Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Seregmegilmor 06-10-04, 04:59 PM	Hello all, I finished reading through the UA recently, and I haven't seen anything in it about alternative ways to play initiative. My thought is that in some games, I remember that when playing initiative, the person with the lowest rank would say what his character did, working up through the person with the highest initiative, and then resolving everything on the way down again. This would allow the characters who are faster than others to actually react to what others do. What do you people would think of using this kind of system for initiative? (I tried doing a search, but the search engine doesn't seem to be working at the moment, so I apologize if this was already brought up)
MetalGemini 06-10-04, 05:06 PM	Thats odd. How can a person with first initiative react to something that hasn't happened yet? Its not like the last character to act is going to shout out "I'm going to cast Fireball!" before his turn starts. I've never heard of this initiative variant before.
Seregmegilmor 06-10-04, 05:10 PM	Well I don't recall really using that system, just reading about it, but it does make some kind of sense... I think it is built on the fact that having a higher initiative, characters react faster than somebody who has a low initiative, therefore, could adjust their reactions according to what a slower person is doing. If a character with a high init sees another with a lower about to shoot arrows, he could decide to move to cover instead of staying in open range to do something else.
Marcus Majarra 06-11-04, 01:13 AM	This variant is interesting in the sense that action now takes place pretty much simultaneously, with the lower initiative taking longer to get their actions on the way, whereas the higher ones moving faster and reacting much more quickly. Of course, under this variant, the character has to take the action declared after the initiative roll. And the roll needs to be made each round (to ensure that combat doesn't lose its balance; it's a real bummer when a participant ALWAYS gets to react to everyone).
Thelon Fairblade 06-11-04, 08:34 AM	This is the initiative system used by Ars Magica. Higher Initiative characters get to decide whether they want to interrupt or otherwise react to the slower characters' intents. Rolls: Player A: Init 13 Orc 1: Init 12 Orc 2: Init 5 Player B: Init 2 Declarations: B: I'm going to cast a [Sleep] spell on the orcs. Orc 2: I run away from the spellcaster! Orc 1: I move up and try to disrupt the spell. A: I engage Orc 1 to prevent him from attacking the mage. Actions: Player A engages Orc 1 in melee. Orc 1 decides the fighter is less of a threat than the mage; Player A gets an AoO as the orc disengages and attacks the mage. Orc misses. Orc 2 runs out the door now vacated by Player A. Player B casts his spell; Orc 1 falls asleep, but Orc 2 is out of the area of effect.
Makaris 06-11-04, 10:10 AM	I like Thelon's take on Initiative, though I don't see how it would be applied to D&D other than with very DM based rulings (which is not how D20 works.) Initiative like that is how games like battletech function, actually.
Seregmegilmor 06-11-04, 01:36 PM	I was also thinking that it kinda takes off the purpose of actions such as delaying, readying, refocusing, etc... or would need to rework them, so yep, I don't know if it could be well applied to D&D3
fruits and vegetables 06-11-04, 02:58 PM	the title of this thread gave me a spell idea. steal initiative: it swaps the initiative of you and the target. what level should that be? I would say maybe 2nd. have a higher level one that swaps yours with multiple targets and you pick the highest. maybe 4th for that one.
Marcus Majarra 06-12-04, 12:42 AM	What exactly would be the point of a Steal Initiative spell? I mean, initiative is only really important during the first round of combat. I mean, what's the point of switching initiatives with an opponent (who has, most likely, beaten you, and acted before you), when you won't get to act moreso (or even sooner) than him?
