Alternate Initiative Method

[Tom B1]

This initiative System which you are considering to add more "reality" to your game is B(ad)S(olution). Sorry for my strong language, no offense but i get a bit tired to point out again and again that long/two handed weapons have far more velocity (because of weapon edge sitting on a longer Lever) and are attacking first in a RL Scenario because they have REACH.

So if you are adding modifiers to initiative it goes from this fastest to slowest:
Cocked crossbow
Bow
sling
Pike / Lance
Spear polearm quarterstaff
Two handed sword /axe greatclub / rapier (Rapier because of its insane reach, not because it is light in reality, in fact it weighs as much as a longsword)
Longsword
Mace battleaxe etc
Hand axe dagger etc Yes your dagger fighter will get attacked and hit before he get's into the reach which allows him to apply his own weapon!

Especially in your System consider this two points:

you give dexterity stat even more overpower than it already has, because it already determines base initiative

The forfeiting the Action is an as heavy toll as can be since in 5e most fighsts are only Lasting 1-4 rounds, to sit out one of these rounds without an enemy spending a resource, because of some houserule is far to much and might break game Balance.

Somewhat agree but would note:

Weapon length does give leverage, but the longer weapon also has more mass. A claymore wielded one handed is not faster than a rapier or longsword wielded one handed. The second hand is what gives you the greater leverage (more impetus to the swing).

Most D&D weapons (at least back in the AD&D days, haven't checked the 5E tables) were far overweight for the sorts of swords people fought with. The Italians did a *lot* of sword fighting through some periods of their history and the most common sword was the smallsword (and it is quite light). Their longer blades were still very light compared to what D&D claimed (I think an original longsword was 4 pounds and a 2 hander 15 pounds). Those game weights were not terribly accurate - Anything over about 3 pounds is not going to be something you can swing for very long even with strong arms in a fight. Yes, I imagine the hand-and-a-half and two handers passed that weight, but they just weren't wielded with the speed you'd want for a sword clash - two handers were either for big chops at unarmoured targets or were for chopping the heads of of pikes or the like, not for the to-and-fro of an actual sword duel.

So it's even more opaque than we usually think.

Also, many of the swords people have used as historical examples were display pieces (which is why some of the weights and notions of use were fairly incorrect, much like peoples' ideas of how hard it was to move in heavy armour like plate and mail or how short or slight knights were (based on finding a few sets of armour that suggested occupants were 5'6" with a very small waist)).

It's a pretty simple test if you are in good shape and have strong arm muscles. Put a 1 pound or 3 pound weight in your hand and swing it back and forth fairly rapidly and see how many minutes you can keep that up before you get a lot slower. I'm fairly sure for most people in good shape, that's still on the order of a minute or less if you swing vigorously and vary your swings.

Your point about adding additional potence to dexterity is also well called-out.

Plus one thing not modeled explicitly is the combat style used: Some weapons and some unarmed moves are *not initiated* but are planned reactions to enemy attacks. Aikido and most other soft arts and a few of the schools of classial sword fighting had moves that were 'he stabs, you turn away or step off, grapple his arm (or cut it with your knife)'. So in this case, you are accepting the fact you may have a shorter weapon, but he has to stick a limb out to get at you and at that point, you can counter (if you are not impaled on his sword). In fact, arnis/escrima is based on the notions of 'first in' (strike first) and 'if he gives you a limb, break it... once he has no limbs, the fight is over'. They basically can wait for an attack and then attack the limb with sticks, butterfly knives, or unarmed.

 

[MechaPilot]

This initiative System which you are considering to add more "reality" to your game . . .

Where did I ever say that was my reasoning?

. . . is B(ad)S(olution).

Not a great way to open a post you expect someone to take the time to read. Maybe you had some kind of insight in your response (I don't know, I stopped reading after that opener), but god you buried the lead. I assume, for reasons. Whatever they are. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your reason was something other than a desire to be intentionally off-putting.

 

[MechaPilot]

Your point about adding additional potence to dexterity is also well called-out.

My method in the OP doesn't include a character's DEX at all.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] #12 Well then let me apologize twice more, (once i did already in the second sentence of my original posting for using potential offensive language which you said you did not read), but i did obviously misinterpret your motivation for the your initiative System and that deserves another apology.
So please, just replace the first sentence of my posting with "If adding more realism to the game then..." or so.

With that out of the way, my original posting contained some hints about how to do it, if realism would have been the Motive.
But i also went into specifics on your system and on which parts of it i had concerns. You can still read that up if it interests you.

Another take on this, if your Motivation to alter initiative is to balance out different weapons, you might consider normalised damage e.g. all one handed weapons do 1d8 all two handed 1d12. In a way that is not so wrong, since a dagger can kill you (sometimes with one hit) as easily as a sword.

