Dogbrain said:
Ah, yes, of course. There is UTTERLY NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY MIDDLE GROUND AT ALL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
ONLY THE EXTREMES ARE POSSIBLE!!!
At least, this is what you are claiming.
Prove that there is no possibility for anything but the two extremes you cite. You are merely inventing a strawman.
I'm not sure if I can "prove" it, since there are may be factors and mechanisms I am not able to think of, and playing preferences vary, so it would be like trying to prove that chocolate tastes better than strawberry. Still, here's an attempt at analysing the various options:
1. Delay mechanism. The basic idea is that actions take varying amounts of time, and after taking an action, a character has to delay for a longer or shorter period of time before taking another action.
Each action needs a delay modifier. If you want to simulate the effects of different weapon speeds, each weapon needs a delay modifier (although this can be abstracted by classifying weapons into slow, normal and fast). If you want to add the effect of varying casting times, each spell needs a delay modifier (although this can be similarly abstracted or fixed by formula).
If you want to add randomness, some die roll is necessary. It may not be a d20, but a larger dice (assuming the same delay modifiers) adds more randomness to the process.
The simplest way to keep track of when each character acts is to keep adding up delay modifiers. The character with the lowest delay modifier gets to act, and then increases his delay modifer.
This, in my view, is the best way of ensuring that characters that consistently take "faster" actions get to act more often than characters that take "slower" actions.
The disadvantage to this method is that for long combats, the players and DM have to keep track of ever-increasing delay modifers for each character. Durations of spells and other effects may also be difficult to keep track of. If there is a random element, it also means more die-rolling on the part of the players and DM.
2. Re-rolling initiative, fixed initiative modifer. Characters re-roll initiative each round and act in initiative order.
As this method still adopts a round-by-round action resolution, it does not really achieve the objective of giving more actions to characters with a better initiative modifier. If the character with a higher initiative modifer wins initiative every round, we are back to the core action system of alternating actions, but with more die rolling. If the character with a higher initiative modifier loses initiative in one round, he can probably regain it the next, but in the meantime, the character with slower initiative has taken two actions (last in the previous round, first in the current) before the character with the faster initiative takes two actions (last in the current, first in the next). The net effect is still that each character generally gets one action for each one taken by his opponent.
There can be some tactical advantage to the character with the higher initiative modifier as he can deliberately delay until his opponent has acted and still have a good chance of going first the next round, but some may take the view that this makes the round system even more artificial.
3. Re-rolling initiative, varying initiative modifer. Characters re-roll initiative each round and act in initiative order. The initiative modifier in each round may vary, perhaps depending on the action taken in either the current round (you are likely to act first if you take a "faster" action) or the previous round (you are likely to act first if you took a "faster" action in the previous round).
Like re-rolling initiative with a fixed initiative modifier, this method also adopts a round-by-round action resolution, and does not really achieve the objective of giving more actions to characters who take "faster" actions. The net effect is still that each character generally gets one action for each one taken by his opponent.
This system does add an additional tactical consideration as characters can affect their initiative order by choosing to take "faster" or "slower" actions. However, some may take the view that this makes the round system even more artificial.
4. "Creeping" initiative. Characters roll initiative once, at the start of combat as normal, but actions they take during combat may increase or decrease their initiative count. Once a character's initiative count exceeds a certain target number (say, 20 + highest initiative of opponents), he can take an additional action immediately after his current action, but his initiative count is then reduced (say, by 20).
This gives a bit more advantage to characters who consistently take "faster" actions, but how much advantage would depend on the initiative rolls, the quantum of increase for a "faster" action, the target number and the initiative reduction for taking an additional action. This also adds a bit more complication as the players and DM have to modify initiative from round to round.
Given the various possibilities above (and there may be more that I have not considered) my personal preference is to stick with the core initiative system. I don't think either (2) or (3) adds much to the game, and my sense is (1) requires too much tracking for my taste. (4) may be the middle ground you're looking for, but to fully flesh out such a system (defining "faster" and "slower" actions, figuring out how much to modify initiative count for each action, etc.) is too much work for me. If you think the system has merit, you are free to expand on it if you wish.
), or something specific to the setting.
