Initiative Question

[King Nate]

Originally Posted by fba827

It's something you _could_ do, just make sure everyone knows it at the start of the campaign (rather than a mid-campaign change) so that people can choose powers, feats, etc accordingly.

(As for the improved initiatiev feat, you'd either have to ban it or else say your total initiative modifier (dex + feats) can be used as a bonus or penalty, your choice, every round - so they might sometimes add when trying to go early or subtract when trying to go at the end)...

but my point is, if you did want to do it, just make sure it's stated at the start of the campaign so that people can make educated character choices for the varient that you're introducing.

I am one who always explains any variant to the rules that I add/subtract from the game. I may even go a little overboard with it at times. So there are no worries there.

I just figured that if there was no mechanical change by rolling initiative each round then I would go with that, however seeing how I would have to check each feat, ritual, power, magical item, monster, and rule for every sourcebook we add to the campaign as we play…I don’t think I need that headache. Plus I do have a couple new people going to be playing and I don’t want to confuse them too much with, “you need to role high everywhere except during initiative where you must decide if you want to role high or low.”

Thanks for helping me make a decision though.

Originally Posted by Gruns

Hmm. I was going to add my 2 cents to this thread, but after the attitude spewed forth in the post prior to this one, I've changed my mind. Ugh.
Later,
Gruns

Sorry Gruns if I somehow offended you, as I stated in that prior post I was posting that answer to all the boards I proposed this question to. There are a couple of boards that totally ripped me apart for even suggesting the idea and I did my best to hold back on my attitude when writing my response, knowing I would be posting it on all the boards.

Originally Posted by Mengu

For some characters, this would be 90% of their powers. Also important is the fact that the power balance of certain powers rely on the fact that they will be effective for two rounds (this round and next). Upsetting that balance makes a lot of powers less desirable for the players.

However I think it would make for an interesting addition to the tactical aspect of the game. Though I am not going to use it since I decided to not roll for initiative each round.

Now that I am thinking about it, I could create a magical trap or an area affected by some kind of time warp that causes everyone to roll for initiative each round. Only for that one combat encounter (most likely an end boss). This would have two effects, makes the encounter more difficult and test out how the rolling for initiative system works.

[Plane Sailing]

Glad you've come to a conclusion that will work for you. Enjoy the game!

Cheers

[Dracorat]

Originally Posted by Gruns

Hmm. I was going to add my 2 cents to this thread, but after the attitude spewed forth in the post prior to this one, I've changed my mind. Ugh.
Later,
Gruns

I concur. I had a few things I may have said in response, but there's no sense in engaging such hostility. I only post now to add my voice to the discontent.

[James McMurray]

Originally Posted by Gruns

Hmm. I was going to add my 2 cents to this thread, but after the attitude spewed forth in the post prior to this one, I've changed my mind. Ugh.
Later,
Gruns

Ditto. Being pompous at one board and blaming it on treatment received at another is just plain lazy.

[Malachor]

This is strange. The group I play in has always rolled for intitiative, all the way back to 1st ed Ad&d.
I can't imagine not rolling at all.
What it does do is, get you more involved (my opinion) in what's happening. When you roll low (well, when your inititiative result is low), and take some serious damage, then you really focus on hoping that you'll roll high next round. If you do, it's very good .
So it adds more tension to the game, rather than going the same time every round, which I think is boring.
Also, what happens if you always go last? There's a chance that you die before you do anything, whereas, by rolling each time, you may be able to kill your opponent before he kills you.
So if you don't roll each round, you have to aim for a high initiaive no matter what, when, by rolling, a high inititative bonus is nice, but not necessary.
Let me ask this, if you and your opponent are the same class/race/etc, who will win the fight(when not rolling)? Would I be wrong in saying the person who goes first?
But, by rolling, there's a chance, that all other things being equal, it could be the person who rolled last in the first round, but first in the last round. So there's a chance for either person to win/survive, not just the first to act.
Now, we haven't played many 4th ed sessions, but we never stress over the powers we get based on our initiative. We get the ones we like the sound of, if they don't work, retrain them.
just my 2 cp.

[James McMurray]

In cyclic initiative and a system that measures things based on turns instead of rounds there's effectively no such thing as going last after the first round. You may be last in the round, but you're always going before the first person in the next round.

Once everyone has gone once, you're going on your turn. If it's still important to you to "go first," you can ready an action to go during the "first" person's turn. You lose no actions, and now your initiative is set to just before theirs, so you're going first instead of last.

[gtoasnt3]

Our group has been playing 4e for 8 months now and we roll initiative each round (I didn't read the rule correctly and assumed you should). What has happened is that the PC's will "hold" at times to continue any effect they don't want to break. It really adds a level of complexity to combat, and they have just started to make it work well. Now that I have read this post and re-read the rules, I'll only roll once and see what the guys prefer.

Again, this site has been more valuable than anything out there. Thanks!

[James McMurray]

It looks like you may have missed another rule as well, since delaying doesn't normally let you maintain a power longer. Check out PHB page __, though the basic idea of it is that delaying doesn't extend beneficial effects or cause negative effects to end early.

[gtoasnt3]

Originally Posted by James McMurray

It looks like you may have missed another rule as well, since delaying doesn't normally let you maintain a power longer. Check out PHB page __, though the basic idea of it is that delaying doesn't extend beneficial effects or cause negative effects to end early.

Thanks, James. I guess that's a problem with my group and I. Most of us have been playing since the late 70's and we "read" the rules without reading them. I just brought out the PHB and will be re-reading a ton prior to playing this Friday.

[Dracorat]

As a DM, I allow a person to hold action, but on the turn that they declare such a hold (readied or delayed, doesn't matter) - I resolve sustains and ongoing effects.

If anything I might penalize them because we re-evaluate all effects again if they delayed when they choose to action. (But not readied as that's not really a full combatant round, just the execution of a held action.)

[Ulorian]

Originally Posted by Gruns

Hmm. I was going to add my 2 cents to this thread, but after the attitude spewed forth in the post prior to this one, I've changed my mind. Ugh.
Later,
Gruns

I agree. Putting someone on an ignore list because they've disagreed with you? That's more than a little strange...

These boards are generally a friendly and welcoming place... let's keep them that way.