Don't make me roll for initiative.........again

[3catcircus]

This forces the DM (or players) to write down actual initiatives, either ahead of time or when the player declares Summon Monster.

With the core system, the order is what is important. The actual initiative numbers are totally irrelevant except for determining that first order. Once the order is determined, then the numbers have no more meaning, then or in future rounds.

Yet another bookkeeping exercise for the variant system.

Yes - the DM would have to record a number... the book-keeping falls on the DM, not the player.

We both know that since there are a lot of game rules that need tweaking with this variant rule, that it was not seriously (or probably at all) playtested. There are at least a half dozen screwy things mentioned in this thread alone that this variant messes up or forces extra work on: CDG, True Strike, Delays, even Grappling. For example, I delay and then grapple you at the end of round one and pin you at the beginning of round two. This would totally prevent any arcane spell caster from getting off any spell because once he is pinned, he cannot cast at all. Period. End of story. Dead Wizard.

This would be the ultimate anti-arcane caster tactic and would result in new feats, items, and spells to counter it.

And, the NPCs do not even have to Delay to do this. Sooner or later, the luck of the initiative dice will allow the NPCs to do this.

That is not the big problem. The big problem is back to back actions. Just like 3E Haste was broken and later fixed in 3.5 because of the extra action it gave, this too is broke. And, for the exact same reason.

There is a very important reason WotC fixed 3E Haste.

We are not talking about delaying into the next round. We are talking about delaying late into the current round and then rolling init next round and going early the next round.

Again, only if it rolls into the next round. This scenario is non-sequitor to the discussion. The problem case is when the opponent's Readying resolves later in the current round and then the opponent re-rolls an early init in the next round.

What you quoted was not big problems. What I stated was.

The True Strike problem, the Coup De Grace problem, the anti-wizard Grappling problem, these are all real problems because they totally change how the game is played.

This also will result in more PC deaths and TPKs. Why? Because the PCs will be in nearly every battle in the game. Most NPCs will tend to be in only one or two per NPC. So, it matters not how many times NPCs get screwed by the initiative dice Gods, the PCs only have to get screwed once in order to die.

Low init enemy moves up and gets one swing on the PC Wizard on round one. On round two, he rolls lucky and gets a high init. He then gets a full round attack on the Wizard and manages to crit once or twice. Dead PC Wizard and the PC Wizard did not get any actions in between round one and round two.

Opps.

In the current initiative system, the only way for the PC Wizard to not get a chance to react to that situation is if the opponent somehow manages to incapacitate the Wizard in some manner. But even then, the PC Wizard's allies typically get a chance to react (unless all of them are incapacitated).

This type of thing can happen every few rounds when rolling init each round. It's all a matter of how the Init Dice Gods are smiling or frowning, but sooner or later, a PC is screwed.

Quite frankly, these very set of problems are some of the reasons (along with the time and bookkeeping rolling every round takes) why the 3E designers changed the system from random rolling init each round to a circular initiative system. And I suspect the only reason they put in the variant rule was to win over 2E players who did not want to give up their 2E initiative system.

You are missing a big part of my argument: that the DM is *required* to arbitrate these things in order to make it work. Yes - if you delay or ready your action, then you could possibly go last, then first. The rules are very clear on what your initiative does as a result of delaying or readying an action. The DM *has* to arbitrate whether or not the changed initiative applies for the round following the action, or for the entire combat. I would arbitrate it only fixes his initiative for the round immediately following the action.

If the DM is unwilling or unable to do his job, then he should stick to basic initiative rules.

As to your concern over not being able to take any action as a result of an NPC getting a lucky initiative roll - "them's the breaks." I don't know why, but your post seems to indicate that PC's should never die or be incapacitated by an NPC. I almost feel like you are saying that the NPCs should be nothing more than bowling pins. Yes, there may be lucky and unlucky breaks, but to quote Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: "Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome."

