Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Anders Rasmussen 02-18-08, 09:55 AM	Hey all, I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I would like to here your opinion on a minor change to the initiative system. The idea comes from when I played Whampire: The Masquerade and is a write off of the system used there. The idea: You start by rolling initiative as normal The big change is then, that the character with the LOWEST initiative goes first i DECLARING (not doing) what he/she wants to do this round. Then all this rounds actions take place at the same time - starting with the highest initiative - more or less as it all ready is, but with the change that, say, a player declared that he would strike a monster and that monster is then slain before his initiative, then his action is more or less wasted. Thats the simple idea. My questions is the: Would this work in DnD - or are there anything in the system that makes this a sub-optimal solution? Do you think this could be time-saving? Any remark is appreciated! Thanks, Anders
kuonji 02-18-08, 10:28 AM	As for time saving...maybe. You have each player declare at the start of the turn which could save some time, however you may end up with longer combats since actions declared earlier in the turn could become impossible (as your example showed) resulting in wasted time/turns. As another example of wasted time, a player might declare they are going to move up to a creature and attack it, but the creature goes first and moves to a point that the player cannot reach. A question for you, since the players have to declare their actions at the start of the round, do you, as DM, also have to declare all your critter's actions on the appropriate initiative?
sblaxman 02-18-08, 05:46 PM	You're basically running a modified 2e initiave system... In 2e... init ran as follows (IIRC) Players Call actions (I attack X, I cast Y, I use item Z) DM decideds NPC actions at same time Initiative modifiers are determined (haste, terrain, weapon speed, casting time etc) Init is rolled, either for each PC/NPC/Creature who is making a turn, or once for each side Modifiers are added for each player Actions are played out in order from lowest is highest init. This is repeated for each round.. Not exactly the same, but similar. It works just fine, it's just a different method (I still prefer the 2e method myself and use that). I've always run it that you just make one roll for each side (players/monsters)... and add each modifer to the teams side... ex... PC 1 has a modifier of +4, PC2 = +7, PC3 = +8 Monster 1 = +4, monster 2 = +6 Party rolls a 5, DM rolls an 8 PC1 goes first (5+4 = 9) PC2 goes second (7+4 = 11) Monster1 goes next (8+4 = 12) PC3 goes next (5+8 = 13) Monster2 goes next (8+6 = 14) Ties go the the players I usually allow players to make a half action if their called action is nullified. If two players go to attack the same monster, but one kills it 1st, the second can attack an adjacent monster instead or make a move action, etc.
Salla 02-20-08, 04:56 PM	I don't think it would save any time at all, because you first have to have them declare their actions, then do it later, whereas the 'go when your number comes up' method combines the two, plus you don't have to remember what anybody said they were doing ... or worry about players changing their minds and weaseling out of what they said.
sblaxman 02-20-08, 07:41 PM	While the system may work just fine, Salla is correct, it will not save time over 3e initiative. It won't be that much slower, but it will be slower than the 3e version (roll once per encounter, set turn order, call actions on turn)
navar100 02-20-08, 09:04 PM	It becomes more difficult to use ready, delay, and refocus for tactical purposes. It gives combatants who got a higher initiative an added insult to injury to the lower initiatives beacuse they'll know what the lower initiatives will want to do. Ex: wizard goes on 18, ranger goes on 14. Ranger declares he uses rapid shot for all his attacks on the wizard. Wizard declares he casts protection from arrows, or teleports away, or hold person on ranger. It might be metagaming, but the wizard can't help it. The wizard (player or dm) knows for a fact the ranger will attack him. The wizard may have wanted to teleport away anyway; he may have wanted to cast some buff spell on someone, he may have wanted to cast an attack spell on someone else. However, now he "just knows" the ranger will attack him. By RAW initiative the wizard could take into account the ranger might attack him, but the uncertainty allows him to make an unbiased choice of action. Knowing for certain the ranger will attack him, or perhaps know for certain the ranger will not attack him, gives him extra knowledge. If he doesn't do anything about the ranger when he knows the ranger is going to attack him because it would be metagaming, the damage is done. The wizard player is going to feel like an idiot as his wizard gets shot with many arrows. If the wizard knows the ranger will ignore him, whether he attacks the ranger or not, the damage is done. He knows there's no response from the ranger. He can do as he pleases and the ranger feels like an idiot because he could have hurt the wizard who did nothing to protect himself. Fo RAW initiative, the advantage of going first is enemy flat-footedness on the first round of combat and first strike to nullify enemies or kill them before they kill you in damage attrition. The advantage of going last is knowing what the enemy has already done and react to it specifically if desired or do something in regards to what they ignored. This is not a bug of initiative. This is a feature. Going last in initiative is not a horrible place to be. Your proposed change makes it so.
