Post/Author/DateTime	Post
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-13-07, 05:08 PM	In shadow run, and other systems, initiative is iterative. That is to say that a character could take more than one turn per initiative pass depending on their initiative result. For example, in shadow run suppose you had an initiative score of 35, and Mary had 23, and john had 2. The GM would make one pass, and everyone would go. Then the GM subtracts 10 from everyones score, and goes around again. This time only John and Mary go, then the GM subtracts 10 again, and goes around, John and Mary go again. The GM subtracts 10 once more, and goes around again, this time only john would go. The GM continues to subtract 10 until no may go on. Then s/he starts over with the new round. I want to port this over to DnD. The basic rule I've been toying around with is that you make one initiative pass, and then subtract 10 from every bodies score, and go again, so on until no one has a positive score left. Or perhaps a character goes on increments of 10, based on their score. (Example: Lidda rolls a 24 for initiative; she acts on intiative 24, 14, and 4.) So say Lidda, Meele, and Jozan get into a fight with BBEG. Lidda rolls a 24, Meele 15, Jozan 3, and BBEG 16. Normally the round would go like this: Lidda, BBEG, Meele, Jozan. However under my system it might look like so: Lidda, BBEG, Meele, Lidda, BBEG, Meele, Lidda and then Jozan. Or maybe like: Lidda, BBEG, Meele Jozan, Lidda, BBEG, Meele, Lidda. Basically I want to reward higher initiatives more, then just going first. I also want to encourage high dex characters such as rogues, and archery based rogues. I think being able have multiple action is a single round would do it. Imagine the edge an archery ranger no has against a tank based cleric. It could 2 twice, maybe 3 times as often as the cleric. However one of the major problems with this is spell casters. As 3.0 haste demonstrated, being able to drop 2 spells in one rounds is over powered. Any ideas with how I could tune this rule into some more balanced, and not spell casters dominate the house even more?
Ra-Tiel 07-13-07, 06:00 PM	[...] Any ideas with how I could tune this rule into some more balanced, and not spell casters dominate the house even more? Well, you could perhaps add a "cool-down" rate to spells based on their level. After a certain spell is cast, the caster must wait a number of actions equal to the spell's level before he can cast again. The "Quicken Spell" feat could perhaps be modified to reduce this delay instead of reducing actual casting time. As a side-effect, this would put a damper on spellcasters in general, and require them to plan ahead - after the wizard dropped his meteor swarm he won't be casting again for probably 9 actions or something. Perhaps this would work well for you? Another idea would be to simply enforce a "only one spell per round, not per turn" rule. Thus, no matter how many actions (turns) a spellcaster could take per round he could only cast once (or spells with a free action casting time). Also, did you already think about the consequences of spells such as moment of prescience or foresight? Those could mess up your turn sequence pretty much...
trapspringer 07-13-07, 06:19 PM	Well, you could perhaps add a "cool-down... That seems more practical. Giving players an extra action for every ten points by which they win initiative will totally wreck the power curve and make the whole thing an initiative contest. It's too radical a change with too much variability. Suddenly it is more valuable to have a high initiative than anything else, because almost no ability is worth as much as an extra action every round (a half an action was deemed too powerful an effect for a third level spell, and what we're talking about here is more akin to... what, time stop?). I'm guessing in shadowrun you don't gain itterative attacks? Or is combat just vastly more/less lethal? At any rate, requiring a certain number of initiative "ticks" between certain actions might shift the focus more towards initiative. Would you be rolling for initiative every round?
Jagyr Ebonwood 07-13-07, 06:33 PM	In this variant I foresee everyone starting the combat by refocusing (or whatever the initiative action is that treats your initiative as if you rolled a 20) in order to get more actions.
