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

[Jdvn1]

Do you really believe it works straight out of the box without some tweaking?

I think it works for very small parties, and small encounters.

 

[KarinsDad]

Personally, I use d10 initiative, re-rolled each round. IME, this has actually speeded up combats because players need to pay attention to the round count. This was actually a problem with our group using the regular system. Go figure.

You are correct that Improved Initiative becomes important using this sort of variant.

If you use a D10, of course +4 to init is MUCH more important. Magnitudes more important.

Obviously, you can still Hold Action, and you can maintain a Held Action from round to round. It seems to work well enough.

I have a hard time imagining leaving a good game because of a variation in rules, though. I imagine that there are actually other problems in the game structure, because this seems such a minor quibble to me. To each his own, though.

Your own D10 variant here illustrates how variants can create drastically different game behaviors.

In our game, none of the players have taken Improved Initiative. I suspect that in your D10 init game, many players take it. It changes the entire complexion of initiative.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In our game, none of the players have taken Improved Initiative. I suspect that in your D10 init game, many players take it. It changes the entire complexion of initiative.

True. But, so long as the rules are readily available to everyone, it's all good. You can still build a character to do what you want to do. It should also be noted that I run games for, by Core standards, large groups (often 7+), so getting the players to focus on the initiative countdown is very helpful. The countdown also helps with the sense of combat time...rounds "feel" more like 6 seconds. This works with a d10; I don't think it would work with a d20 rolled each round...at least, not in the same way.

RC

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It has to do with a player not liking the DM using an *optional* rule that has been published in a core D&D book - it isn't a "...lousy house rule." It is an optional rule that has been published in a core D&D book that the DM is chosing to use.

Technically anything optional - regardless of its source - that is added to the game is a house rule. But that's irrelevant. It's a lousy rule period.

This has *no* effect on roleplaying. Using this rule *is* following the RAW.

I think you'll find that most people do not consider optional rules, even if published in the Core Books, to be considered RAW in any way.

What this rule does is prevent whining "it's all about me" players from conspiring to work around the RAW by metagaming their actions in combat - actions which are supposed to represent simultaneous, continuous rapid activities in the heat of battle.

It's a roleplaying game sure enough - but it's still a GAME. Manipulation of the rules for the sake of manipulating the rules is NOT a crime in and of itself. Whining, metagaming, "it's all about me" players are NOT prevented from being such no matter what rules the DM uses, but a constant randomization of initiative from round to round won't prevent metagaming the rules. For example, with random initiative rerolled each round, if you have a good dex and take the Improved Initiative feat you can consistently end up at the top of the order anyway. Or worse. You can win initiative one round, delay what you do until the end of the round - and then in rerolling initiative for the next round consistently win again and then be able to take a second turn in a row. If you as a DM pulled that kind of stuff on a PLAYER the screams would be heard for miles.

By your argument, you make it sound like the DM would be railroading the players with a lousy house rule if he decided to enforce encumbrance, or monk multiclass restrictions.

Not railroading - but such can certainly be annoying when they are unneeded, arbitrary and stridently undesired by the players. The only thing accomplished with rolling initiative every round is greater randomness and chaos. It seems to me that in this case the players realize this but the DM doesn't.

The DM may be a recent convert from older editions or maybe just doesn't really understand the effects of what he's doing. Whatever the reason the OP should FIND OUT why the DM is so set on this. There are excellent reasons to use 3E circular intiative that (as of several years ago at least) were only argued by people who wanted to do it differently for no particularly good reason and wanted an excuse (as if they then actually needed one). Learning what the DM sees in it will be far more useful as a place to start than just handing him pages and pages of argument against the idea. If the DM's reaction to defending his choice is then something along the lines of, "just like it or lump it", well then you know what the real problem is. When the basis of the DM's stance is understood THEN you can effectively argue against it.

 

[Magesmiley]

One means of protesting was already pointed out - try to set yourself up for a 1-2 punch by delaying in one round and (hopefully) getting a higher initiative the following round. This would be most effective before you've closed into melee.

