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

[DonTadow]

Don, IME rolling each round hasn't wasted game time...it has increased it. Players now pay attention when it isn't their turn. This is a good thing. From the comments I have gotten, the players are having more fun. This is also a good thing.

Would I force players to roll initiative each turn if they didn't want to? Of course not. One of them can DM. I'd enjoy the change.

OTOH, if fewer die rolls = better combat, why not just assume average damage with each hit? That way you never have to roll more than one die per round......

I hate that we're on opposite camps on this one Raven. Part of me hopes this is another one of your psych tests .

No matter what you guys say, theres no way you can tell me that performing an extra actio nevery round in combat is taking up less time than it would without it.

Now, I see your point, now players are paying attention each combat. Most players I know do this anyway? If this is a problem in my game I just send the big bad after that player every round. I bet you they start paying attention now. I'd think the DM can pull in players to the combat without excessive house rules. Neat ways to keep players interested in combat is to make sure that the combat is geared towards them, keep a visual initiative chart so players see thier place, include surprises and break from the norm.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I hate that we're on opposite camps on this one Raven. Part of me hopes this is another one of your psych tests .

One test. Once. Acknowledged to be so. One time only. And with a nice consolation prize. This is no psyche test.

No matter what you guys say, theres no way you can tell me that performing an extra actio nevery round in combat is taking up less time than it would without it.

Why not assume average damage per successful attack, then? That would certainly prevent an extra action in nearly every round of combat. It would also remove a variable, and if you subscribe to the theory that "variables = bad" that seems to be the norm on this thread, it would seem to be a no-brainer.

I propose that, if you can tell me why you do not want to switch to average damage (and I mean a clear, well-thought-out answer here), you will probably know why some people do not want to switch to cyclic initiative.

In my case, I started out using the cyclic init from 3.0, and discovered pretty quick that there were some unintended consequences with the attention span of my group. I then went to per-round init, but counting down init from 30 seemed to make the problem worse. So I switched to d10. Now everything is going really, really well.

Is this a solution for all groups? No. Some groups -- many, I'd guess -- don't even have a problem that needs solving. OTOH, I wouldn't quit an otherwise enjoyable game because the DM decided to have Initiative rolled on a d12. Nor would I quit because or rolling each round. Nor would I quit because of cyclic init.

I would quit because I knew the DM was fudging die rolls, though.

To each his own.

RC

 

[Rystil Arden]

Why not assume average damage per successful attack, then? That would certainly prevent an extra action in nearly every round of combat. It would also remove a variable, and if you subscribe to the theory that "variables = bad" that seems to be the norm on this thread, it would seem to be a no-brainer.

That's a bit of a strawman. The point is that all actions should have variable results, but each character should not get a variable number of consecutive actions. A more interesting question would be this one: Assuming that we don't care about making an extra roll each round (and I am one who doesn't--seems like you are too RC), would you play in a game which had the following rule: On your turn, roll 1d3-1, minimum 0 and maximum 2. You get to take that many rounds worth of actions.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In my case, I started out using the cyclic init from 3.0, and discovered pretty quick that there were some unintended consequences with the attention span of my group.

So, your solution to speed up combat overall is to slowdown one part of combat: the beginning of the Round.

Most groups do not have this problem; and in fact the DMG does think so either. For any group in which the players can maintain their attention during cyclic initiative, rerolling each round slows things down (unless you use DMGenie or something automatic).

The point, however, is that your experience in the speed of play here is biased due to a secondary problem. Your group may enjoy rerolling init and that's fine, but that shouldn't be the fix to your underlying problem.

Actually, now that I think about it, rerolling initiative should make your problem worse in some cases. Let's say one player rolls well one round. He acts, and then he dozes off (nothing changes for either system). Next round he perks up momentarily to reroll and gets a 1. He doesn't expect to act any time soon and therefore immediately dozes off again, and then again after acting.

 

[Twowolves]

Why not assume average damage per successful attack, then? That would certainly prevent an extra action in nearly every round of combat. It would also remove a variable, and if you subscribe to the theory that "variables = bad" that seems to be the norm on this thread, it would seem to be a no-brainer.

Or for that matter, why not just resolve all actions in order of Dex, highest to lowest? If rolling initiative multiple times is so bad, why roll at all? After all, you could roll a "1" and be instantly killed by a character/monster of equal CR!

 

[Rystil Arden]

Or for that matter, why not just resolve all actions in order of Dex, highest to lowest? If rolling initiative multiple times is so bad, why roll at all? After all, you could roll a "1" and be instantly killed by a character/monster of equal CR!