JoAT 07-13-07, 07:17 PM	That seems more practical. Giving players an extra action for every ten points by which they win initiative will totally wreck the power curve and make the whole thing an initiative contest. It's too radical a change with too much variability. Suddenly it is more valuable to have a high initiative than anything else, because almost no ability is worth as much as an extra action every round (a half an action was deemed too powerful an effect for a third level spell, and what we're talking about here is more akin to... what, time stop?). I'm guessing in shadowrun you don't gain itterative attacks? Or is combat just vastly more/less lethal? At any rate, requiring a certain number of initiative "ticks" between certain actions might shift the focus more towards initiative. Would you be rolling for initiative every round? In Shadowrun, the initiative is your iterative attacks - you get your action each time your turn comes up (though there may still be move actions - not remembering too well, since my book is currently on loan. For such a system, what I'd see is each action - Full, Standard, Move and Swift broken down into initiative modifiers. When you take a given action, it temporarily decreases your initiative for the round just off the top of my head, a full round action would be -10, a standard -5, a move -3 and a swift -1, making each round's initiative more fluid. Spells might do the same thing, with a greater reduction, perhaps.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-13-07, 07:37 PM	I'm guessing in shadowrun you don't gain itterative attacks? Or is combat just vastly more/less lethal? Shadow run doesn't really have iterative attacks, or a base attack for that matter. Its a levelless system. So instead of gaining levels, or hitdia. You gain points with which to buy improvements for your chaarcter. You can make multiple attacks/turn, depending on the weapon your using, but those add penalties your "attack roll". Combat tends to be quick, and very leathal. But a large part of that is becuase there is a fixed HP system, that is to say you don't gain more HP as you gain power.
trapspringer 07-13-07, 08:35 PM	Ok, well that explains how the combat works with someone having the potential to act twice. What about the spell system? Is it more subtle like in LoTR, or just really slow like in FMA? 'Cause it seems like to implement this rule you will need to nerf the damage output of fighters and the generally world-shattering power of magic. Slowin' 'em down seems like the solution in both instances, but if you do this too much you've really only gone in a big circle.
JMKoontz 07-13-07, 09:03 PM	In one of my first 3e games our DM did something similar to this. Instead of a straight system of iterative initiative, however, he broke our initiative round down based on iterative attacks. That is to say, for characters with BABs of +6 or higher who are allowed multiple attacks per round (with full attack action) our first action would be on our initiative. If we decided to go full attack, then he'd take our total number of attacks and divide them out over the remaining initiatives between x and 1. If you decided not to go full attack and instead wanted the standard action/move action, then you'd split your initiative two ways and pick which you do first etc. For example, Joe Fighter with 3 attacks per round rolls an initiative of 15. Jane Rogue with 2 attacks (but a higher Dex) rolls a 22. Bob has 3 attacks as well and rolls an 18 initiative. Now given that Joe and Jane each decide to take a full attack action while Bob wants a standard/move, the round looks something like this: 22 Jane attacks 18 Bob moves 15 Joe attacks 11 Jane attacks + 5ft step 10 Joe attacks 09 Bob attacks 05 Joe attacks + 5ft step Overall this took a little bit more time than had we made all full attacks on one initiative, but it made the fights a bit more fluid and rewarded high initiative while still allowing those first folks to react to things other characters did. You still had to make the call on your first action whether you were going to use full attack or stanard/move and you had to stick with it. That also meant that enemies had the option of moving away from you between attacks if they had move actions placed right. Overall I feel that this system worked better at getting the idea across that everyone is acting virtually at the same time, just some quicker than others.
trapspringer 07-13-07, 09:36 PM	It looks like a lot more paperwork, but I gotta' say it doesn't look totally impractical if you're looking for a more fluid combat.
Xaer 07-13-07, 09:52 PM	One method I've been working on(though haven't run a campaign with it yet) is a charge time style combat. All players have a speed score equal to their init+10. When combat starts, have all players roll init as usual, but then operate combat as thus: 1. Increment everyone's initiative by their speed score. 2. If a player's initiative reaches or exceeds 100, it's their turn. In the case of multiple people hitting 100, the one with the highest init score goes first. 3. The player takes their turn, changing their initiative by these amounts: ---Total Defense - NewInit=Init-60 ---Standard OR Move Action - NewInit=Init-80 ---Full Round Action - NewInit=Init-100 4. Additionally, the initiatives are modified depending on what kind of action taken: ---Weapon Attack: NewInit=Init-(5X(Size of PC - Size catagory of weapon))* ---Two Weapon Fighting: NewInit=Init-10 ---Spell Casting: NewInit=Init-Spell Level *For example, if Bob is a medium sized PC, and is using a longsword(medium size weapon), his init does not change. If he is using a shortsword(small size), his init increases by 5. 5. At the end of the turn, check the player's initiative. If it is lower than 0, raise it to 0, and if it is higher than 60, lower it to 60. Lot more DM work involved, but it does break the monotony of the "my super fast rogue still takes turns just as slow as the big hulking barbarian". NOTES: This is loosely based on the Final Fantasy Tactics formulas for charge time. Also, the feats Improved Initiative and Epic Improved Initiative bonuses would be reduced to +2 and +4, respectively, to prevent the feats from becoming broken. Thoughts?