Another thought is to be really nasty and use the opposite combo with Combat Expertise. On a round where you go first (or at least before the bad guys), Combat Expertise for a bunch and fight defensive. The following round delay and delay, then take your turn last (using neither of them) and whack the foes good. Then, hopefully you get another high initiative and repeat this. This will effectively stretch out the amount of time you are getting the defensive bonuses to 2 rounds, while only really paying the penalty for it for one round of attacks. If this tactic doesn't convince the DM to switch, I don't think anything will.

 

[3catcircus]

Just because an optional rule is written in RAW does not make it a good rule.

How do you handle Summoned Monsters with this rule? RAW does not say how. Why? Because it is a sure bet that WotC did not playtest this optional rule and never considered the ramifications of it. This rule was placed into 3E so that 2E players who were used to rolling every round could run initiative in a similar manner to 2E. Unfortunately, with AoOs and Delays and other 3E elements, this optional rule does not work well. In fact, it sucks.

This is not about whiny players who feel entitled. I would be the first to agree with you if it was. This is about an optional rule that is jarringly different from the core rule to the point that other game elements do not work well with it. It is also an optional rule that is very time consuming during play.

By definition, that is an optional rule that should carefully be considered before adding it into a game. This means taking the time to see how this interacts with other rules and explicitly going out of your way to create house rules to shoe horn it into the existing system.

As a DM, handling summoned monsters is easy enough - you know what "time" they were summoned in the initiative order, just keep track of it, and x rounds later, on that same "time" in the initiative order, regardless of the PC's actual initiative, "poof" the summoned creature goes away.

As to playtest - I don't think either of us is qualified to say whether or not it is playtested.

I get the sense that a lot of your problems with this rule are with how to arbitrate things like delayed actions and AoOs - that is the DM's job if the rules don't specify. If he can't or won't arbitrate, then, yes, using the core initiative rules makes more sense.

That having been said, I don't see what the big deal is about AoOs - it makes no difference what initiative rules you use. As to delayed actions - you are "picking" when to act in the initiative order, so if you are delaying for the next round there is no need to re-roll initiative for you on that next round (since your initiative rises but lose your action that round), but after that, it should be back to re-rolling.

Likewise, a readied action allows you to prepare to take an action after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Regardless of what "time" in the next round your turn is, you still have a readied action waiting to be triggered.

I simply fail to see how each of these things is really a big problem when you re-roll initiative each round. Sure, the DM has more book-keeping, but that is about it.

 

[3catcircus]

Technically anything optional - regardless of its source - that is added to the game is a house rule. But that's irrelevant. It's a lousy rule period.

That's *your* opinion. I happen to think that it is an option for a reason.

I think you'll find that most people do not consider optional rules, even if published in the Core Books, to be considered RAW in any way.

Funny - I'll remember that quote the next time I hear someone demand their DM to allow them to play a half-dragon/half-celestial lycanthrope using Eberron feats and spells in a Greyhawk campaign...

It's a roleplaying game sure enough - but it's still a GAME. Manipulation of the rules for the sake of manipulating the rules is NOT a crime in and of itself.

OK - say that to anyone playing any *other* game or sport to give themselves an unfair advantage - in almost any game or sport, its called cheating.

Whining, metagaming, "it's all about me" players are NOT prevented from being such no matter what rules the DM uses, but a constant randomization of initiative from round to round won't prevent metagaming the rules.

So because I can't always prevent it from ever happening, I shouldn't employ means to prevent it where I can?!?!

For example, with random initiative rerolled each round, if you have a good dex and take the Improved Initiative feat you can consistently end up at the top of the order anyway. Or worse. You can win initiative one round, delay what you do until the end of the round - and then in rerolling initiative for the next round consistently win again and then be able to take a second turn in a row.

Those are the advantages for those chosing to spend a feat on Improved Initiative and/or not have another attribute with a high value...

If you as a DM pulled that kind of stuff on a PLAYER the screams would be heard for miles.

So it's ok if the players pull that kind of stuff on a DM, huh?

Not railroading - but such can certainly be annoying when they are unneeded, arbitrary and stridently undesired by the players. The only thing accomplished with rolling initiative every round is greater randomness and chaos. It seems to me that in this case the players realize this but the DM doesn't.