Tjaeden 06-12-04, 04:51 AM	I like FASA's (now WizKids) Shadowrun initiative. (Looks around for WizO's... can I say another nond20 company's name? :shrugs:) The system is kind of d6 based... but can be easily adapted to d20, perhaps even more so. It functions on a subtracting descending order -> see example. Example (;) ) ________________Round Combatant................1.......2...... 3 Player A......................22.....12....2 Orc 1..........................18......8 Player B......................12......2 Orc 2...........................11.....1 Player C......................10 Orc 3...........................9 K, here is how it works (it is really simple). Imitative is equal to (Dex+Int/2 +d20). The 1st round, everything is normal. BUT - for anyone who rolled higher than a 10 (11+), they get another action. So Player A (a hafling w/improved init), who rolled a 22, would get 3 actions. He would go first, then everyone else would get to go. Then Player A, but only Orc 1, Player B, and Orc 2 would go. After that Player A would go again. If combat is still going after a few rounds, everyone re-rolls their initiative for a new set. This makes spells such as Renewed Focus (and the "swap-initiative" spell above) more viable. Plus, it makes delaying and holding actions more important. *However* - duration spells, such as Summon Monster x might be hard to do. In those cases, the summoned creatures would have their own init, but other spells would work the same. Obviously this reward character with a high dex, improved init/supreme init/blooded feats. In Shadowrun, initiative was ([Dex+Int]/2) +d6. Certain spells and cyberware would enhance either the number (reaction) or the number of dice (total initiative). In both game systems, it is hard to get high than the mid-20's. Another problem I was kind of fixed with 3.0. Shadowrun turns are 3 seconds each - so with the 6-second turns, combat is fast paced and more deadly - because only the smart and the quick will survive. Hope this helps and is not too confusing - its real late... or early. P.S. the reverse order of initiative is also common/found in White Wolf games. But almost everyone I know does not use the system because it almost doubles the time spent on each combat encounter.
Dunelord 06-13-04, 09:50 AM	White-Wolf also uses this type of inative. This would really make spell casters less powerfull. Caster "I cast a fireball there" Everyone else "I move from there"
Thelon Fairblade 06-14-04, 08:32 AM	Dunelord, the thing is the caster wouldn't say "I cast fireball at locaiton x,y". He'd say, "I cast a spell". Targets with Spellcraft could try to figure out the nature of the spell ("Fireball? Ack! I run!"), but otherwise have to decide whether to stick it out or run away. Quickened spells happen before anyone moves (but after actions are declared), all other spells happen at the same time as actions/moves.
Dunelord 06-14-04, 11:01 AM	Why does it work that way? I can see why people might not be able to know what spell they are casting, but they would still see the Wizard point his finger, which I would see as a good reason to move. Everyone other system I have seen that use this you have to be very specific, and to the best of my knowledge the person who sugested bringing this idea over was baseing it off another system.
Seregmegilmor 06-14-04, 11:47 AM	To follow Thelon's idea, I'd say that you could assume that while you have to cast a spell with somatic components, if the spell takes you some time to cast, you're going to be gesturing in the air and then at the completion of the spell point your hand towards the target.
paintedmask2 06-14-04, 12:33 PM	I don't see why the order that you decide and the order that it is resolved should be related at all. Why not have the two be independent, with each combatant having two seperate values? The first would be influenced by Wis modifier, with low values going first to declare actions. The initiative for action resolution would be affected by the Dex modifier, with high values going first. That way, the wise and observant people get to know and plan more while the fast people with great reflexes would get their actions off first.
jagggar 06-14-04, 02:22 PM	I think I recall from my friend's AD&D book another way to do initative. Each round everyone would announce their actions, then roll and actions would resolve. The example was something like a party of three against some enemies (i dunno, orcs probably). The fighter said he was going to run up and engage the enemies, and the wizard was going to cast fireball. As far as resolution, the fighter ran into combat before the fireball was cast, meaning ouchy for fighter. paintedmask, could you give an example of your WIS DEX initative, my brain isn't working yet, it's too early in the day. (1:30 pm ish)
Undercover 06-14-04, 04:18 PM	Originally posted by Seregmegilmor Hello all, I finished reading through the UA recently, and I haven't seen anything in it about alternative ways to play initiative. My thought is that in some games, I remember that when playing initiative, the person with the lowest rank would say what his character did, working up through the person with the highest initiative, and then resolving everything on the way down again. This would allow the characters who are faster than others to actually react to what others do. What do you people would think of using this kind of system for initiative? (I tried doing a search, but the search engine doesn't seem to be working at the moment, so I apologize if this was already brought up) I played this in L5R and later took it up to D&D, it's the best!