zeratulcraft 07-13-07, 09:55 PM	In this variant I foresee everyone starting the combat by refocusing (or whatever the initiative action is that treats your initiative as if you rolled a 20) in order to get more actions. I've never understood refocusing, you lose a turn to act at 20...but you're still 1 turn behind everyone anyway. Any turn can have multiple beginning points anyway. Say Bob at 11, Joe at 9 and BBEG at 6. The turn can also be expressed as; Joe 9 BBEG 6 Bob 11 Your turn begins on your initiative, which doesn't matter at all after the first round.
Werral 07-15-07, 07:59 AM	What if you scapped standard iterative attacks and let everyone add their BAB to initiative? Wizards would be the slowest to act so that might help balance them out at high levels.
Kamin_Majere 07-15-07, 08:37 AM	So with this system my Sword Sage Rogue Halfling with a (current) +15 to Initiative would go more often than anyone, and if i rolled less than 6 i could just refocus to gain twice the actions next round of initiative order Combat lasts 3 rounds roll 4 (19) Round 1 = 19 action and 9 action Round 2 = 19 action and 9 action Round 3 = 19 action and 9 action Combat Lasts 3 Rounds Roll 4 (refocus to a 20) (35) Round 1 = Refocus Round 2 = 35 Action and 25 action and 15 action and 5 action Round 3 = 35 action and 25 action and 15 action and 5 action So instead of 6 action in 3 round i would gain 8, yes! :P Thats alot of daggers being tossed around in just a very few rounds... i might would actually run out at that point
Werral 07-15-07, 04:29 PM	You'd have to eliminate refocus under this system. Also while you gain more actions you do not necessarily gain more actions before anyone else. Other people will get to act before you're halflings thrown all his daggers.
trapspringer 07-15-07, 04:33 PM	No, you'd just have to limit the boost to your initiative modifier. That way a refocused character would basically be earning interest on his blown action, but only on the actual value of that blown action. Because of the way combat works in D&D (and in RL) it is better to act sooner than later. Acting sooner gives you the opportunity to cast any last minute buffs and take the most strategically advantageous position. Or not and it'd be like DBZ; they stand there screaming at one another looking constipated for three rounds and suddenly explode in a flurry of violence and raw power.
yeti1069 07-15-07, 05:56 PM	My group rerolls initiative every round. This rewards characters with high initiative checks because 1 bad roll doesn't leave you last for the entire combat, and you are more likely to go first more often. Also, it allows for the possibility of going last one round and then first on the next, and also makes for more dynamic duels. With the iterative initiative you propose, I can see some characters being able to utterly dominate a combat. Getting more turns than your opponents in D&D leads to very quick, fairly dull fights.
