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

[PallidPatience]

Don't other groups of people who have fought together for a while also do those sorts of things, even IRL? Eventually, you tend to get a feel for the capabilities and basic tendencies of your allies, if you survive by fighting with them on a regular basis, which sounds like adventuring life to me. That seems to accurately reflect that.

 

[Goldmoon]

The only issue I really have with all the people defending the rerolling of initiative every turn is that they keep mentioning their games. At the risk of sounding hostile, we're not discussing your games. If you and your players like it, that's fine. We're not going to stop your using it.

However, Goldmoon asked us to give him ammunition to use against a DM who is using that optional rule without any of the fixes that you guys use in your games. He also doesn't keep track of spell durations, except as part of their casters' initiatives, so spells can end early or last longer than usual. At the same time, and Goldmoon can correct me if I'm wrong, the players in that game seem to NOT be having fun.

All of these reasons make all of your arguments invalid... WHEN IT COMES TO GOLDMOON'S GAME, which is the issue here.

As for me... It would really depend on the kind of game I wanted to play, whether or not I'd want to use a system of rolling every round. It has its benefits for supporting certain styles, but it detracts from others...

Pallid, of the 4 players, two are new to any system of D&D and dont even know they are being screwed by a bad rule. The two of us who know whats going on, however are very unhappy with it. Ive seen a lot of arguements for and against rolling every round here and frankly its been blown way of proportion if you ask me. When it comes down to it, the current version of D&D is not made for rolling every round, thats why they changed it. I think they just made it an optional rule to "throw the old school players a bone". Just because its printed in a core book, doesnt mean its a good rule. Please, before some of you call for me to prove my point or want me burned at the stake remember, all this is just my opinion.

 

[PallidPatience]

As far as I'm concerned, the entire point of this argument should have always been that you and your group were unhappy with the way the DM was running things, and you were looking for ways to convince him to do it a different way. If you don't like the way the game is going, it's your right to ask for a change, especially if others in the group agree with you. The important thing in the situation isn't who's the DM, or even many of the points that have been brought up here (most of which, from those defending the act of rolling every round, are invalid due to the lack of impact on your game). The important thing is that you and yours are having fun, which you stated from the beginning that you were not. D&D is a GAME. If you're not having fun playing the GAME, nothing else matters. Tell your DM that you're not enjoying it. Have those friends of yours who also aren't enjoying it to back you up. Don't walk out. Give HIM the option to adapt, or leave. After all, you guys are the majority. If he has no logical reason to roll every round, and it's all about nostalgia, gently nudge him toward using the new rules. Point out the flaws with the system, as written, that we've all pointed out, and explain to him that you want to use the new rules, and not this overly-lethal (without alterations) variant.

After all, as I and others have noted, it's a game. Who wants to spend their time playing a game that's not fun? Not me.

 

[Twowolves]

When it comes down to it, the current version of D&D is not made for rolling every round, thats why they changed it. I think they just made it an optional rule to "throw the old school players a bone". Just because its printed in a core book, doesnt mean its a good rule. Please, before some of you call for me to prove my point or want me burned at the stake remember, all this is just my opinion.

This is true. They designed the game with this cyclic inititative in mind, and altering it alters the dynamic of the game. You guys don't like it, and the DM in question hasn't "slapped the band-aid" over the rough spots in it, nor seemingly adjusted the rest of the game to even it out. That's Not Good, and he should be persuaded to change. The whole debate over the merits of re-rolling is a threadjack, and a rekindling of older threads. For you, in your situation, the merits of one way over another are indeed irrelevant, and I apologize for helping derail any help this thread may have been for you.

 

[Twowolves]

Yeah I would. Mutants and Masterminds does a set in stone damage.

This isn't a really fair comparison, since M&M doesn't have hit points either, and the effects of damage ARE determined by a random roll, it just comes on the backside as a damage save. A better comparison would be Marvel SuperHeroes, which had a set damage against a set defense/health score.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

A talented group of players could plan even with rolling init every round.

I played with a very tactical group of players back in the 2E days. They had some key phrases and other techniques which they used to their advantage. For example, I recall the phrase "dogpile" meant to gang up on the closest spell caster and the phrase "incoming" meant missile fire was coming in and to seek cover.

In fact, we had a new player in the group and I yelled incoming and as each player's init came along, we all started seeking cover of some sort and the new player did not know what was going on and about a half dozen archers pelted his PC cause he was the only PC still in sight. We've laughed our butts off.

It's not that hard, even when rolling inits every round for the PC Rogue to ready an action to attack once another PC flanks his current opponent. That's a plan and it's a plan that could work regardless of init system. It might not happen every time, but then again, I suspect that most players do not say with the circular init system "Hmmm, bad guy four's init is after both the PC Fighter and Rogue, so we will flank him because he cannot prevent it.". I know my players do not have the inclination to metagame to that level. Some of them barely remember to flank at all.

 

[Goldmoon]

This is true. They designed the game with this cyclic inititative in mind, and altering it alters the dynamic of the game. You guys don't like it, and the DM in question hasn't "slapped the band-aid" over the rough spots in it, nor seemingly adjusted the rest of the game to even it out. That's Not Good, and he should be persuaded to change. The whole debate over the merits of re-rolling is a threadjack, and a rekindling of older threads. For you, in your situation, the merits of one way over another are indeed irrelevant, and I apologize for helping derail any help this thread may have been for you.

Its all good. This is a rules section and you all love to debate rules. I thought I knew a lot about 3E but I can honestly say I learned a lot so far from this thread and others like it. I just think the issue was made more complicated than it should have been.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Please, before some of you call for me to prove my point or want me burned at the stake remember, all this is just my opinion.

I don't recall anyone wanting to burn you at the stake.

I agree that "Just because its printed in a core book, doesnt mean its a good rule" -- though I would go so far as to say that this applies as much to the standard rules as to the optional ones. Some of us, for various reasons, simply think that cyclic initiative is a worse rule than re-rolled init.

RC

 

[Twowolves]

Actually, if you look at it mathematically, batch initiative is an important point.

It's important, but it's also only tangentially related to the topic. IF you re-roll initiative every round AND you roll batch initiative, then the issue is exacerbated, but that's seperate from any issues with JUST re-rolling init.

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.

We agree on something! I thought I'd never live to see the day!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Don't walk out. Give HIM the option to adapt, or leave. After all, you guys are the majority.

If I was invested in the rule, my response would be: "I am sorry that you aren't enjoying yourselves; I work hard to make an interesting and fun world. This is the way I am running the game. If I am DMing, that's the way it's going to be. On the other hand, I'd be more than happy to play for a while if one of you would prefer to DM?"

In my own game, I am invested in the rule, and my response would also include: "Of course, I'm still going to run a regular game for those of you who are interested. There are a lot of people waiting for seats in this game, so we should easily have enough people to play."

YMMV, of course.