Skaboozh 06-15-04, 01:41 AM	Originally posted by Marcus Majarra What exactly would be the point of a Steal Initiative spell? I mean, initiative is only really important during the first round of combat. This is the biggest misconception floating around. If you're udner the assumption that you plan on seeing the light of day after each encounter, initiative is a huge deal. Why? Because most likely an encounter will end with you acting last (killing your opponent, fleeing, etc.) If you have a higher initiative than your opponent, that means in total you have acted one more time than your opponent has that encounter. Imagine having to endure one less full attack from every fighter you face or one less spell from every caster you face. Those are oversimplified examples, but you get the idea.
Masterful_Norg 06-15-04, 03:09 AM	For a time I worked on a system where intitiative was run in a chesslike fassion. ie. Square by square movement (as if each character were a king, only with more options). Originally it included the concept of spending initiative points for actions, which eventually broke down due to overcomplexity, whether it was (10 + dex modifier)/round, or 2 points/round and the prices of the actions altered eventually becoming fractional (multiple attacks on the sub 0.5 second level were just signified using dammage multipliers). Unfortunately book keeping for the actions, ploting the future half second on which you could act again, was far to much of a chore. The plan was to make combat much like a game of football when viewed in realtime. Each participant was supposed to be able to adjust to each other's movement "as it happened". Players would take 1 second long turns, broken into two halfs (points), and the possiblity for very fast combat became high, assuming that all participants, most importantly the DM, could decide quickle what their PCs/NPCs would, respectively. Despite my lack of complete success I have always persued the perfection of this system in hope that it would truly enhance the combat experience (hopefully by a factor of 10^11 or some other reasonably high number). The post by jaggger contains an idea which I think I'll use to fix my system. Maybe I'll post it here when I've hammered the kinks out of it. Thanks jaggger.
Marcus Majarra 06-15-04, 03:21 AM	Oh, I get the idea. But it still has no point. You'd only want to use such a spell if someone rolled a higher initiative than you for this combat, which means your opponent has already unleashed "one full attack," and you end up wasting your round trying to act quicker on the next ones. Look at this example of a normal initiative progression: ROUND ONE Enemy Fighter (20): Attacks wizard Wizard (5): Casts Magic Missile on Enemy Fighter ROUND TWO Enemy Fighter (20): Attacks wizard Wizard (5): Casts Magic Missile on Enemy Fighter Result: both attack each other twice. Now, look at this encounter if the wizard had cast a Steal Initiative spell: ROUND ONE Enemy Fighter (20): Attacks wizard Wizard (5): Casts Steal Initiative on Enemy Fighter ROUND TWO Wizard (20): Casts Magic Missile on Enemy Fighter Enemy Fighter (5): Attacks wizard Result: the fighter attacks the wizard twice, and the wizard wasted a spell slot. Even if you extend this to subsequent rounds, the result is the same. The wizard wasted a round (and a spell slot) using a useless spell. While this might be more useful for party encounters (especially if the wizard is really, really slow), it won't make a difference unless the party can defeat the enemy within two rounds. Back on topic, now. Reverse initiative could work in D&D, with the following system: 1) All participants roll initiative. 2) From lowest to highest initiative, all participants take either a move action or a standard action. Full-round actions cannot be taken at this point. If the character wants to take a full-round action, he must forfeit this action or take only a 5-foot sidestep. 3) From highest to lowest initiative, all participants take a move action or a standard action (the latter only if it wasn't taken before). If the character has only taken a 5-foot sidestep during step 2, he can now perform a full-round action. 4) Round ends. Rolling initiative every round might be interesting under this system, but it's optional. Characters still get to perform the same actions as before, but everything's a bit more separated. It gives a lot of advantages to characters with high initiative modifiers when dealing against characters taking full-round actions, but is otherwise a much more reactive system than the current one. Any thoughts?
fruits and vegetables 06-15-04, 04:27 AM	Originally posted by Marcus Majarra What exactly would be the point of a Steal Initiative spell? I mean, initiative is only really important during the first round of combat..... Well, for a wizard worried about getting hit and having spells disrupted then it can forgo that worry. That might be about it though. I think the spell would be validated at 2nd level as i said. EDIT!!! one more thought.....have it activate like featherfall does, a free action quick spell for the round. Now, how about that. I think i just made a simple, yet very cool spell.