Kamin_Majere 07-15-07, 06:16 PM	Also while you gain more actions you do not necessarily gain more actions before anyone else. Other people will get to act before you're halflings thrown all his daggers. Sure i would. I lose 1 round of combat to add 2 extra actions to my overall actions taken in a combat (i used 3 rounds due to the fact i doubt combat would ever last longer than this under this system) I know other people would get to act in between my actions, but with a high enough modifer to Iniaitiave you dont have to worry about it much, with the 35 i would get by refocusing i can almost certainly get 1 or 2 actions before most other people would even act (even having lost the entire first round) I was just showing why this system wouldnt work really well. It would require a bit more thought before the system could be implimented smoothly. I mean i've always hated in later levels when i'll actually get a number 2 or even 3 times higher than the next person in iniaitiaive order and wish i could simply "split it up" but this wouldnt be the way to do it with out a bit more tweeking. But its a good start.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-16-07, 12:33 AM	Sure i would. I lose 1 round of combat to add 2 extra actions to my overall actions taken in a combat (i used 3 rounds due to the fact i doubt combat would ever last longer than this under this system) I know other people would get to act in between my actions, but with a high enough modifer to Iniaitiave you dont have to worry about it much, with the 35 i would get by refocusing i can almost certainly get 1 or 2 actions before most other people would even act (even having lost the entire first round) I was just showing why this system wouldnt work really well. It would require a bit more thought before the system could be implimented smoothly. I mean i've always hated in later levels when i'll actually get a number 2 or even 3 times higher than the next person in iniaitiaive order and wish i could simply "split it up" but this wouldnt be the way to do it with out a bit more tweeking. But its a good start. Assuming that refocusing was style an option. You refocus, and stand there for the rest of the round. Lets say the enemy fighters rolls a 25 for his initiative. He then pounds on you for 3 actions, while your refocusing. I'd say its a fair trade off. (There is no way in hades I'd allow someone to refocus on their last action. At best it would be on the first action of the turn.) But I think that it would be best just to do away with refocusing. No main thing is how to limit spell casters from shooting 2-3 times in one round. Kinda like you have a +15 initiative mod, which is cool, but say the fight goes like this: you roll 10.5 for initiative 25, wizard guy rolls a 10.5 with a +8 iniative mod. Round you go, you go again, he goes, you die. he goes again and kills your friend.
JMKoontz 07-16-07, 01:55 AM	No main thing is how to limit spell casters from shooting 2-3 times in one round. Kinda like you have a +15 initiative mod, which is cool, but say the fight goes like this: you roll 10.5 for initiative 25, wizard guy rolls a 10.5 with a +8 iniative mod. Round you go, you go again, he goes, you die. he goes again and kills your friend. Which is why I split it up based on either your total number of iterative attacks (for a full attack action) or into two total actions if you don't use full attack. That way the two part iterative actions can still be labeled as Move and Standard actions which will enforce casting times for spells. Doing it in this way is no different that using standard combat mechanics except that you are spreading things out a bit so that one character is not blowing all of his or her actions before anyone else gets to do anything. Now ... that being said, I have come to one difficulty with said system. If Joe fighter is not within melee range of Jane rogue and he comes up with a higher initiative he'll have to use his move action first if he wants to melee attack her. In this case, he moves, then she gets to act. He moved in close so she can start in with her full attack action, at least the first of which is before he gets to swing. Any ideas on keeping this type of initiative break down without creating the perpetual standoff of characters not wanting to get close to each other for fear of giving away the first hit?
Werral 07-16-07, 12:40 PM	Make a charge action which includes both a move and a melee attack as one action.
Kamin_Majere 07-16-07, 01:04 PM	Assuming that refocusing was style an option. You refocus, and stand there for the rest of the round. Lets say the enemy fighters rolls a 25 for his initiative. He then pounds on you for 3 actions, while your refocusing. I'd say its a fair trade off. (There is no way in hades I'd allow someone to refocus on their last action. At best it would be on the first action of the turn.) But I think that it would be best just to do away with refocusing. True i would have to wait out my first entire turn and hope that nothing just came and clobbered me into a sticky paste (but a yummy sticky paste as i have heard too many monsters say halflings taste good). But by waiting i net extra options over all, most times your not going to be working with a character that would have a retardly high Initiative score so this wouldnt be a problem as much. But if it does happen (espically if there is a surprise round and i can make a hide check) you will run into a few things like this. Like i said i like the system because what the point of having a high Initiative if you really cant use it for anything besided saying "i'm going to assume i roll a 1 on teh dice... i still go first" No main thing is how to limit spell casters from shooting 2-3 times in one round. Kinda like you have a +15 initiative mod, which is cool, but say the fight goes like this: you roll 10.5 for initiative 25, wizard guy rolls a 10.5 with a +8 iniative mod. Round you go, you go again, he goes, you die. he goes again and kills your friend. Why not just keep spell casters limited to how they are now. 1 spell a round (unless quickened). They would still get other actions it just wouldnt be spell casting in most of them. Plus it would allow them to be a bit more tactical sometimes to make up for their "feeling" nerfed. you could see how the battle is going for your 1st couple of initiative turns and cast the spell on your last one. I mean if the fighter and the rogue have pretty much killed everything before your last initiative order what the point of wasting any powerful magic on the encounter, just magic missile something and feel good that you kept your high level stuff for something that will give you more trouble later in the day EDIT: Just thought of something. You could make it a feat. Because this is pretty powerful for faster characters Iterative Initiative; Prereq: Improved Initiative (maybe even combat reflexes) Benefit: You can take a -4 to your total initiative roll and act twice in a single round. Your second action set comes at -10 from your primary action set. Special: This feat maybe taken Multipule times. Note all penalties stack Not sure if its balanced or not this way though. You could get as many Extra Actions you wanted as long as you were willing to take the hit to your original Initiative and could still make a double digit roll with the minus'. If you took it 2 times you would get a -8 to the total roll and get to act at that roll, then X-10, then X-20. Extra Actions are very powerful in D&D so getting them should be pretty hard and cost you something.