sblaxman 02-21-08, 12:38 AM	Unless you are PVPing though, unless it's a really bad DM, metagaming shouldn't be a problem... the DM isn't going to declare to the players what the NPCs actions are going to be, the players must declare to the DM what their actions will be, but he only declares to him/her-self. If the DM has his mage cast teleport to avoid a declared attack.... start looking for a new DM because that's not a good sign of things to come
Anders Rasmussen 02-21-08, 10:30 AM	Uh, that was lots of replies. I think sblaxman got it right on the whole meta-gaming think: the DM will not tell his tactic and off-cause not meta-game more than what you usually do to tell the story (at least thats how it works in the school of DM'ing where I learn roleplay). The initiative order will (as it is now) be constant through the entire encounter - unless ready/delays are used. The fact that the PC "knows" what each other are doing you can see as a sort of "tactic" ability - and if it doesn't fit, you can have the make notes instead of saying it out loud. In fact that might be a good idea anyhow. The reason why I'm interested in the real-time part is because that have been an issue in my campaign at the lasted. One thing I have done to ease this, is to let the one player roll dices and calculate while I ask what the next player is doing - it saves a tiny bit of time. This I thing could be greatly enhanced with this system - when players declare what they are doing they also roll the dice necessary, but without telling the result before I ask. That might save some time. But your arguments about prolonging a battle due to wasted actions is good. Thanks for the input! Ill keep on considering, more comments are off-cause welcome. thx Anders
sblaxman 02-21-08, 10:59 AM	I've never played that way (roll before your turn) I know a lot of people who do (especially if you look at play-by-post online games)... if you know your players and don't have any serious cheaters, that can really speed things up. When you look at play by posts, players make their posts like this I attack X attack roll 1 = 15+4(bab) =Hit AC 19, damage (1d8) = 5 attack roll 2 = 3+4 = Hit AC 7, damage = (1d8) 3 They roll their attack and damage together, and report it at the same time they declare their attack, the GM then declares if a hit was made, and if so, the given damage is applied. If you have a shifty player... this may encourage some dishonesty, but hopefully if you are playing with a good group this can help speed things up. I think the reason I never did it was I usually GM small groups (2-4) so things moved along quickly enough
Shamsael 02-21-08, 10:08 PM	Hey all, I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I would like to here your opinion on a minor change to the initiative system. The idea comes from when I played Whampire: The Masquerade and is a write off of the system used there. The idea: You start by rolling initiative as normal The big change is then, that the character with the LOWEST initiative goes first i DECLARING (not doing) what he/she wants to do this round. Then all this rounds actions take place at the same time - starting with the highest initiative - more or less as it all ready is, but with the change that, say, a player declared that he would strike a monster and that monster is then slain before his initiative, then his action is more or less wasted. Thats the simple idea. My questions is the: Would this work in DnD - or are there anything in the system that makes this a sub-optimal solution? Do you think this could be time-saving? Any remark is appreciated! Thanks, Anders I always use WoD style initiative in my games.
zeratulcraft 02-21-08, 11:52 PM	I always use WoD style initiative in my games. Dex + Wits vs DC 6?
Master_Vega 02-22-08, 01:58 PM	This reminds me of Battletech's "Strategy" rolls. Lowest roller moves first; highest roller attacks first. It's complicated, annoying, and slows things down incredibly... at least that's my experience. You might fair better than my group, but for us all it did was start a lot of arguments over lost actions... Oh, and it killed the battletech campaign before the plot could take off. :P Lost actions annoy players. >_>
Anders Rasmussen 02-23-08, 08:36 AM	I always use WoD style initiative in my games. Hey Shamseal, could you give me a short (or long) view of how you run the initiative "WoD style". It's been a while since I played any WoD story and my memory is lacking a bit. - What differs from the things I listed in the fist post? - Are there anything in the DnD-system that gets messed op by this tweak? Thanks! Anders