Shaftiel 06-15-04, 06:54 AM	I think it could work, and it would work best the way Thelon described it. Keep it as simple as possible. -Shaftiel
Thelon Fairblade 06-15-04, 07:58 AM	PaintedMask2: You're adding even *another* step to combat, with another roll, and another check of the modifers for each participant. Marcus: In your example, there is exactly one good reason to use Steal Initiative: Quickened Spells. Round 1: Fighter (20) move towards mage, but will arrive next round. Wizard (4) Steal Initiative. Quickened spell. Round 2: Wizard (20) Quickened spell. Normal Spell. Fighter (4) arrive and single-attack mage. Wizard got off 3 spells against Fighter before Fighter got his attack. Without Steal Initiative, he would have gotten only 2.
Skaboozh 06-15-04, 12:47 PM	And don't lose sight of the last round of the encounter. With the wizard now ahead of the fighter in initiative, the wizard will have to endure one less action from the fighter when the encounter ends (assuming the PC ends the encounter, which happens 90& of the time). Don't get me wrong, I'd never take a steal initiative spell as a wizard. But it, and initiative in general, are both pretty useful.
jagggar 06-15-04, 01:55 PM	Originally posted by Masterful_Norg Originally it included the concept of spending initiative points for actions, which eventually broke down due to overcomplexity, *shudders* Oh I remember that one. . . Points. . . nice idea, but yeah, C-O-M-P-L-E-X. The post by jaggger contains an idea which I think I'll use to fix my system. Maybe I'll post it here when I've hammered the kinks out of it. Thanks jaggger. Yay! I don't even know what idea I gave you. I am interested in seeing your next system of initiative. Like to see how you handle standard actions. (Do you delay till you have 3 seconds?)
Marcus Majarra 06-16-04, 02:31 AM	Originally posted by Thelon Fairblade In your example, there is exactly one good reason to use Steal Initiative: Quickened Spells. It's actually summed up in what I said. Steal Initiative is only effective in two-round battles. And for a single-wizard to fully benefit from such a spell, he needs to not only waste a slot on Steal Initiative, but two slots 4 levels higher than the spells he wants to cast, as well as the Quicken Spell feat. And this is only to get to cast only one more spell for a single combat encounter. Not exactly what I call thinking practically.
Verenal 06-16-04, 07:21 AM	It isn't neccessary to have quicened spells to benefit from steal initiative. You can give your partymembers an extra action if you rolled your initiative low, and enemy rolls well. Round 1 (20)enemy: moves closer. (15)party rogue: shoots enemy. (12)party cleric: casts bless. (3)party wizard: casts steal initiative on enemy. (1)party fighter: total defense. Round 2 (20)party wizard: casts spell (15)party rogue: shoots enemy. (12)party cleric: charges. (3)enemy: hits the cleric. (1)party fighter: charge the enemy. At second round in initiative count 4 enemy has acted once. Wizard has also acted only once in effect because the first action goes to steal initiative spell. Fighter has acted only once, but rogue and cleric have acted twice. Conclusion: this spell isn't an attack spell, it's a party buff spell.
Marcus Majarra 06-16-04, 03:20 PM	Yes, and it works well only when your party rolled lower than the enemy, when you rolled lower than the party, when dealing with a single enemy, and only makes a difference if combat lasts two rounds.
jagggar 06-16-04, 03:40 PM	Has someone stated the reason why it wouldn't make a difference if a combat lasted longer than two rounds?
Marcus Majarra 06-16-04, 11:58 PM	Well, initiative only makes a real difference on the first round of combat, at the basics. After everyone has acted once, it's just a matter of a repeating cycle of whom acts after whom. I mean, it's clear that the fastest character acts after the slowest character all the time (unless you start delaying and readying, which only screws you over). Since it's a cycle, the question of someone having a higher initiative no longer matters since it won't give you any additional actions. After initiative has been set for the rest of combat, it's no longer important. A Steal Initiative spell only affects overall initiative during the first two rounds.
Dunther the Great 06-17-04, 01:38 AM	Actually the Steal Initiative spell would be useful if you used the reversed initiative rule. for example: combatants (19) party cleric (C) (16) orc barb (O) (14) party fighter (F) (11) party rogue (R) (6) party wizard (W) ++++++++++++++ +W+++++++++++ ++++F++++++O+ +C+++++++++++ ++++R++++++++ +++++++++++++ 1st round: declaring actions (6) W cast steal init on O (11) R move around O and attack (14) F charge O (16) B go after P (19) C buff P 1st round: actions (19) C cast buff spell on R (16) O attacks R (14) F cannot charge, O too close, just attacks O (11) R moves around O and sneak attacks, O gets AoO (6) casts steal init on O ++++++++++++++ +W+++++++++++ ++++F++++++o+ +c+++O+++++++ +++Cr+R++++++ +++++++++++++ 2nd and subsequent rounds: declaring actions (6) O um... attack R (11) R attack O and move back (14) F attack O (16) W cast MM on O (19) C move in postion to attack and deliver an AoO against O 1st round: actions (19) C moves in postion to attack and deliver an AoO against O (16) W cast MM at O (14) F attacks O (11) R sneak attacks O, moves away, O gets an AoO (6) O (if not dead) moves after R and attacks, F and C get AoOs ++++++++++++++ +W+++++++++++ ++++F++++++o+ +++++o+++++++ +++cC+r++++++ ++++++++OR+++ now the orc loses his tactical advantage of seeing what the PCs are doing. And then what about MASS steal initiative :devil:
Verenal 06-17-04, 02:58 AM	Originally posted by Marcus Majarra Yes, and it works well only when your party rolled lower than the enemy, when you rolled lower than the party, when dealing with a single enemy I see it as a handy spell to have once in a day. It's not for every caster but it helps sometimes. Besides, most of the spells don't function in every encounter. And if the target rolled worse than you, it's all good. Cast steal initiative, now you have worse initiative and the target has a good one. Now the target can act in his new initiative, wich happens to be right now. The target here, is a party member who propably gains an advantage if acting now instead of later. (A sneak attack perhaps.) and only makes a difference if combat lasts two rounds. No it does make a difference if the enemy kills your party member and is killed in the same turn before the wizard can act, when steal initiative hasn't been casted. That ally would be alive if steal initiative had been succesfully casted.
Marcus Majarra 06-17-04, 03:20 AM	Of course the spell would be more useful in a reversed initiative scenario, in which initiative is more than just an indicator of where you act in the cycle. Under normal rules, it's nigh-useless. Furthermore, if you Steal Initiative from a slower ally, you both end up wasting your turns for a few simple reasons: 1) Your ally doesn't get to act, since by taking your initiative count, he would've had to act at the same time you started acting. Since your action is finished, so is that initiative count, and your ally will have a wasted round (which is deadly in the first round, since this means he's caught flat-footed for yet another round). 2) You don't get to act since characters don't get more than one set of actions per turn. As you can see, this can lead to abuse, as you'd be getting extra actions at the expense of someone else's. Furthermore, the effects of such a spell are useless on one-on-ones, even with quickened spells, simply because you can delay until the next turn, when your initiative count becomes higher than your opponent's. As for making a difference, read what I wrote above. A Steal Initiative spell is only somewhat practical in a two-round scenario, and only once per encounter, when the caster's initiative count is lower than an opponent's. And only when the entire encounter can be resolved in those two rounds. If not, then it's a waste, simply because the cycle repeats itself in sequence. This is too particular an idea to be useful on a regular basis. The only practical use I can find for such a spell would be in running away from an opponent, as between the time the opponent acts first and then second, your party has a two-round head start on the opponent. Then again, there are classics like Haste and Dimension Door that do an even better job of that, with more general uses as well.
