Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Balancing or other rulesproblems with Initiative, remarks needed.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Uller" data-source="post: 230276" data-attributes="member: 413"><p>Seems to me that this would make it too easy to avoid being hit by a full attack even if you "lose" initiative. It also makes it easy for characters with mulitiple attacks to roll very high initiatives. </p><p></p><p>How about this: Roll once for initiative. On your count, if you decide to do a FA, you take one attack. Then you get your other attacks on the following segments. So a fighter with 3 attacks rolls a 18. On his turn, he decides he's gonna do a full attack. He attacks once on 18, 17 and 16. If at 17, he decides he no longer wishes to do a full attack, he can do an Move or MEA instead. This way, if he beats his opponent's init by only a one or two, his opponent will get an opportunity to react, but if he beats him by a lot, then his opponent has no opportunity to react. You can make the increment greater to make it even easier to react(2, 4, maybe even 5).</p><p></p><p>Personally, I've not found a problem with the rule as is...</p><p></p><p>Yes, an arcane spell caster that becomes subject to a full attack is meat with the current system, but I think that is kinda the point. That's what Mirror Image, Blur, Displacement, Fly, Levitate, Expeditious Retreat, Stoneskin, Shield, etc. etc. are for! </p><p></p><p>If you get two or three of these spells in place, it is difficult for fighters to do much damage before you can react.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Uller, post: 230276, member: 413"] Seems to me that this would make it too easy to avoid being hit by a full attack even if you "lose" initiative. It also makes it easy for characters with mulitiple attacks to roll very high initiatives. How about this: Roll once for initiative. On your count, if you decide to do a FA, you take one attack. Then you get your other attacks on the following segments. So a fighter with 3 attacks rolls a 18. On his turn, he decides he's gonna do a full attack. He attacks once on 18, 17 and 16. If at 17, he decides he no longer wishes to do a full attack, he can do an Move or MEA instead. This way, if he beats his opponent's init by only a one or two, his opponent will get an opportunity to react, but if he beats him by a lot, then his opponent has no opportunity to react. You can make the increment greater to make it even easier to react(2, 4, maybe even 5). Personally, I've not found a problem with the rule as is... Yes, an arcane spell caster that becomes subject to a full attack is meat with the current system, but I think that is kinda the point. That's what Mirror Image, Blur, Displacement, Fly, Levitate, Expeditious Retreat, Stoneskin, Shield, etc. etc. are for! If you get two or three of these spells in place, it is difficult for fighters to do much damage before you can react. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Balancing or other rulesproblems with Initiative, remarks needed.
Top