This has the same problem as rerolling every round in that it potentially allows a character to receive multiple actions in a row with no reprisal. In this case, however, it is both better and worse. It is worse because it can be used to gain infinite actions without reprisal but it is better because the other characters can at least act in between those actions. By infinite actions without reprisal, I mean that if you make sure to have the highest initiative mod in such a system, you can continually break off the combat (perhaps by having your Schism manifest something to Teleport away, or any other similar sort of thing) and reenter and go first.

So to recap: There needs to be an initiative roll to ensure against the certainty that the same character with a plan to do so does not act at the beginning every time combat breaks out and gain extra actions without a response against them (and all against flat-footed opponents might I add). There needs to be a standard order for the remainder of the combat to ensure against the chance that the same character does not go last and then first and gain extra actions that cannot have a response at all.

 

[Twowolves]

This has the same problem as rerolling every round in that it potentially allows a character to receive multiple actions in a row with no reprisal. In this case, however, it is both better and worse. It is worse because it can be used to gain infinite actions without reprisal but it is better because the other characters can at least act in between those actions. By infinite actions without reprisal, I mean that if you make sure to have the highest initiative mod in such a system, you can continually break off the combat (perhaps by having your Schism manifest something to Teleport away, or any other similar sort of thing) and reenter and go first.

What difference would it make if you entered combat first over and over again if your only action is to break off combat? Barring psionic goofiness, of course.

Round 1: "Ha-ha! I win initiative! I'll teleport away!"
Round 2 (or rather, next combat, new Round 1): "Ha-ha! I'm back! I win initiative! I'll teleport away!"

 

[Rystil Arden]

What difference would it make if you entered combat first over and over again if your only action is to break off combat? Barring psionic goofiness, of course.

Round 1: "Ha-ha! I win initiative! I'll teleport away!"
Round 2 (or rather, next combat, new Round 1): "Ha-ha! I'm back! I win initiative! I'll teleport away!"

You can also Quickened Teleport or use a Swift spell and Teleport, etc. Also, it would mean that if you are trying to escape rather than kill someone, you automatically do so every time without a scratch unless you get surprised.

 

[Twowolves]

You can also Quickened Teleport or use a Swift spell and Teleport, etc. Also, it would mean that if you are trying to escape rather than kill someone, you automatically do so every time without a scratch unless you get surprised.

Again, my point is, so what? You said static, constant initiative is bad because someone could always go first and get "multiple actions in a row" or "extra actions". How? By teleporting away constantly? Or do you mean acting first then quickened teleportation, rest 5 minutes, start a "new" combat, then come back and do it again?

I was being absurd intentionally by the way, but at least it was intentional! I personally don't use re-roll every round, but I see the merits of it, and might yet in some future campaign. I don't buy the arguement that two actions back to back is so bad, when at almost any level of play, ONE action can potentially be just as bad. I know, more randomness screws players, so my "point", like RC's, was if that's so bad, then let's just get rid of ALL randomness, because "it's no fun when my PC fails a save/gets criticaled/etc etc".

 

[Rystil Arden]

Again, my point is, so what? You said static, constant initiative is bad because someone could always go first and get "multiple actions in a row" or "extra actions". How? By teleporting away constantly? Or do you mean acting first then quickened teleportation, rest 5 minutes, start a "new" combat, then come back and do it again?

I was being absurd intentionally by the way, but at least it was intentional! I personally don't use re-roll every round, but I see the merits of it, and might yet in some future campaign. I don't buy the arguement that two actions back to back is so bad, when at almost any level of play, ONE action can potentially be just as bad. I know, more randomness screws players, so my "point", like RC's, was if that's so bad, then let's just get rid of ALL randomness, because "it's no fun when my PC fails a save/gets criticaled/etc etc".

I said they could get multiple actions that couldn't be answered by a counterattack. There is still time in between, which makes this in some ways not as bad as the reroll every round variant, since the PCs can react. In some ways it is worse of an abuse, however, because it happens every time.

And I do mean take an action, get away, start a new combat ASAP, take an action, get away, etc. It needn't even be Quickened Teleport. Maybe it could be Quicken Spell Like Ability on a creature that has Greater Teleport at Will.

Despite trying to be absurd, I submit that barring skirmishers who have higher Init mods than all their opponents and constantly break off combat and reenter, your suggestion is actually significantly less of a problem with the current ruleset than rerolling each round.