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

[KarinsDad]

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

No.

The real problem only comes in with unanswered inits. For example, most of the time, if an NPC moves up to a PC, he only gets a single melee attack during the round that he moves up. Ditto for any other NPC opponents that move up.

If the DM has 5 NPCs do this, it is at most 5 attacks. On that round.

Unless you run all of your NPCs on the same init (which in and of itself is a fairly poor rule as well), typically either the PC or one of his allies will get an init somewhere within this timeframe. Even if they do not, you are talking a maximum of 5 unanswered attacks. Course, 5 attacks could be deadly.

However, it is not the 5 attacks that is super deadly. It is the 5 full round attacks where each opponent get multiple attacks each. For example, 15 attacks is super deadly against most PCs unless the opponents are fairly weak.

So, in an atypical but not unheard of case, a PC might have 4 or 5 opponents fighting him that he did not have the previous round. This can often (but not aways) be handled if all of the opponents moved up and only got a single attack each.

But, with back to back inits, if you roll all of your NPCs (or an entire group of similar NPCs) on the same initiative, then once in a blue moon, 4 or 5 NPCs will lose init on round x, run up to a given PC after he has already done his action, damage him somewhat, but then on the next round, the DM rolls a great initiative for those 4 or 5 NPCs and unless he fudges his dice rolls or "suddenly" has these NPCs for an inexplicable reason start picking on other PC targets, that PC is going to have 16 or more unanswered attacks against him (4+ in round x, and 12+ with 3 attacks per round medium level NPCs in round x+1).

It is the sudden "Opps, the Init Gods just gave me a boatload of attacks against the PC and he is toast" scenario. The DM did not even intend this.

Now granted, this can occur with the normal init system. It just happens a lot less frequently since a PC who was attacked by 4 or 5 NPCs would tend to get out of Dodge or cast some spell that wipes them out or perform some other action that limits how much he gets attacked. In the back to back actions scenario, he does not get the chance to do this.

The back to back actions scenario effectively short duration doubles the number of attackers against a PC and can more than double the number of unanswered attacks against a PC than the normal init system.

And, this does not even take into account back to back spells which can be even more deadly.


And unlike other multiple attacks / multiple spells scenarios, the PC and his allies cannot react to these. That is the real issue and the real reason it is a bad rule.

 

[3catcircus]

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.

Sure - but my point was to illustrate the difference between a combat you *know* is coming (i.e. the rogue scouted ahead) and one you don't know is coming (party is surprised, foolishly charged into a room before listening at the door, etc.)

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've been running 3.0 since it came out. I was at Gencon when it was released and they discussed why they switched to cyclical initiative. I decided at the time that while the logic was sound, I hated it.

Hate, hate hated it because it disagreed with my personal experiences in martial arts and fencing. I'm not a fast man. Never have been. I had to rely on skill, reach, and stamina to oppose faster foes. I swear before all that is holy, I never got into you-me-you-me-you-me fight. It tended to be me-you-you-me or you-you-me. I was good at defense and fairly good accuracy but crappy at the "closing quickly." Those fast little weasels kept darting around (curse you Ken, curse you!).

So when I got back from GenCon I ran a mini-adventure for the players to learn the system. We did it the 3.0 way. Then I ran another little adventure using 1e/2e way. No one said it was appreciably slower and the adrenalin hit kept the blood flowing.

I've been running the same 3.0 campaign for 5+ years. I've got 6 players +2 cohorts and I generally roll initiatve for NPCs separately (up to the number of d20s I own, after that I have them start sharing die rolls). Combat seems to run quickly and smoothly, even using 3.0 Mass Haste.

Yes, it is more chaotic. Yes, it means that tactical plans have a lower chance of surviving contact with the enemy. Yes, it can make spells last longer or shorter.

Guess what: we like it. The game is fun.

I've been in other people's 3.x games. Most use the one-init rule. It irks me a tad but I get on with my life. Much the same way I'd expect anyone who was irked about rolling init each round.

I'll probably continue to roll initiative every round in any game system that has you roll initiative as long as it doesn't bog game play down. But IME, the 3.x games that bog down from having to roll init each round usually bog down when rolling damage, saves, skill checks, and miss chances.

 

[3catcircus]

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.

You just showed the problem in your example - it *wouldn't* be re-rolling initiative allowing unanswered actions - in your example it would be that the cohort got separated - whether by chance or by choice. *Regardless* of initiative system used, the cohort could suffer "unanswered" actions because he is somewhere in the middle of the initiative order, with some of the hobgoblins that might go before him or after him - whether it is re-rolled or not, he is running the risk of multiple baddies hitting him before he gets to go again in the next round.

Let's say it wasn't such a large combat - just the cohort vs. 4 generic hobgoblins. Let's say the initial initiative order for round 1 was Hob1, Hob2, Cohort, Hob3, Hob4 (or any random variation thereof). The cohort is *still* going to suffer two attacks before he can act, and four attacks before he can act again in round 2 (Hob3 and Hob4 in round 1 and Hob1 and Hob2 in round 2) - with rolling initiative once per combat. If re-rolling at the beginning of each round, he could possibly end up with (amongst a myriad of different possibiities) a round 2 initiative order of Cohort, Hob2, Hob4, Hob3, Hob1, in which case the COHORT would get to act a second time before *any* of the baddies get to act. The initiative order could also end up Hob4, Cohort, Hob1, Hob3, Hob2 - in which case Hob4 would get back-to-back actions, but the Cohort would still get to act before the other 3 Hobs get to act.

My point is - So what if multiple "unanswered" actions hurt the PC - they can also hurt the NPCs. The game *shouldn't* be stacked in favor of the PCs - just because there is a possibility that "something bad" might happen to a PC is no reason to make the rules stacked in their favor. The rules should be completely neutral and favor no one - not the PCs and not the NPCs.

What I continually hear those opposed to re-rolling initiative say is that it is bad because it could adversely affect PCs. *That* is not an objective statement. It is based upon a person's opinion of what they consider to be bad or unfair. Re-rolling initiative is neither unfair nor bad in comparison to rolling initiative once for a combat - it is simply *different*.

 

[DonTadow]

If you think of initiative as a step by step order of combat. then youve mistaken what initiative actually is. It is simply a decision of deciding the order players go in order for the game to progress smoothly. Each player has a chance to hit or dos omething within the six second span. Thing is think about six seconds, even in martial arts, some oppoonents are just a split second faster, and in combat thats essentially what is going on, split second. Initiative could also be considered a "battle luck roll". YOu manage to hit your opponent a split second before he does.

The roll is inconsequential, it only determines the order. The numbers mean nothing after the order is placed. Sure, in real life some people act at the same time.

The idea that you'd rather have chaos to insure reality in a game seems a bit absurb. I can't understand why you can't seperate from real life for a second to play a game. HEy, the only true way to simulate combat is to actually run it. Why not just use some imagination. IN combat, its not neccearily one hit, you hit, its a combination of hits, parrys and attacks that result in that damage in that round. When my players talk about their actions, they indicate this.

Green ronin has a cool variant for combat that reduces attacks to 1 per hand per turn no mater how many they actually have. Using this variant, you can really get a feel that the six seconds is a series of combative moves that resulted in one ammount of damage. There might have been 9 hits, 3 parrys yada yada yada, but it still resulted in 44 hit points of damage.

 

[DonTadow]

You just showed the problem in your example - it *wouldn't* be re-rolling initiative allowing unanswered actions - in your example it would be that the cohort got separated - whether by chance or by choice. *Regardless* of initiative system used, the cohort could suffer "unanswered" actions because he is somewhere in the middle of the initiative order, with some of the hobgoblins that might go before him or after him - whether it is re-rolled or not, he is running the risk of multiple baddies hitting him before he gets to go again in the next round.