We all know how most "balanced" combats go - they last a few rounds, with the NPCs barely getting any successful attacks at all while the PCs mop the floor with them. While PCs can suffer unlucky die rolls every combat, they also have every combat for the players to perfect their tactics. Most of the NPCs that the DM runs in combat are never going to be played through multiple combats in order for the DM to perfect their tactics.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Oh, I also forgot to mention that your 'fix' doesn't address the original problem, either. It just delays the problem by one round. So our combo guy delays til the end of the order, right? Then he doesn't start his combo the round he delays. Instead he does something else. The enemies go next. Then he's still at the end next round because you decided that he doesn't reroll yet. Now he starts his combo.

 

[danzig138]

This forces the DM (or players) to write down actual initiatives

When did we stop writing down actual initiatives? Guess I missed a memo.

Anyway. Concerning all these cdg-held-readied-grappling abominations, all I can think of to say is wah. Don't use it if these changes would crap your game. They wouldn't whiz on my games, and maybe they don't whiz on the OP's DM's game, except for the OP. I don't recall seeing anything about how the rest of the group felt about the issue. If the rest of the group likes the every-round-roll, then they should keep it, even if the OP doesn't like it. If they don't, then they shuold all convince the DM to change it.

It does come down to the communication thing in the end.

But I haven't seen anything yet that is "proof" that it's a bad rule. Yes, it changes the landscape of the game. That doesn't make it objectively bad though.

Seriously, some of you are acting like the existence of this rule is the equivalent of someone taking a leak in your cheerios.

 

[Mark Chance]

But I haven't seen anything yet that is "proof" that it's a bad rule. Yes, it changes the landscape of the game. That doesn't make it objectively bad though.

Hear, hear.

My last D&D game used this variant rule (which for old-schoolers like me really isn't a variant; it's the way the game was played for quite a while). How many problems did it cause? Absolutely zero.

Go back and carefully read the posts. Almost every single objection boils down to this: "It makes my character less powerful! That's not fair! And what about this? I might have to be creative and 'adjudicate' something!"

 

[KarinsDad]

By the by, I almost never agree with Karinsdad about anything, and since I am in full and wholehearted agreement with him on this, you can be sure the variant rule is bad, bad, bad.

Gee Thanks!

 

[KarinsDad]

When did we stop writing down actual initiatives? Guess I missed a memo.

You waste your time writing them down?

But I haven't seen anything yet that is "proof" that it's a bad rule. Yes, it changes the landscape of the game. That doesn't make it objectively bad though.

Then you are not reading everything here.

The very fact that WotC changed the Haste spell should tell you something. Back to back actions for a single character can lead to TPK faster than anything else in the game. If it does not tell you this, then I suggest that you do not use this variant rule because it will side swipe you quick.

Round one: The PCs win init, so they move closer to the enemy. The NPC Wizard fireballs the PCs.

Round two: The NPC Wizard wins init, so he fireballs the PCs. Not a single PC could react to the first fireball to either heal, take cover, counterattack, or anything.

Most of the PCs are dead and the few other NPCs quickly mop up the heavily wounded Barbarian.

DM: "Ok people, who wants to play what race and class for our new campaign?"


This is not whining (for those who hold that position). This is fact. It will happen and it will happen a lot. With feats and PrCs and monster templates, 3E has a lot more ways to take advantage of back to back actions than 2E did. Even without delays or readied actions.

This is also not DM adjudication. If you have to have the NPC Wizard not fireball the PCs in round two in the example above and instead cast a Shield spell, then I just feel sorry for you and your spoon fed must protect the PCs because of the stupid initiatve system you are using game. And, the players will obviously feel coddled in such a game when the NPC Wizard casts Shield on round two and waits until round four to cast Fireball again. That's just plain sad.

 

[Rystil Arden]

This is also not DM adjudication. If you have to have the NPC Wizard not fireball the PCs in round two in the example above and instead cast a Shield spell, then I just feel sorry for you and your spoon fed must protect the PCs because of the stupid initiatve system you are using game. And, the players will obviously feel coddled in such a game when the NPC Wizard casts Shield on round two and waits until round four to cast Fireball again. That's just plain sad.

Although I am firmly in the "Rerolling initiative is foolhardy to the extreme" camp, I suppose that if the GM was absolutely deadset on doing this, the GM could use recharge magic to prevent the Wizard from firing off his highest level spells twice in a row (wouldn't stop a level 7 Wizard from Fireballing twice in a row, but at least it would stop a level 5).

 

[Mark Chance]

Round one: The PCs win init, so they move closer to the enemy. The NPC Wizard fireballs the PCs.

Round two: The NPC Wizard wins init, so he fireballs the PCs. Not a single PC could react to the first fireball to either heal, take cover, counterattack, or anything.

Most of the PCs are dead and the few other NPCs quickly mop up the heavily wounded Barbarian.

DM: "Ok people, who wants to play what race and class for our new campaign?"

This is not whining (for those who hold that position). This is fact. It will happen and it will happen a lot.

Okay, it's not whining (although it sure sounds like it to me). It's also not a fact. It's a contrived scenario pulled out of a hat to "prove" something. In more than 20 years of playing every version of D&D there is, the contrived scenario above has happened so often that I cannot clearly recall a single instance of it. So, while it may have happened, it certainly didn't happen "a lot."

 

[erc1971]

I am so going to get beat up by all you guys for saying this But, I love rolling iniative everyround! Actually, 4 out of 5 people in our group like it (and the 5th reads these forums, so he'll probably tell us what an idiot we all are, hehe. In fact, he might have already said that, I haven't read the entire thread yet).

Sometimes the monsters get 2 actions in row - but, sometimes the characters do too. The randomness and chaos of combat is exciting, and for me it adds alot to the game.

Yes, having a Beholder go 2 times in a row can be rough - but remember, for him to do that, you will have gotten to go first

Spells having thier duration possibly change by +1 or -1 rounds - never been an issue for us, it's so invisible, I never even notice it.

However, one thing I do really like about rolling init every round, is you don't have everyone ready an action against the caster, then keep thier spot in the initiative order the rest of combat - meaning everytime the caster goes to cast, 5 people instantly slaughter him!

Does it increase the time it takes to play out combat? Not at all. That honor goes to things like obscure spells that you don't see cast very often, ambiguous RAW, Grappling, Tripping, Bull Rush, etc.

Eric

Edit, adding after reading a few of the more recent posts...

Alot of people seem to be of the thought that a high level caster could waste a party with 2 actions in a row. We have never seen that scenario - they can that just fine without winning 2 rounds in a row But seriously, usually we try to spread out to keep the AOE's from pasting us all; most of our combats are indoors, so getting to the caster is usually not too difficult; and our ranged characters usually start putting a hurting on the caster quickly enough that they can keep him occupied - this issue has never come up ever since 3.x D&D has come up.

 

[Bagpuss]

Problems with I see with rolling initiative each round are...

It takes extra time.

Spell durations become variable.

Characters can get there actions twice before someone else.

The third problem is the main one in my opinion. In 2nd Ed when you didn't get all your attacks on your initiative roll but spread over time this wasn't so much of an issue, you'ld get one attack then another on half your initiative, and so on. In 3rd Ed even at 1st level it's possible that you could get 4 attacks before the opponent can do anything, by 6th that becomes 6 attacks, but 11, eight attacks, etc.

You see an archer on a hill, and decide to attack him, you win initiative charge up the hill, and get just past half way. The archer with rapid shot going slow on the first round, fires at you and hits both times, once for a critical!

Ahh that hurt you think, perhaps I better drink my potion of cure serious wounds, I'll do that next round. Next round comes and he beats you to initiative, and before you can raise the potion to your lips you have two more arrows in you and are bleeding out lying half dead on the battlefield.

The rolling initiative makes it much harder to plan a head, and a more deadly game. Improved initiative and the like also give a false sense of worth. It's not actually that benifical to go first all the time. If I'm happy to usually go second, and have put my feats and stuff into improved toughness, and high Con, then on the odd time that I win initiative I get a massive bonus as I went last the round before so get twice the number of attacks without anything bad happening to me.