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

[KarinsDad]

I've run bigger battles with re-rolled init without party casualties.

You've also house ruled with your D10 change the variant rule into something different, something that leans the edge back towards the PCS if they concentrate on having high initiative modifiers.

It boggles the mind what some of the assumptions here are.

(1) That the goal of re-rolled init is to "save" the monsters. For what? They're monsters; they die. If not today, then tomorrow. That's like claiming that the goal of cyclic init is to "save" the players.

(2) That any playtest evidence is somehow wrong or misleading. Despite the dire warnings of terrible consequence using re-rolled init, no one who uses it has posted in to agree with this being his experience....including the OP. One person has posted that, in a previous edition, he lost a character due to the init system and bad luck. Overwhelmingly, the people effectively playtesting this system claim that it causes no probems.

(3) That some forms of unanswered back-to-back actions are somehow worse than others. If you have two identical hobgoblins attack you sequentially, that is better than having the same hobgoblin attack you twice.

(4) That the variable in re-rolling init has more effect on combat (and hence survivability) than, say, the variable of rolling damage.

(5) That the variable of re-rolling init has more effect on time loss during combat than (say) the variable of rolling damage.

(6) That, while it seems obvious that the variable of rolling damage adds a level of excitement to combats (in part because of the extreme results possible, both pro and con), the variable of rolling init cannot do the same (again, despite explicit statements from both players and DMs playtesting exactly this system that it does exactly that).

These are not the assumptions. The main assumption is that rolling initiative every round is more lethal than not doing so. This assumption was backed up with examples. The secondary assumption is that it takes longer to play combat not so much because of rolling (although that does take time), but because of sorting those rolls regardless of how it is done. The only equally fast method is by having a computer roll inits for both PCs and NPCs and immediately spitting out who is next.

The lethality of rolling every round is no different except for degree than the Variant 3rd 20 is an instant kill variant rule. I suspect that nobody will claim that this variant rule is not more lethal because we can put a definitive objective average extra lethality to it. 1 attack in 8000 on average against a PC will kill a PC.

Are you claiming that rolling every round is equally or less lethal than the standard init system? If so, where is your evidence? If not, I guess you agree with me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You've also house ruled with your D10 change the variant rule into something different, something that leans the edge back towards the PCS if they concentrate on having high initiative modifiers.

That's true. And it's also true that I would agree that using a d20 (as opposed to a d10) makes a significant time difference. The d10 does not appreciably slow combat when called down (each player acting on his "segment" ala the older editions), and speeds play IME due to player attention. It may be an abberation, I admit, but this system seems to make my players able to plan faster and better.

These are not the assumptions. The main assumption is that rolling initiative every round is more lethal than not doing so. This assumption was backed up with examples.

But those examples had game effects that could also occur in other ways in the game. Nor did those examples show that rolling init each round caused a higher occurance of lethality than, say, rolling damage (as opposed to average use) or requiring saving throws.

IME, lethality to the PCs is not appreciably increased. I would say "not increased at all" save only that there might be very, very minor effects that I haven't noticed. A good attack roll (crit) or a good damage roll is far, far more effective.

Finally, my evidence occurs every time I play.

RC

 

[KarinsDad]

Multiple opponents with the same init? First of all, what difference does it make if 5 orcs go on a 10, or if one orc goes on each count of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9 and 8, assuming no PC actions in the middle? The issue of a DM rolling "batch initiative" is a seperate issue, throwing it in here just muddies the waters. Secondly, I don't disagree that double attacks is more lethal than double damage. It's the same principle, different scale. Combat is potentially more lethal, perhaps much more so. Ok, it becomes an underlying theme for that game.

Actually, if you look at it mathematically, batch initiative is an important point. Last week in an earlier post, I illustrated an example of how Improved Initiative affects combat. It was easy to see from the example that if you roll each NPC separately, II only helps a PC only a little bit (allowing a PC to average less than one extra opponent he beats that he would not have beaten anyway with that specific example). It helps a lot if you roll all of the NPCs at the same time. The same applies here. Rolling them all at the same time significantly increases the chances (i.e. several magnitudes more chance) of them losing init on round x and winning it on round x+1. There is a major difference between one opponent getting back to back actions and 5 opponents doing so.

The chances of all 5 orcs going consecutively when each Orc's init is rolled separately is extremely slim and hence, rolling each round is less lethal if you roll every NPC init separately than if you do it batch style. How much less lethal probably cannot be determined.

Well, ok, then you only went over two times the reccomended number of foes, instead of four times.

In the entire combat. Considering that I phased them in over 4 rounds presented a considerably lesser challenge than the overall numbers indicated.

Calling it a "mistake" is a judgement call. We sure didn't think it was a mistake at the time, and plenty of people would call the current system a mistake.

True. Calling it a mistake is an opinion.

I agree 100% The sidebar describing it didn't even give it much credit, but the "tweaks" that would shoot down the developers reasons against it were already in place in previous editions, but they ignored them. Certainly, if I were to use a system like this, it would be a lot more detailed than just "re-roll every round", to prevent the problems many have proposed in this thread.

Agreed.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

(5) That the variable of re-rolling init has more effect on time loss during combat than (say) the variable of rolling damage.

Rephrased: The variable of re-rolling init has an effect on slowing the real time processing of running the combat with certain groups while not affecting real time processing with other groups.....


This argument fits nicely into the YMMV area.

The 3.x games I have run usually involve 6+ players who do not have a solid grasp on the flow of combat. For these groups the cyclic initiative helps the flow of combat.

I think one of the major assumptions that is not shared regards how the actual combat runs. DonTadow put it nicely when he said "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. "

If you approach 3.x combat with this in mind, then having intiative be a mechanic that organized the chaos of combat for play-purposes makes sense. The combat itself is still choatic, unpredicatable and a flurry of activity... unless you describe it as "The Orc moves up 30' and attacks for 14 points of damage, next...."

 

[Infiniti2000]

...and speeds play IME due to player attention.
...IME, lethality to the PCs is not appreciably increased....
Finally, my evidence occurs every time I play.

Quite frankly, your experience and evidence is meaningless with respect to the variant rule and this debate. You need to have experience and evidence on the rule itself, not some other rule.

 

[Warmage-in-Onley]

Interesting discussion that I now feel compelled to address.

Re-rolling init every round undoubtedly increases time spent resolving combat.

Yes, some forms of back-to-back unanswered actions are worse than others. Re-rolling init removes your ability to manage encounter distances tactically, by allowing variable randomized movement sequences. This may be especially unfair to a melee-adverse Sorc/Wiz whose combat tactics (and survivability) may revolve around answering actions that place melee specialists within reach. The Sorc/Wiz now has to become a master of managing initiative with Ready/Delay tactics, something not necessarily required by the cyclical initiative system. Re-rolling init really changes the way this type of character plays/enjoys the game.

Spell durations are a part of the game, and some are based on when your next turn arrives. I don't think complicating this element of the game achieves as much as it confounds.

Lastly, winning init should be a good thing! In a 2 critter scenario, if I win re-roll init every time then I have basically accomplished the same thing as winning cyclical initiative, but without its reliability (same thing with losing init every time, except for the very 1st action is the opponent's). Only with win-lose, lose-win init combos does action stacking occur - but the lose-win combo gives the PC the advantage! Combine this with applying certain spell effects in succession and see how the PC may prefer the lose-win combo (or the "Yes, we wanted to lose Game 1" effect).

When considering the above, I cannot argue in favor of re-rolling init every round.

 

[DonTadow]

Not gonna happen.

If 4e came out, and was exactly like 3e except that they did away with random rolls for damage, going to an average, would you switch? If so, why? If not, why?

Yeah I would. Mutants and Masterminds does a set in stone damage. But then thats a player decision.

I'm not saying that the idea of random insitiative each round is not an intersting concept, but the amount of time it takes is just rediculous... UNLESS YOU HAVE A WAY TO DO IT AS SWIFTLY AS POSSIBLE.

There was a time last year when we had 7 players and we stopped rolling initiatives. Instead, initiative was based prerolled by the combat management system I rolled. I didnt even announce the initiatives, only the order. (part of the reason was that i knew and called two players on "fudging their initiatives...man till this day i've never seen this guy roll below a 5 on intiative).

I'd toyed with the idea of programming a random initiative script for the same reasons previously mentioned, but I couldnt get the script to run right and abandoned the idea. As a player, I can see the fun in it, the unknowing is always fun. But this alone should not be your solution to solving the problem of wandering mind players and unexcited combat. It should be used as an added bonus for the players, not the main thing that holds their attention.

As a test, I think I"m going to try to write a random intiative script for tomorrow's evil module I wrote and am running. Since there are no lingering effects, I"m going to see how the pcs like the random combat.

 

[KarinsDad]

As a test, I think I"m going to try to write a random intiative script for tomorrow's evil module I wrote and am running. Since there are no lingering effects, I"m going to see how the pcs like the random combat.

The PCs will not have any likes or dislikes at all.

The players, on the other hand, may have opinions.

 

[3catcircus]

That was my thread and it was only two actions.



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.

Exactly - it makes combat more lethal. More lethal != "not neutral." More lethal != "favoring the NPCs." More lethal =! "bad."

 

[3catcircus]

But how does your point apply to adventurers?

Them using Delay and Readying are signs of a mature group of PCs taking advantage of their abilities. It matters not if they are suprised or not, it is their job to fight, fight often, and fight to the best of their abilities.

It applies because the PCs *shouldn't* get the benefit of re-planning a detailed, elaborate combat strategy after contact with the enemy. Rolling initiative once per combat allows them the ability to plan and act instead of react. Knowing that you go after the fighter but before the rogue affords you the ability to retroactively pre-plan your actions, while in the heat of battle.

Players may scout ahead, discover enemies in a dungeon room, and before entering combat, sit in the next room and develop a plan of action. Now, they enter into combat. With a single fixed order of initiative, players have the benefit of *knowing* who goes next every round. This allows them to change their tactics, not as if in the heat of a chaotic 6 seconds worth of activity, but as if they were back in the other room, re-working their draft plan into Rev 1.1, then Rev 1.5, then Rev 2.

Instead of reacting to their enemies' actions in battle, and changing their tactics, rolling initiative once allows them to change their overall strategy.