The DM may be a recent convert from older editions or maybe just doesn't really understand the effects of what he's doing. Whatever the reason the OP should FIND OUT why the DM is so set on this. There are excellent reasons to use 3E circular intiative that (as of several years ago at least) were only argued by people who wanted to do it differently for no particularly good reason and wanted an excuse (as if they then actually needed one). Learning what the DM sees in it will be far more useful as a place to start than just handing him pages and pages of argument against the idea. If the DM's reaction to defending his choice is then something along the lines of, "just like it or lump it", well then you know what the real problem is. When the basis of the DM's stance is understood THEN you can effectively argue against it.

Who says they are arbitrary? Do we know whether the DM just layed them on his group, or were they mentioned at the beginning of the campaign and now, after the players agreed to them, they want to renege?

 

[Seeten]

I have yet to hear any justification from 3catcircus that makes me believe this is a good rule. All I hear is "If it upsets players, I like it, because I hold the leet DM Powah."

If you choose to use bad rules, I'll abuse them. If you choose to use bad rules, and go on about how you can do anything you want because you're the DM, I'll ditch your game. If you choose to use bad rules so you can take double turns and kill the PC's you dont like, because it makes you feel powerful, be prepared for the players to use Combat Expertise, and other stacking methods to abuse your goofy initiative system.

Carrying on like players have nothing invested in the game just shows your game isnt worth investing in.

Myself and my gaming group has just as much invested in our games as the DM/GM, because we ALL care about the health of the group, and none of us thinks he is the "only one" or the MAIN MAN decision maker who all else will bow down to.

Further, on another topic, communication is key. Explain why the rule is bad, then demonstrate in game why its bad with initiative tactics. Use them. Show in actual play how its bad. Then he needs to ban perfectly good feats, or fix initiative.

 

[3catcircus]

I have yet to hear any justification from 3catcircus that makes me believe this is a good rule. All I hear is "If it upsets players, I like it, because I hold the leet DM Powah."

If you choose to use bad rules, I'll abuse them. If you choose to use bad rules, and go on about how you can do anything you want because you're the DM, I'll ditch your game. If you choose to use bad rules so you can take double turns and kill the PC's you dont like, because it makes you feel powerful, be prepared for the players to use Combat Expertise, and other stacking methods to abuse your goofy initiative system.

Carrying on like players have nothing invested in the game just shows your game isnt worth investing in.

Myself and my gaming group has just as much invested in our games as the DM/GM, because we ALL care about the health of the group, and none of us thinks he is the "only one" or the MAIN MAN decision maker who all else will bow down to.

Further, on another topic, communication is key. Explain why the rule is bad, then demonstrate in game why its bad with initiative tactics. Use them. Show in actual play how its bad. Then he needs to ban perfectly good feats, or fix initiative.

Funny you should say that since there are countless threads on how to "power-up" your character and an equal number of threads on how to deal with out of control characters.

Unfortunately, 3rd edition has given players the ability to engage in an RPG arms race with the DM, moreso than previous editions. Additionally, players (regardless of edition) seem to think that every option that can be used, should be used; it is only when the DM wants to use an option that *doesn't* explicitly favor the players that they balk.

If a DM sets out his expectations and the particular options or house rules he wants, up front at the beginning of the campaign, it is up to the players to adhere to those rules.

I've never suggested that re-rolling initiative screws over the players, so it must be good. *Everyone* - PC and NPC alike - has to adhere to these initiative rules. For every opportunity for the DM to take advantage of them, the PCs have the same opportunity.

Re-rolling initiative favors *no one* - not PCs, not NPCs - that is why I like them. For every round that you end up going last, you have an equal chance of going first in another round. Frankly, re-rolling initiative makes taking Improved Initiative actually worth something because it allows PCs and NPCs with low Dex scores a chance of possibly competing with those that have a high Dex score.

I guarantee if the situation were that re-rolling initiative allowed the party to act first in round 2 of a combat to take out a particularly tough NPC after suffering severe damage in round 1 of that combat where the NPC got to go first, there wouldn't be complaints.

The bottom line is that re-rolling initiative is not better or worse than rolling initiative once at the beginning of the encounter, it is just different.

 

[Seeten]

Except that it is worse. Demonstrably so, and several posts in this thread show why. Your posts simply state the opposite, with no proofs, or rules to say why it is not worse.