Werral 07-16-07, 07:42 PM	I think it's actually less balanced as a feat. As a feat, if you have it you have a major advantage. If it's part of the system everyone has it. Dragons with iterative initiative. That's balance.
Cheza 07-22-07, 10:14 AM	Shadowrun is a completely inbalanced, unrealistic and deadly system. I played it a long enough to know the facts: Inbalanced initiative passes: You can't get multiple attacks per turn except due to mechanical or magical improvement. The first one is very expensive and the second one is scarce. So nearly none of your opponents will have it. (Assuming that your "average opponent" does not have a 300,000 nuyen implanted in his body [pistol = 500 nuyen, a mobile phone = 50 nuyen and a meal about 10 nuyen]) The damage potential is deadly, so any action can kill your opponent. Who acts first, gets the first kill (assuming you have the right weapon/equipment). Unrealistic combat turns: Any weapon, even a fully automatic weapon (like a minigun) have different rounds per minute dependant of the number of initiative passes. So a "normal" character can shoot 10 rounds per 3 seconds, a initiative guy can shoot 4 times as much. Your movement is limited, but anything else is measured by initiative passes. So you can pick up more things, stand up 3 more times and cat deadly fireballs 3 more times. If you are a mage with 4 initiative passes, you can cast someting like a "wall of force" or a invisibility to prevent to be attacked. Your opponents act one time and you know that he can't react to the next 3 actions you have. So you can cast whatever you want (for example 3 lightning bolts) and you cannot be interrupted. It's like a level 20 DnD rogue with a bow fighting against low level opponents. Any ranged attack you make could be deadly and you can attack 4 times per turn. To sum it up: Completely useless.
Thanuir 07-22-07, 01:20 PM	What if you scapped standard iterative attacks and let everyone add their BAB to initiative? Wizards would be the slowest to act so that might help balance them out at high levels.Go with this. Combine with some rules for surprise, refocusing, readying, etc. Improved initiative and other init-boosting stuff will need some nerfing. Half an action for a feat is far too powerful. Also, if someone rolls 0 or negative init, do they have even one action? Cheza, even if you think Shadowrun doesn't work very well, it doesn't mean that the ideas of those rules are completely without value. (Besides, D&D is unrealistic, too.)
Ra-Tiel 07-23-07, 09:51 AM	Shadowrun is a completely inbalanced, unrealistic and deadly system. I played it a long enough to know the facts: [...] :rofl: bwuahaha! You really had me going there for a moment. And I thought it was DnD where characters would survive falls from like 500ft or being burried under a crashing dragon with the force of a freight train. :D Wait, they are. :shifty: To sum it up: Completely useless. So, just because the system is different from d20 it is useless?
Thanuir 07-27-07, 01:48 PM	So, just because the system is different from d20 it is useless?Of course. Only D02 (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm) is any match.
trapspringer 07-27-07, 03:24 PM	Of course. Only D02 (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm) is any match. Oh ****. I know what my group's doing this Sunday.