. Cheers.
Theodoxus 12-13-06, 10:32 PM	Why not allow unlimited (single instance only) 5' adjusts - it's an optional rule anyway... may as well really make it work. This would recreate the old swashbuckling movies of yore, when fencers would move back and forth, seeking better ground, an opening, and Strike! It's hard, using current rules, to really make a truly swashbuckling scene work. Imagine Inego vs the Man in Black from the Princess Bride, utilizing the current 5' adjust rule... its very clunky. Any Errol Flynn movie would be nearly impossible to recreate using the RAW. However, allowing a 5' adjust every action, until the round is over, allows for ebb and flow of combat. To what point you might ask? Well, other than a nicely choreographed dance for two, I can easily imagine a lone PC backing up repeatedly until he gets back to his companions. Or a pair of fighters who want to pull combat away from their arcane companion, can, in a single round, draw the enemy away before being blasted with magic missiles or lightning, or whatever. Coming from a LARP background, I applauded the 5' adjust as a reasonable fascimile of combat, and as a step in the right direction over the static 'bobbing and weaving; parrying and riposetting', etc. Just this brings it back in line with 'reality'. Taking a step further and bringing back weapon speeds and segmented rounds... ahh - the happiness that was the 1st ed combat round /swoon. Theo
Draegun Fury 12-14-06, 11:39 AM	This is definately doable, if I ever get arround to playtesting this, I'll try various approaches to the 5ft. Step rule to see which is most fluid, and least abusable. Coming from Western Martial Arts background (Fencing with real swords), I can definately appreciate more fluid movement, I mean, in reality you pretty much make a "5ft. Step" when you perform a cut, with footwork being so important to any type of fighting system, I'll definately be taking this on board. Cheers. PS: Did you have any further comments relating to the INIT Count?
Theodoxus 12-14-06, 11:56 AM	Well, you're taking a mathmatical approach to an ancient method of initiative where each participant in a round would make one action, going around by initiative order, until all actions were accounted for. This made people with vastly more attacks essentially have a flurry at the end of the round. There were a number of ideas to make this 'more fair', such as dividing the number of attacks evenly (or as evenly as possible) such that one player with 4 attacks vs a mob with 2 would make 2 attacks, the mob 1, then 2 then 1 (presuming the pc won initiative) Your concept is probably a little more balancing, as high initiatives are rewarded with more up front damage, rather than just pure number of attacks - so a rogue could potentially take out a foe before taking any damage... FWIW, weapon speed would probably be of benefit to you, as it forces larger, slower weapons to take an intiative penalty. The rogue dashing in with paired shortswords can make quick work of the legionaire with a 20' pike, caught flatfooted. I don't have a chart for weapon speeds, but it probably wouldn't take much to find one to your liking (or even making one up formulaically.) Theo
stargate525 12-17-06, 10:45 PM	I like this. I forsee this being introduced to my group once it's been tweaked (as I'm much to lazy to do it myself). I like the idea of a free 5' step every time your initiative comes up. I would also like to see a 10' foot step option, with some sort of penalty. perhaps you can use a number of 5'-10' steps equal to your character's speed? Makes the monk a whole lot more deadly (as if it needed it! :P )
Kradlo 12-17-06, 11:58 PM	D&D combat is an abstraction, rather than an attempt to "realistically" represent the action. You can attempt to make combat more "realistic," but you'll find that it bogs down the game considerably. I'd predict that your system will become a headache for you and your players. Playtest it with players willing to try a new variant, with pregenerated characters that will test the new system in an many ways as possible. You'll discover how much trouble it is, and why the abstract method is quicker and easier.
GAMBLE_d13 12-18-06, 01:30 AM	I'm not a huge fan of weapon speed, I tend to find tat what little advanstage (IRL) one might get from weilding a "faster Blade", tends to be offset by the "slower Blade's" longer reach. If I had the choice between a good longsword, or a shorter "quicker" blade, I'd take the longsword anyday. Really in my experience (as an amateur fencer), a shorter blade is not all that much faster than a longer one, and in the hands of someone trained with the longer blade, the guy wielding the shorter blade is always at a disadvanstage.
GAMBLE_d13 12-18-06, 01:36 AM	D&D combat is an abstraction, rather than an attempt to "realistically" represent the action. You can attempt to make combat more "realistic," but you'll find that it bogs down the game considerably. I'd predict that your system will become a headache for you and your players. Playtest it with players willing to try a new variant, with pregenerated characters that will test the new system in an many ways as possible. You'll discover how much trouble it is, and why the abstract method is quicker and easier. I disgree entirely, I don't think this system (especially once people are used to it) will slow the game down very much at all, and with everyone get an action virtually one after the other, it will actually make combat seem as if it is flying by much faster than normal. Anyone who has ever had to sit by and watch the Ranger make 10 attacks in a row, knows what I'm talking about, if those ten attacks were broken up by one or two other players' or monsters' attacks, it would make combat a thousand times more engaging. No more, "Oh, its the Ranger's turn I'm gonna have a smoke.".
stargate525 12-18-06, 09:18 AM	I disgree entirely, I don't think this system (especially once people are used to it) will slow the game down very much at all, and with everyone get an action virtually one after the other, it will actually make combat seem as if it is flying by much faster than normal. Anyone who has ever had to sit by and watch the Ranger make 10 attacks in a row, knows what I'm talking about, if those ten attacks were broken up by one or two other players' or monsters' attacks, it would make combat a thousand times more engaging. No more, "Oh, its the Ranger's turn I'm gonna have a smoke.". I agree. Since most combat (in my experience) is only two or three round long, this makes a 'turn' come around much longer, and would keep people engaged.