Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2944683" data-attributes="member: 18280">I've run bigger battles with re-rolled init without party casualties.It boggles the mind what some of the assumptions here are.&nbsp; (1)&nbsp; That the goal of re-rolled init is to &quot;save&quot; the monsters.&nbsp; For what?&nbsp; They're monsters; they die.&nbsp; If not today, then tomorrow.&nbsp; That's like claiming that the goal of cyclic init is to &quot;save&quot; the players.(2)&nbsp; That any playtest evidence is somehow wrong or misleading.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; One person has posted that, in a previous edition, he lost a character due to the init system and bad luck.&nbsp; Overwhelmingly, the people effectively playtesting this system claim that it causes no probems.(3)&nbsp; That some forms of unanswered back-to-back actions are somehow worse than others.&nbsp; If you have two identical hobgoblins attack you sequentially, that is better than having the same hobgoblin attack you twice.(4)&nbsp; That the variable in re-rolling init has more effect on combat (and hence survivability) than, say, the variable of rolling damage.(5)&nbsp; That the variable of re-rolling init has more effect on time loss during combat than (say) the variable of rolling damage.(6)&nbsp; 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).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2944683, member: 18280"] I've run bigger battles with re-rolled init without party casualties. 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. [I]Overwhelmingly[/I], 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification