Challenge to WotC: Initiative

[Odhanan]

Thane ! Yay ! That's soooo much better.

(now, I need to translate it in french...)

It's "Thane" too in French.

 

[Aloïsius]

It's "Thane" too in French.

Well, the word has been used without translation in a few books (LotR IIRC) because it looks like there is no translation, or too many.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Pretty sure there won't be rules for bulldozers (sleeping minotaurs? ), M16s, fighter jets, and El trains.

No bulldozers, M16s, fighter jets, or trains?

What about Eberron???

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

No bulldozers, M16s, fighter jets, or trains?

What about Eberron???

M16s

for firearms there's WarlordRalts and his adaptation.

fighter jets

Bastion Press's Airships can do fairly well for this as can Goodman Games Sky Captain's Handbook though you need to up the velocity a bit.

trains

Eberron's lightning rail handles that part

bulldozers

sorry haven't seen any lately but it could be done fairly easily based on say a juggernaut

 

[Olaf the Stout]

See, I'm not sure why the two abilities are inappropriate when comboed. If it's not unbalancing for PCs to have such abilities, why is it such a shock that there might be more than one. If two PCs are ganged up on a bad guy and using special powers on him, then "attack him at -5 or attack me and take an AoP" sounds pretty reasonable. I would concede they might be kind of nasty if they always work, and you brought them down on a boss monster. THAT would be kind of rough. But cool. If I play the monsters smart and do my best to take people down, the PCs should get rewarded for clever teamwork.

But if the party is fighting a "solo" monster, it isn't exactly tactics on the players part then is it. I think I need more details about the rest of the game to actually say whether or not it is broken. However, at a glance, I can see how it could be a little too powerful.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Initiative will be familiar to anyone who has played a role-playing game. But will be easier and funner, make life simpler for the DM, and give players more options.

Hilarious! Although I do detect a "slight" hint of cynicism!

Olaf the Stout

 

[Odhanan]

Well, the word has been used without translation in a few books (LotR IIRC) because it looks like there is no translation, or too many.

You can add pretty much all the translated RuneQuest books as well, or at least, all the ones mentioning "Taureau Tempête" and/or Orlanth (which is to say, a very large majority). So yes, that's not a huge amount of books, but still, there is a pattern of translation to well, not translate the term at all, actually (and it's perfectly pronounceable in French too, as [tane]).

 

[zoroaster100]

I don't see why WOTC can't release bits of information about rules like initiative, slowly, in order to hype the new edition rules. I don't buy the resposne from WOTC that they can't reveal one bit without explaining everything so it makes sense. That is plainly contradicted by the reality of how 3.0 and 3.5 were released. It sounded like a poor excuse. So I hope they do reveal something about initiative, or else some other bits of real rules. If the rules are still so much in flux that they can't share anything about them, then why telling us about it this early in the process?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Because we all know dares always work on corporations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because we all know dares always work on corporations.

Not a dare...a challenge.

Heck, not even much of a challenge.

Initiative ought to be fairly simple, interacting with other mechanics (obviously), but not requiring those mechanics to be known. It shouldn't require anything ulta-secret about race, class, or mithral pieces to be divulged.

In effect, it is the absolutely simplest request for a real mechanic that I could think of. And, in this particular case, "Just like 3.5" might be an appropriate response that shouldn't strain anyone's fingers to type.

RC