Verenal 06-17-04, 08:05 AM	Originally posted by Marcus Majarra 1) Your ally doesn't get to act, since by taking your initiative count, he would've had to act at the same time you started acting. Since your action is finished, so is that initiative count, and your ally will have a wasted round (which is deadly in the first round, since this means he's caught flat-footed for yet another round). 1a)And what if I and my friend have rolled the same initiative? does only one of us get to act this round? How does stealing initiative differ from that? 1b)If you're correct, I'll just cast this on an enemy with a lower initiative so he'll lose his action in this round. 2) You don't get to act since characters don't get more than one set of actions per turn. As you can see, this can lead to abuse, as you'd be getting extra actions at the expense of someone else's. Correct. Furthermore, the effects of such a spell are useless on one-on-ones, even with quickened spells, simply because you can delay until the next turn, when your initiative count becomes higher than your opponent's. Agreed, but one-on-ones are rare. As for making a difference, read what I wrote above. A Steal Initiative spell is only somewhat practical in a two-round scenario, and only once per encounter, when the caster's initiative count is lower than an opponent's. And only when the entire encounter can be resolved in those two rounds. If not, then it's a waste, simply because the cycle repeats itself in sequence. You see it that way, I see it as a way to give some of my allies an extra turn relative to target. A spell that gives an extra turn is pretty powerful, even if it's usable only in some situations and once a combat. This is too particular an idea to be useful on a regular basis. The only practical use I can find for such a spell would be in running away from an opponent, as between the time the opponent acts first and then second, your party has a two-round head start on the opponent. Then again, there are classics like Haste and Dimension Door that do an even better job of that, with more general uses as well. This spell would have use in some situations. That's good enough for me.
Marcus Majarra 06-17-04, 10:23 PM	Originally posted by Verenal You see it that way, I see it as a way to give some of my allies an extra turn relative to target. A spell that gives an extra turn is pretty powerful, even if it's usable only in some situations and once a combat. This, of course, assumes that the character party wins the encounter. Furthermore, such a spell is difficult to explain in terms of effect. How exactly does a steal initiative come into play, in terms of description? A more appropriate (and more widely useful) spell would be Forced Delay, which sets the character one step further in the action loop (as in acting right after the next character would act). Stealing initiative would make sense in a system where initiative counts for more than just the first round actions, and simply setting up a cycle, where you could simply trade readiness with a character. In D&D, readiness means squat after the first round.
Marcus Majarra 06-17-04, 10:23 PM	[Edited due to double-posting; please delete if found]
fruits and vegetables 06-19-04, 06:21 PM	Originally posted by Marcus Majarra ...And for a single-wizard to fully benefit from such a spell, he needs to not only waste a slot on Steal Initiative, but two slots 4 levels higher than the spells he wants to cast, as well as the Quicken Spell feat. And this is only to get to cast only one more spell for a single combat encounter. Not exactly what I call thinking practically. Well, in my version of the spell i said have it activate as the feather fall spell does. Feather fall acts as a quickened spell that does not use a higher spell slot, that is just how the spell works. This spell would be act like that. Also, not having to worry about being disrupted by being hit every round is a big benifit. I mean sure a wizard should try not to be in combat but when combat comes this could be a staple spell as far as i am concerned. On a personal note, i stick with printed material. I have too many issues with 3rd party stuff being abused. Even though i made this spell up i will not use it unless it ends up in WoTC books. They have their problems too but it is generally the most compatible.
Verenal 06-20-04, 01:02 PM	Originally posted by Marcus Majarra This, of course, assumes that the character party wins the encounter. Well, if the party loses then it's not relevant anymore. The party is most likely dead. Anyway, my defense of this spell crumbles because it's usually more effective to cast daze on a monster. :)
Marcus Majarra 06-20-04, 05:13 PM	Pretty much. Just about any spell that screws over an opponent for one turn is better than a Steal Initiative spell. But let's get back to the topic at hand. Does anyone have any thoughts as to my suggested system of reversed initiative? Furthermore, I thought of an interesting addition to my suggested system: If a character makes an attack action during the first half of the round, he can make the rest of his full-attack during the second half if there's still an opponent within range at that time. For characters with attack roll penalties on the inititial attacks of a full-attack, they have to take the penalties on the initial attack to have the chance to continue the full-attack. This applies mainly to two-weapon combatants and low-level monks for their flurries.