Let's say it wasn't such a large combat - just the cohort vs. 4 generic hobgoblins. Let's say the initial initiative order for round 1 was Hob1, Hob2, Cohort, Hob3, Hob4 (or any random variation thereof). The cohort is *still* going to suffer two attacks before he can act, and four attacks before he can act again in round 2 (Hob3 and Hob4 in round 1 and Hob1 and Hob2 in round 2) - with rolling initiative once per combat. If re-rolling at the beginning of each round, he could possibly end up with (amongst a myriad of different possibiities) a round 2 initiative order of Cohort, Hob2, Hob4, Hob3, Hob1, in which case the COHORT would get to act a second time before *any* of the baddies get to act. The initiative order could also end up Hob4, Cohort, Hob1, Hob3, Hob2 - in which case Hob4 would get back-to-back actions, but the Cohort would still get to act before the other 3 Hobs get to act.

My point is - So what if multiple "unanswered" actions hurt the PC - they can also hurt the NPCs. The game *shouldn't* be stacked in favor of the PCs - just because there is a possibility that "something bad" might happen to a PC is no reason to make the rules stacked in their favor. The rules should be completely neutral and favor no one - not the PCs and not the NPCs.

What I continually hear those opposed to re-rolling initiative say is that it is bad because it could adversely affect PCs. *That* is not an objective statement. It is based upon a person's opinion of what they consider to be bad or unfair. Re-rolling initiative is neither unfair nor bad in comparison to rolling initiative once for a combat - it is simply *different*.

Sometimes the DM just has to use some tactical sense in order to insure the fun factor of the player. IS it logical to send that money hobgolbins after the weak looking wizard?

Lets say the wizard charges into combat and this tactic is logical. YOur soultion to prevent a death of the hobgoblin is to increase the randomness of it happening. So instead of just controling the combat and spreading out the hobgoblins, you put your faith in more randomness with this initiative every round bit. There's still a chance for hte hob goblins to mob the wizard so you really havn't addressed the issue.

 

[Twowolves]

More randomness does not hurt PCs.

Yes, it does. The Behind the Scenes sidebar in the DMG specificly states this, and explains why. It's the underlying arguement for many rules assumptions. You yourself have said this in so many words in the past on other threads.

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

Multiple actions = two actions, tops. That's it. Two unanswered full attacks are bad, but so is one critical hit. The last time this debate came up, it boiled down to the fact that even though the chances of a PC getting back to back actions were the same as any given NPC, in the long run the NPC only fights the party once, but the party fights multiple battles with multiple NPCs and eventually this would come back to bite them in the arse, and that was "no fun" for the PCs. This is the least convincing arguement, to me, because it would just be a fact of life for adventurers, and combat would be a deadlier thing in a game that rerolled initiative every round. Some folks might like the added chaos of the ebb and flow of battle, and take it all in stride. To each his own.

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.

Wasn't the default assumption of the CR system one in which the PCs would fight no more than 12 opponents at a time? Even saying in the DMG that if you need more than 12 foes to challenge the party, you should use less of something tougher? You are purposefully taking a non-standard, non-playtested extreme position to make a point.

In any case, 50 on 8 sounds like a massacre waiting to happen to me, no matter what your initiative system is. Cyclic initiative may have sped things along, but good grief! You'd need to speed things up to handle that many combatants.

Didn't you also state previously that you don't even roll initiative for your NPCs? That you have some numbers spread across the range already dialed in and just assign them? If I am remembering that correctly, it sounds like you using the other extreme of initiative determination.

Number of actions count in DND big time.

It counts big time in any game. But many things also count just as big, like crits and saves. In a game where extra actions are more commonplace, it really makes the PCs pay more attention and plan well to survive. I played for years in a 1st ed game that was very unforgiving. If you went out wandering the countryside, the DM rolled on his wandering monster tables, and you got what you got, balance be damned! There were no CR systems to save us there, and it was very unforgiving, complete with rerolled initiative every round. Hard? Hell yes! Fair, we thought so. You had a plan or you had a nice funeral.