 

[Tom B1]

My method in the OP doesn't include a character's DEX at all.

Not directly. But a high dexterity is often associated with the sorts of characters wielding light or finesse weapons and those are advantaged, so a high dex not only modifiers your initiative (assuming you don't plan to ignore that bonus to initiative) and goes often hand in hand with finesse and light weapon use. So it kind of is a double potence, in that respect at least.

I've experimented with every initiative system I can think of:
Original little books, BEX, AD&D 1st, AD&D 2nd, 3.5E, some forms of dynamic initiative borrowed from other D20 games.

I've tried: D6s, D10s, D20s, declare-and-roll-modified-by-action-type, roll and pick your action when it comes up, keep the same turn to turn (one roll at the start of a fight, invariant), roll per turn, roll once for a party (per turn or per fight), roll for each party member (once at the start or each turn), etc.

Flavour can be fairly different. Throwing in weapon speed (or speeds for other actions) invariably maps well to certain parts of a fight and horribly to the other (closing with a small weapon vs. someone with a medium to large weapon with more reach should be perilous, but using weapon speed makes the dagger way more dangerous than the sword because it strikes first and then how does your spear wielder or sword wielder back off?

It's like the weapons vs. armour type (original 1st ed PHB or later simplified versions) - some groups loved this and others hated it. And there was always the question of what armour type various monsters most closely approached.... people just find the thing that they like and have to accept that any system they pick will model well some things and totally produce bogus seeming outcomes at other times. It's *really hard* to model complex situations without a complex model which is only fun if a computer handles all the details...

Your method can work. If you and your players like it, go ahead.

Myself, my most use system was that which was present in the 2nd edition Player's Option: Combat & Tactics book. We used minis and it integrated pretty well. We allowed aborts (like to 'dive for cover' or the like) but we liked players stating a plan at the start of each round (both for coordination and because the time is supposed to be short so you ought to not waffle too much) and then roll.

Rolling 1D10 or 1D20 with no mods but dex is simple. It also works well enough.

Good luck in any event.

 

[Jonathon Robinson]

Have you considered the "Ready an Action" action? It seems like you're readying your action at the start of every round of combat, before initiative is rolled. So will you allow conditions such as "when the monster walks through the door I cast my cantrip" and what will you do if the trigger has already passed by the time the player's initiative comes up?

When do death savings throws occur? 1d10+1d8? What if they get healed (or expect to be healed) before their initiative begins? Should they declare their move as if they will be healed? What if the healer rolls a lower initiative?

Casters don't really get "hosed," but they are more likely to act later. The +1d4 does help offset some of the spell level penalty for low-level spells (which was my intent). If we assume an average d4 die result of 2.5, the caster is left with a +1 modifier for a first level spell and a 0 modifier for a second level spell. It's only for spells above second level that the caster starts to (on average) have a negative modifier.

Heavy weapon users get a 2.5 modifier so casters will typically be much slower (with non-cantrips). If that is your intent fine, but note that it is worse than the DMG variant by ~2.5 on average. It also seems that light weapons get a pretty hefty bonus (average 6.5). Running up to and stabbing a spell caster with your short sword will be the winning move 75% of the time against a level 1 spell (whose caster doesn't move), or 86% of the time against a level 3 spell. Monks will be rewarded greatly here. Some casters can potentially "cheat the system" by throwing a dagger before casting their bonus action spell. Maybe that is the intent... but a cleric who really wants to make sure his healing goes off before the monster kills his buddy would rather stand still, throw a dagger and cast healing word than run up to the wounded and use cure wounds. The initiative difference is pretty significant (1d10+1d12 ~ 11 versus 1d6+1d4-1 ~ 5). Administering a potion would be much faster than cure wounds.

Spells above cantrip will always be slower than a heavy weapon attack. The worst possible non-spell action you can take is move and attack with heavy weapon. (1d6+1d4 ~ 6). This would be on par with casting a level 2 spell while standing still (1d10+1d4-2 ~ 6). The casters will typically go last which I think will hose the casters (especially the healers if they are hoping to save someone).


If you are trying to get the players to think more tactically and spend more time considering things like "what happens if the monster moves..." or "should I prepare that heal spell in case the barbarian gets killed" then this will get them to do that. If you are trying to get the players to work together, perhaps the lightweight "side initiative" variant is what you are looking for (where the players go in any order they choose).

I personally don't like this variant because, as a player, anything that slows combat is frustrating because it just means I'm waiting that much longer for my turn. I think the encouragement of higher order tactics will slow things down more than the die rolls ever could.

Overall, if you're trying to turn the game into D&D Tactics then it's a good variant. If not then I would ask what are you trying to accomplish with this variant?