D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Argyle King]

To determine sequencing of events and actions.

Where all the WotC editions blow it is that they assume whatever a character does starts and ends on its rolled initiative - hence stop-motion combat - rather than using rolled initiative as a segmented measure of time within the round. A move action should start on your rolled init but not end until however long it takes you to travel your intended distance. All spells should have casting times where you start on your init and finish some number of segments later. And so on.

Re-rolling init each round preserves the fog-of-war aspect and shatters the too-predictable nature of strict turn-based init.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I am interested in hearing more about that.

I backed the OSRIC 3rd Edition, and I believe that what you mention is how initiative is handled.

OSRIC 3 - BackerKit OSRIC 3

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not entirely opposed to that, but I was allowing for the possibility of things like the Improved Initiative Feat, possibly a version of Haste that adds +d6 to initiate, or maybe "Monk feature: Mystic Reflexes - at the beginning of an encounter, you may (without using an action,) spend a ki point to add your flurry die to your initiative check."

Improved Initiative feat: bye bye. Ditto whatever that Monk thing is that allows modification to initiative.

Haste gives you more attacks per round but shouldn't affect initiative (by the way, IMO multiple attacks per round should each have their own separate initiative).

I've learned from experience that anything that helps initiative is massively overpowered in any system where init is rerolled each round.

 

[Argyle King]

Improved Initiative feat: bye bye. Ditto whatever that Monk thing is that allows modification to initiative.

Haste gives you more attacks per round but shouldn't affect initiative (by the way, IMO multiple attacks per round should each have their own separate initiative).

I've learned from experience that anything that helps initiative is massively overpowered in any system where init is rerolled each round.

I made up the Monk example, as a way that the current approach to D&D might be applied differently.

Currently, D&D doesn't re-roll every round. As mentioned in my other reply, I'm open to doing it differently.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But D&D is a specific community who likes OP magic and OP actions and goes nuts if you threaten too much of it..

Good thing there are many D&D-like games that aren't called D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's... not a great analogy.

Looks reasonable to me. Players IME do vote yes for power-ups alarmingly often.

 

[Minigiant]

Good thing there are many D&D-like games that aren't called D&D.

Yeah but this is a discussion about D&D.

When you are designing a nonD&D game, you can change stuff with less backlash.

When DH2, DS2, or Shadowdark 2 comes out in 10 years, they'll get pushback to change then.

 

[Reynard]

Re-rolling init each round preserves the fog-of-war aspect and shatters the too-predictable nature of strict turn-based init.

I do that in my 2024 game, as well as having every creature roll independently (I am running using Fantasy grounds so it is no more overhead for me). I like chaos on the battlefield and this small change really increases that.

 

[Reynard]

Looks reasonable to me. Players IME do vote yes for power-ups alarmingly often.

I meant calling players "children."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah but this is a discussion about D&D.

When you are designing a nonD&D game, you can change stuff with less backlash.

When DH2, DS2, or Shadowdark 2 comes out in 10 years, they'll get pushback to change then.

But this is also an imaginary wishes thread, where people get to imagine a universe where Hasbro makes the game they want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I meant calling players "children."

Fair enough, although the analogy reads much better if you do.