Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

Hussar · Oct 23, 2018

Lanefan said:
Doesn't cost them an action but it does otherwise hinder them during that time; no reactions, no AoO's, etc. in the specific case of stun.

And don't forget: for each time (more or less, there might be a minor mathematical discrepancy) it does nothing this will, by law of averages, another time cost the target two actions. Stun it on a 6, it loses its initiative this round that would have been 3, then rolls 14 for next round and loses that one too.

Conversely, as you say, it could just as easily go this round 14: target action, 6: target stunned, next round 6: stun wears off, 3: target action. Dice are fun that way.

I don't know the odds of losing 0 vs 1 vs 2 actions - my gut tells me it's about 25-50-25% but I've no math to back that up.

Also noting [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION]'s post above too.

I could see this as being probably the biggest effect. It would make combat very swingy. It might be very possible for a critter to get two attacks in a row on a PC, which, potentially, can be devastating. Particularly when you factor in abilities and whatnot that mitigate attacks - Shield fighters granting disadvantage, Light Clerics using Flare, various reroll mechanics that are tied to reactions.

Not that that's necessarily bad. Just that it will likely result in more deadly combats. A monster getting to double up on effects can, potentially, be very dangerous to the party and, since it's all based on luck, it's automatically going to advantage the monsters rather than the PC's, over time.

Maxperson · Oct 23, 2018

Hriston said:
I think they provide methods for breaking ties in initiative for ease of play, so there's no ambiguity about the order of resolution. On the other hand, they put the responsibility of deciding the order resulting from a tie in the hands of the DM, so, as was mentioned up-thread, it's within the DM's purview to have ties result in simultaneous resolution.

Which is why I dubbed it the non-rule rule. If that rule didn't exist, there would literally be no difference in how initiative plays out. The DM would still make the decision, which could still result in simultaneous resolution.

Nothing, AFAIC. I'm inclined to let initiative-tied turns be resolved simultaneously, and also wouldn't be averse to treating each round as a "roughly simultaneous", six-second ball of activity, although the system may need some tweaking to accommodate that.

I look at the dex of the tied individuals and high dex goes first. If dex is tied, it's simultaneous. As I mentioned earlier, truly simultaneous actions are fairly rare.

epithet · Oct 23, 2018

Hussar said:
Also noting [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION]'s post above too.

I could see this as being probably the biggest effect. It would make combat very swingy. It might be very possible for a critter to get two attacks in a row on a PC, which, potentially, can be devastating. Particularly when you factor in abilities and whatnot that mitigate attacks - Shield fighters granting disadvantage, Light Clerics using Flare, various reroll mechanics that are tied to reactions.

Not that that's necessarily bad. Just that it will likely result in more deadly combats. A monster getting to double up on effects can, potentially, be very dangerous to the party and, since it's all based on luck, it's automatically going to advantage the monsters rather than the PC's, over time.

I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that.

billd91 · Oct 23, 2018

Lanefan said:
For effects like this, have them last exactly a round. If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up. These durations would be tracked by the player of the character that caused them, so here the Monk's player would, on init. 6 in the second round, advise the DM that the stun had worn off (unless of course it was renewed in the meantime, but you get the drift).

To cover Max's point about variable duration being more realistic (which it is), instead of having the duration be a locked-in 1 round (or 20 "segments") have the player roll a d20+10 to give how many segments the stun lasts. Stunned on 6 this round means you could snap out of it anytime between 15 next round and 16 the round after. (and don't bother telling me 5e doesn't have segments; for this, it would now)

There's some places where one can very easily bring a bit of realism back in, and re-rolling initiative to simulate the unpredictability and fog of war is one.

That's what we did in 1e and 2e and, frankly, it sucked. Effects like the monk's stun could be really good or really bad, all based on having to reroll initiative. And it wasn't one darn bit more realistic than setting the order and just running through the list cyclically. The only thing it did that might have been a positive was make turn order unpredictable - which was OK for characters that didn't have to track round-based durations.

Both systems are abstractions, but I do like the one where we deal with initiative numbers once and once only and I never really have to consult them again. I find it a lot more user friendly, both as a GM and as a player.

billd91 · Oct 23, 2018

epithet said:
I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that.

Unpredictability is, in the long run, usually bad for the PCs. They are subject to a lot of it over the course of a game since they're at the center of all action that involves it.

epithet · Oct 23, 2018

billd91 said:
Unpredictability is, in the long run, usually bad for the PCs. They are subject to a lot of it over the course of a game since they're at the center of all action that involves it.

