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

[Raven Crowking]

In the Twowolves system (patent pending ), if you can hold action from one round to the next, you could just wait for Joe Teleporter to return. Problem solved, no randomness.

 

[Rystil Arden]

In the Twowolves system (patent pending ), if you can hold action from one round to the next, you could just wait for Joe Teleporter to return. Problem solved, no randomness.

You can't ready or hold out of combat. There's an old thread made by someone who planned an ambush tactic that supposedly got them three actions against their unsuspecting victim using a ready action, but it doesn't work.

 

[Twowolves]

In Twilight 2000/Traveller: The New Era/Dark Conspiracy, they did just that. "Initiative" was a stat that ran from 1 to 6, and that was your order in combat! Wounds dropped your count, and anything above 2 or 3 was hard to get, and ties were resolved according to your Agility, but it's not unheard of.

My point was, people say that more randomness hurts the PCs. Conversely then, by that logic, less randomness favors PCs and is somehow better. Take it to the extremes, and remove ALL randomness, because that's "more fun" or "better" for players, according to the logic of some. Obviously that's not the case in reality.

When combat starts and ends is up to DM fiat, and obviously if one were to change the rules regarding initiative counts, he'd probably change this as well as change when you could ready actions.

 

[KarinsDad]

As an example, If you and a friend are walking down the street and get randomly mugged by two hoodlums, are you going to be able to "delay" or "ready" your actions? No - you are going to react. If, however, you were planning on walking down a street *known* for people getting mugged, you'd probably formulate plans to address that possibility *before* you walked down the street.

This is pretty humorous.

The entire idea of adventuring is "You walk down the street (aisle, tunnel, etc.) and you get mugged (attacked, ambushed, etc.) by two hoodlums (five orcs, seventeen plants, etc.)."

The adventurers in my game plan for such occurances.

 

[Rystil Arden]

My point was, people say that more randomness hurts the PCs. Conversely then, by that logic, less randomness favors PCs and is somehow better. Take it to the extremes, and remove ALL randomness, because that's "more fun" or "better" for players, according to the logic of some. Obviously that's not the case in reality.

And as several people have mentioned a few times already, it is not all randomness that is the problem. Randomness of results in actions is to be expected and is what makes the game what it is. Randomness in the number of actions one can take consecutively is problematic. The variant I suggested above, roll 1d3-1 (resulting in 0, 1, or 2) and that is how many full round actions you can take this round, illustrates the point. Anyone who would play in that system and think that the resulting balance chances are a feature and not a problem is philosophically consistent in playing with reroll initiative, and if everyone in their group also likes this idea, they should continue with all of our blessing.

The concern, however, is that the problem in balance exists. I find it a fault, not a feature, and so do the others in the majority who spoke to say so. This doesn't mean that people like RC who have a group in full support of the system shouldn't keep playing the system. It sounds like his group has a lot of fun, and it works for them. But somewhere out there, a different GM is forcing players who do not like the rule to play under it, and one of the players in that group needs our help in pointing out those defects. Admitting that the defects exist but saying that they don't matter or are not defects, as several people in this thread have done so far, is well and good for all your groups and no doubt it is true for you, but that doesn't help the OP, who agrees that these are problems but is new to the edition and needs some advice in how to explain the problems correctly.

 

[KarinsDad]

My point was, people say that more randomness hurts the PCs. Conversely then, by that logic, less randomness favors PCs and is somehow better. Take it to the extremes, and remove ALL randomness, because that's "more fun" or "better" for players, according to the logic of some. Obviously that's not the case in reality.

More randomness does not hurt PCs.

Multiple unanswered actions hurt PCs. For example, what is more threatening, one Orc attacking your Wizard in melee or six Orcs?

That is what rolling every round does. It sometimes allows multiple unanswered actions.

Two sessions ago, I ran a 50 2nd level Hobgobllin (3 of which were 3rd Adept, 5th Adept, and 5th Fighter/Rogue respectively) battle against 6 6th/7th level PCs, a 5th level NPC cohort and a 4th level NPC cohort. 50 against 8. Even though the PC Gnome Sorcerer and the PC Halfling Cleric even got grappled, none of the PCs and their cohorts were in serious trouble except the 5th level cohort. That was a Dwarven Cleric who likes to fight, got separated from the rest of the group, got surrounded by 4 Hobgobins and the 5th level Fighter/Rogue Hobgoblin and got pummeled. If the PC Paladin (whom the cohort belongs to) had not broken away from her own combat to go over and assist, the cohort would have bought the farm.

Number of actions count in DND big time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But somewhere out there, a different GM is forcing players who do not like the rule to play under it

Forcing the player to play? With what? Handcuffs, knives, and a gun?!?!

 

[Raven Crowking]

More randomness does not hurt PCs.

Multiple unanswered actions hurt PCs. For example, what is more threatening, one Orc attacking your Wizard in melee or six Orcs?

Does that mean that we now ban multiple opponents against a single PC?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Forcing the player to play? With what? Handcuffs, knives, and a gun?!?!

I don't know--ask Goldmoon

 

[DonTadow]

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



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

I know you run a prety good ship over there, if is sonething you guys enjoy its something you guys enjoy. I"m just saying that logically, theres no way commiting an extra action is faster than not commiting that action, in any part of life. It's good that your players now pay attention to you but I think theres better ways to handle that for most parties. It obviously works in your party but to each his own.

I need to savor every minute of the game and i think a game can be tactically satisfying without attempting to overdo the realism.