Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5573116" data-attributes="member: 54877">Side versus side on initiative would be a good way to keep it simple and fast.&nbsp; The one drawback to 3E (and 4E) initiative is that the firm turn order can bog down player reactions.&nbsp; I keep a tight lid on it using index cards for initiative, and by ad hoc combining of several players' turns.&nbsp; I'm not more specfic on how side versus side initiative should be done in your version, though, because it depends on whether there is anything else you want to achieve.&nbsp; For example, if you want the early D&amp;D flavor of initiative making spell casting risky, then that leads to different solutions than if you don't. &nbsp;Races, I think you've pretty much got to have dwarves and elves in some form.&nbsp; And if you do that, might as well have halflings too, in an RC clone.&nbsp; However, I don't see any problem in making them more generic in mechanics, and then having some optional flavor.&nbsp; Elves are the &quot;fey&quot; race.&nbsp; Then you have &quot;high elves&quot;, &quot;wood elves&quot;, and perhaps some more exotic alternatives.&nbsp; Dwarves are the &quot;underground race&quot;.&nbsp; Sometimes they are more sinister, sometimes not.&nbsp; Halflings are the &quot;short race&quot;, and obviously can get replaced by gnomes, but also kobolds.&nbsp; Then ask the DM (or group) to pick one flavor for each mechanical package, up front.&nbsp; It's a little extra space and complexity, but once you start the game, it's done.&nbsp;&nbsp;This however, seems like too much complexity, too recurring.&nbsp; Also, the whole N+1 thing is covering for something that could be mathematically simulated with a simpler model.&nbsp; If you really like the idea of the fighter getting to choose attacks, say that he gets N attacks all the time.&nbsp; He has to allocate how many go to a given target before he rolls.&nbsp; Some of these will miss, in any kind of tough fight.&nbsp; In an easy fight, who cares?&nbsp; The fighter benefit comes in that after he rolls, he can decide to allocate the misses to any relevant target.&nbsp;I think the handling time will be less intrusive in play that way than how you have it, though only playtesting would say for sure.&nbsp; Of course, you could always go with a simple damage bonus by level, too.&nbsp; But if you want a little fighter choice, some variation on your idea is a good option.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5573116, member: 54877"] Side versus side on initiative would be a good way to keep it simple and fast. The one drawback to 3E (and 4E) initiative is that the firm turn order can bog down player reactions. I keep a tight lid on it using index cards for initiative, and by ad hoc combining of several players' turns. I'm not more specfic on how side versus side initiative should be done in your version, though, because it depends on whether there is anything else you want to achieve. For example, if you want the early D&D flavor of initiative making spell casting risky, then that leads to different solutions than if you don't. Races, I think you've pretty much got to have dwarves and elves in some form. And if you do that, might as well have halflings too, in an RC clone. However, I don't see any problem in making them more generic in mechanics, and then having some optional flavor. Elves are the "fey" race. Then you have "high elves", "wood elves", and perhaps some more exotic alternatives. Dwarves are the "underground race". Sometimes they are more sinister, sometimes not. Halflings are the "short race", and obviously can get replaced by gnomes, but also kobolds. Then ask the DM (or group) to pick one flavor for each mechanical package, up front. It's a little extra space and complexity, but once you start the game, it's done. This however, seems like too much complexity, too recurring. Also, the whole N+1 thing is covering for something that could be mathematically simulated with a simpler model. If you really like the idea of the fighter getting to choose attacks, say that he gets N attacks all the time. He has to allocate how many go to a given target before he rolls. Some of these will miss, in any kind of tough fight. In an easy fight, who cares? The fighter benefit comes in that after he rolls, he can decide to allocate the misses to any relevant target. I think the handling time will be less intrusive in play that way than how you have it, though only playtesting would say for sure. Of course, you could always go with a simple damage bonus by level, too. But if you want a little fighter choice, some variation on your idea is a good option. [/QUOTE]

Verification