It has been my experience that the PCs are the cause of much more unpredictability than the dice are, and they usually find annoying ways to exploit it to their advantage.

Lanefan · Oct 23, 2018

billd91 said:
That's what we did in 1e and 2e and, frankly, it sucked. Effects like the monk's stun could be really good or really bad, all based on having to reroll initiative. And it wasn't one darn bit more realistic than setting the order and just running through the list cyclically. The only thing it did that might have been a positive was make turn order unpredictable - which was OK for characters that didn't have to track round-based durations.

The very unpredictability is what makes it more realistic.

What happens when initiatives are locked in is that players start metagaming and making plans based on who goes when in the order; which should in theory be close to impossible on a chaotic fog-of-war battlefield. Re-rolling, while not completely eliminating this, serves to greatly mitigate it.

Both systems are abstractions, but I do like the one where we deal with initiative numbers once and once only and I never really have to consult them again. I find it a lot more user friendly, both as a GM and as a player.

Locking it in is easier, for sure, but sometimes the easy way isn't necessarily the best way.

Hussar · Oct 23, 2018

epithet said:
I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that.

As [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] said, anything that increases randomness benefits the DM's side of the equation. The players have to get lucky every time. The monsters only have to get lucky once. Sure, it might benefit the PC's and it likely will. But, when it helps the other side, which should also happen fairly frequently, it can radically up the difficulty of an encounter.

As far as realism goes, well, that's not a consideration for me. I accept that D&D combat is largely abstract, so, trying to make it more realistic is, to me, just not something I really want to deal with. If I did, I'd wind up rewriting the entire combat section to the point where I might as well play a game that actually has realistic combat.

5ekyu · Oct 23, 2018

epithet said:
I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that.

My experience with random init in other systems rolled turn by turn was that it attacked planning. If sequence order is at all important then it allows for planning and coordination of once known that order remains.

If you have tactics that need the cleric fo follow up with the rogue "I use guiding bolt, you have advantage and sneak you can work that out even across turns **if** the init order remains the same.

But if its random order each turn, forget it.

You reduce the scope of tactics and combo play to only "what can we get done together in this "segment of time" that exists between init rolls.

If it remains static, the focus remains on the "turns" of a character not this arbitrary not seen in character reroll tick.

I prefer to not discourage planning and coordination.

If nothing else, if I were somehowxrequired to roll random init, I would have us roll init fir THE NEXT TURN at the start of a turn.

So at any moment you know the sequence you are working thru **and** the next sequence. That at least allows you to coordinate across one init roll.

Personally I prefer far more systems which put the sequence of play order more into **choice ** control than dice control.

Hence my homebrew.

Lanefan · Oct 23, 2018

5ekyu said:
My experience with random init in other systems rolled turn by turn was that it attacked planning.

Good.

If sequence order is at all important then it allows for planning and coordination of once known that order remains.

If you have tactics that need the cleric fo follow up with the rogue "I use guiding bolt, you have advantage and sneak you can work that out even across turns **if** the init order remains the same.

But if its random order each turn, forget it.

You reduce the scope of tactics and combo play to only "what can we get done together in this "segment of time" that exists between init rolls.

If it remains static, the focus remains on the "turns" of a character not this arbitrary not seen in character reroll tick.

My contention is that the focus shouldn't be on the metagame "turns" but rather on what's happening in the fiction in the chaos of war; and that the type of planning and co-orcination you're talking about should neither be free nor easy.

I prefer to not discourage planning and coordination.

Ahead of time, sure. But once the swords and axes start flying, forget it.

If nothing else, if I were somehowxrequired to roll random init, I would have us roll init fir THE NEXT TURN at the start of a turn.

So at any moment you know the sequence you are working thru **and** the next sequence. That at least allows you to coordinate across one init roll.

Personally I prefer far more systems which put the sequence of play order more into **choice ** control than dice control.

Even if it's random they can still choose who goes when, but it would involve a lot of delaying while people waited for other turns to come up - in other words, their ability to pull off their co-ordinated plan comes at a cost of frequently acting late in the round.

But this isn't even the worst part. The worst part in cyclic init. is that the players also know when the opponent's turns are (or will after the first round), allowing them not ony to co-ordinate among themselves but to meta-plan around when the foes get to act. This problem - for problem it is - goes away if init's are rerolled each round and the DM rolls opponent init's in secret.

Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

Hussar

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

epithet

Explorer

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

epithet

Explorer

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Hussar

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Similar Threads

Related Articles