If a DM and his players want to reroll initiative every round, I don't see the problem with it, provided everyone knows the consequences, any rough spots are smoothed over (delaying and spell durations etc), and the DM balances the encounters appropriately.

 

[KarinsDad]

My point is - So what if multiple "unanswered" actions hurt the PC - they can also hurt the NPCs. The game *shouldn't* be stacked in favor of the PCs - just because there is a possibility that "something bad" might happen to a PC is no reason to make the rules stacked in their favor. The rules should be completely neutral and favor no one - not the PCs and not the NPCs.

NPCs do not play the game. Period.

Players play the game. They play PCs. The game is all about fun for players, not NPCs.

If you screw the NPCs, nobody cares. If you screw the PCs, some of your players might care to the point that they quit playing your game.

And, it is not a matter of stacking the deck in favor of the PCs. It is a matter of not stacking the deck AGAINST the PCs.

The deck is already stacked against the PCs. The PCs are in virtually every combat and the NCPs are in one or a few each. Hence, the odds are already against the PCs continued survival because there is a large finite number of NPCs that can combat against the PCs and the PCs are typically (in many campaigns) in a large finite number of combats.

What I continually hear those opposed to re-rolling initiative say is that it is bad because it could adversely affect PCs. *That* is not an objective statement. It is based upon a person's opinion of what they consider to be bad or unfair. Re-rolling initiative is neither unfair nor bad in comparison to rolling initiative once for a combat - it is simply *different*.

It is not simply different, it changes game balance. Granted, game balance is often a subjective area of discussion, but this area of game balance (which you have conceded occurs with your "So what if multiple "unanswered" actions hurt the PC" statement) has been illustrated to have potential results often twice as effective (when done twice as often in a given timeframe) or more depending on situation.

It is not subjective when examples illustrate a doubling (or more) of effectiveness of certain attacks. That is objective, you just apparently choose to ignore it.

The game is designed to average x amount of damage, have as minimum of zero damage, and have a maximum of y amount of damage per round per opponent given the circumstances. Typically, y is less than the maximum hit points most characters have when they are fully up. When you double the potential of x and y per round, even if it is a somewhat rare occurance, you change game balance and you do it in an objective manner. Especially when 2y and even 2x might be more than the maximum full up character hit points.

If you combine the "roll every round" init system with the "roll init once for a group of NPC opponents", you are drastically changing game balance. And, the higher the levels, the more this will lead to character death.

I don't know about your game, but my players typically do not have as much fun when their PCs die as when they survive to continue on the storyline. Course, that's subjective too.

 

[Twowolves]

The roll is inconsequential, it only determines the order. The numbers mean nothing after the order is placed. Sure, in real life some people act at the same time.

This is true, but when playing OD&D, then AD&D, then 2nd ed AD&D, and then moving on to 3rd ed, it seemed to many to be really striped of any heart and reduced to just what you say it is, a filing system. I can see where older players weren't too keen on the idea and are a little slow in letting go. I also can see where the ease and balance of rolling once doesn't sparkle as much as the thrill of winning initiative right when it's most important, or even just the feel of participation for the low-level wizard who already cast his Sleep spell and wants some dice to roll.

 

[Hussar]

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.

That was my thread and it was only two actions.

My point is - So what if multiple "unanswered" actions hurt the PC - they can also hurt the NPCs. The game *shouldn't* be stacked in favor of the PCs - just because there is a possibility that "something bad" might happen to a PC is no reason to make the rules stacked in their favor. The rules should be completely neutral and favor no one - not the PCs and not the NPCs.

True, the rules should be absolutely neutral. I have no problems with that. But, by adding in random initiatives, you have a chance that someone will get two actions in a row. That increases the lethality of combat. Leaving crits out (since I could crit twice and REALLY cane someone), the fact that there is a random chance that a non-PC could get two turns in a row makes combat more lethal. Any change which makes combat more lethal is not neutral. It always favors the NPC's for the reasons that have been listed more than a few times in this thread.