D&D 5E Who has tried out the UA Greyhawk initiative rules variant?

[abirdcall]

I have wanted to use it, others that like it say it speeds up combat, but it seems to increase complexity though. I don't like how missile weapon attacks are favored above melee attacks in system that is already very generous to missile attacks. I think the point is that it forces the players to think about what they want to do ahead of time, and reduces the 'gamest' ability of players to all act before or between opponents and set up devastating one, two combos. I'm not sure if it is worth the additional mental load though.

To reduce the complexity my group just uses 1 die total and movement doesn't add a die.

The ranged characters in my group tend to have a tough time. Disadvantage is rough. The d4 vs d8 is there to give the ranged character a better chance of getting a shot off before the enemy creatures close in on them.

 

[Gadget]

Well, I like the fact that movement costs a die, that gives them missile characters more of a chance to get a shot off before enemies close to melee; I just think shooting an arrow should be roughly on par with swinging a sword. So, if you are sitting there with a bow & arrow, and someone is 30' away, you would have about the same initiative die as he does, plus he would have the movement die. This way you're likely to have a higher initiative, but it is not a sure thing and you have to ask yourself if it is worth it. On the other hand, if he is right next to you, it is an much more up in the air if you could get your shot off before he smacks you.

But I'll have to wait and see how when and if I ever try it.

 

[abirdcall]

Well, I like the fact that movement costs a die, that gives them missile characters more of a chance to get a shot off before enemies close to melee; I just think shooting an arrow should be roughly on par with swinging a sword. So, if you are sitting there with a bow & arrow, and someone is 30' away, you would have about the same initiative die as he does, plus he would have the movement die. This way you're likely to have a higher initiative, but it is not a sure thing and you have to ask yourself if it is worth it. On the other hand, if he is right next to you, it is an much more up in the air if you could get your shot off before he smacks you.

But I'll have to wait and see how when and if I ever try it.

If the goal with the movement die is to make ranged attacks happen first then having a d4 vs d8 roll accomplishes that.

Making movement cost initiative is incentivizing ranged characters to not move on their turn. This creates more static combats and frustrated players who might have no targets or ones behind cover. So what ends up happening is that ranged characters also spend the die on movement and we're back to where we were.

Or in other words, not being able to move is not fun so rules should not incentivize against it. That brings us closer to 3e where movement came at a huge cost.

 

[Gadget]

If the goal with the movement die is to make ranged attacks happen first then having a d4 vs d8 roll accomplishes that.

But what if they're standing right next to you? Why should ranged attacks be cheaper? If you say having movement cost a die results in static combats where people just stand in place and wail on each other, ala 3e, I guess I'll take your word for it. IMHO, ranged combat already has some nice benefits in 5e, depending on initial encounter distance and campaign play style; and if you want to do it in combat, you should have some way of keeping the bad guys off you such as meatshields, cover, difficult terrain, or enough distance between you and your targets that you don't have to worry.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Maybe give range attacks in a threatened area an extra die

 

[mellored]

It does a good job keeping things unpredictable, without slowing combat down too much. Still slightly slower, but since there is no modifiers, and everyone can roll at once, it's not bad.

Though I agree that range attacks don't need to be faster. The fact that melee need to move adds enough of a penalty.

IMO:
Dodge, disengage, help, item interaction, move less than half your speed d4.
Move more than half your speed d6
Melee d8
Ranged d10
Magic d12

This way, ranged attacks happen before move and melee (75%), as do spells (65%).
But once within 5', melee has the edge (65%).

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, I like the fact that movement costs a die, that gives them missile characters more of a chance to get a shot off before enemies close to melee; I just think shooting an arrow should be roughly on par with swinging a sword. So, if you are sitting there with a bow & arrow, and someone is 30' away, you would have about the same initiative die as he does, plus he would have the movement die. This way you're likely to have a higher initiative, but it is not a sure thing and you have to ask yourself if it is worth it. On the other hand, if he is right next to you, it is an much more up in the air if you could get your shot off before he smacks you.

I agree that closing with impunity is a problem.

I think the real problem is that ranges (proportional to typical table/map sizes...especially when you cut off most of the table with players' books, etc.) and encounter distances are so proportionally small. At least IME, unless the archers have meatshields, they have great difficulty avoiding melee.

I've lately been toying with the idea of adding some kinds of reactions or threatening mechanic for missile attacks, or heck, just a reaction-based initiative system like Two-Hour Wargames. But there are a lot of entanglements with the D&D vs. what THW uses. (Like when two figures engage in melee, they go until one of them drops.)

The basics would be something like:

ready means: not surprised, aware of other units, and hasn't acted yet this round.

1: Units who are ready* and wish to act first roll for initiative, highest becomes active.
2: Active unit either take an action or move until interrupted.
3: Interrupting movement: when an actor moves into LOS of a ready unit, it may move up to an additional 10'. The sighting unit may then make a ranged attack, if it still has LOS. Similarly, if the sighting unit is less than 15' away from the acting unit. The Sighting unit may move to engage the active unit. Interrupting the active unit this way costs the sighting unit its action.
4: The active unit may continues to finish its movement and actions. This may provoke OAs from units that engaged it, if they still have a reaction.
5: If there are still ready units, GOTO step one. (Maybe have units that still have move or bonus actions do a cleanup phase?)
6: Is combat still happening? If not, new round! (makes everyone ready, again.)

I dunno. Just spit-balling.

 

[Ratskinner]

double post

 

[abirdcall]

But what if they're standing right next to you? Why should ranged attacks be cheaper?

In that case the ranged character is getting disadvantage.

you should have some way of keeping the bad guys off you such as meatshields, cover, difficult terrain, or enough distance between you and your targets that you don't have to worry.

It's one of those things. If enemy creatures are so easily controlled then they're not much of a threat anyway. In battles where the enemy creatures are a threat then ranged attackers have huge liabilities. It only take 2 or 3 combats per long rest of disadvantage to really show its limitations.

Meatshields - It's easy for creatures to just run around them. The more ranged characters there are the fewer of these you will have in the party. Someone has to take the hit
Cover - Only good against other ranged creatures. And it's bad for the ranged attacker. Most enemy creatures will be getting +2 for cover anyway for shooting through friendly PCs
Difficult Terrain - Many creatures have better movement than PCs. Difficult Terrain is more likely to work against the PCs. Just last session the PCs at my table encountered some orcs in a cave. They get a bonus dash and were on the ranged characters in the first round. There was difficult terrain but it didn't matter.
Enough Distance - The game is Dungeons & Dragons. Playing in open fields is the exception.

 

[dco]

It has sped up combat quite a bit at my table.
You can't just throw out claims like that.

Oh, I see this forum has some stupid feature that allows people to quote you and disappear like thiefs.

Yes, I can claim what I want as you are doing. In this case if a round takes x time, a round + initiative rolls will take x+y time, this is something intrinsic, not sure what's wrong with what I said.

If the combat is faster for you it is because for whatever reason you are doing your turns faster and supposedly you could do the same thing without extra initiative rolls. It's also something odd, not only you have to roll initiative and copy the results somewhere, you have to choose what kind of actions you could do and later on your turn you have to decide what you do as always but with some auto-imposed restrictions, so this system needs more decision points. It can also imply that you lose the round doing nothing, this will make the round faster but the combat slower and it can have serious roleplaying implications, for example if you didn't choose range or move your hero can stay watching with a brainfart how the son of the king is killed and then if he loses initiative how the same enemy kills another son. If you delay you lose the round, this means more time of combat. Effects change to the end or the beginning of the round, this changes how spells work and players controlling casters need time to experience the system and parse the spell descriptions.