House Rule: Battle Queue instead of rounds

[Goken100]

I played a system like this back in 2e. ...I remember my group's conclusions.

1) The only thing that really changed was that people who had high weapon speeds got totally hosed...

Not a problem here, no weapon speeds.

2) It was annoying to keep track of. Lots of adding and writing down going on.

It's a concern, but I think limiting things to whole seconds and using dice as counters makes it possible.

3) It meant a lot more waiting for people to make up their minds than normal. With the current initiative system, you have from the time of your previous action until the time of your next action to figure out what you want to do. With a system like this you have to figure out your next action before your current action goes off or else do it after your action and before the DM moves on to the next time segment. Since your action might kill an enemy or your spell might fail or whatever this almost always means stopping while the person decideds their next action before you move on.

This is something I'm concerned with. One solution is the FF style (instant actions with recuperation), which I don't like much but it may be necessary. It bears playtesting.

4) With several NPCs acting during a combat it gets very complicated and annoying. I dunno about you lot, but my NPCs all go off the same initiative roll. If they have different Init mods then I'll do them on different segments, but they stay the same every round. With this method you could easily end up with every enemy going on their own time segments and having to keep up with each. One or two enemies okay, but what about a fight with a dozen goblins?

It becomes necessary to group enemies and use simplifications. I actually have rules so that groups of 2-3 make a single attack as one, with bonuses to hit and to damage. One can create these rolls so they are statistically very similar to seperate rolls. Ya... I know, I'm a nerd.

Not saying it's an all-out bad idea. I really like the concept, it just didn't work well for my group and I thought I might point out some concerns. I bet if you used a computer to track this stuff it'd be a lot easier.

Heh, ya, that's the ONLY way I was able to use it when we had half-seconds. I just used a laptop. But with whole seconds, dice work, and I kinna like it better. Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Goken100]

You still have the problem of doubling the movement time...

and I still don't think its enough...

I propose:

A) Convert all of your numbers to half seconds, and have the action times be

BaB Half Seconds
0-5 7
6-10 6
11-15 4
16-19 3
20+ 2

It gets around the problem of wizards getting more spells than fighters do attacks but only at high levels, although you may have concerns with the maximum times

BaB Min Action Time
poor 6
fair 4
good 2

It gives the move-attack over time increase, and gives fighters a distinct advantage in actions per combat to wizards.


Attacks of opportunity:
Attacks of opportunity unlike normal attacks are executed immediately and have a recovery period(or if you prefer are executed at the character's reation time through the action)

I.E.
Bobo the bard is engaged in combat with Sir Knight. Bobos action time is 7 Sir Knights is 6
Tick 1 : Bobo starts to cast a spell at the beggining of combat.
Tick 2 : Sir knight 'jogs' to Bobo who is 3 spaces away
Tick 4 : Sir Knight is threatening bobo who is casting a spell. HE makes an immediate AoO
on Bobo for 5 damage with his longsword. Bobo sucedes on his concentration check
Tick 8 : Bobo's spell goes off, giving him a +1 bonus on attack and damage. Bobo Starts an
attack
Tick 10: Sir Knight starts an attack.
Tick 15: Bobo's attack goes off wounding Sir Knight
Tick 16: Sir Knights attack further wounds Bobo
Tick 22: Both Critically hit eachother and die a bloody death.

OR

Bobo the bard is engaged in combat with Sir Knight. Bobos action time is 7 Sir Knights is 6
Tick 1 : Bobo starts to cast a spell at the beggining of combat.
Tick 2 : Sir knight 'jogs' to Bobo who is 3 spaces away
Tick 4 : Sir Knight is threatening bobo who is casting a spell. HE starts an AoO
on Bobo for 5 damage with his longsword. Bobo sucedes on his concentration check
Tick 6: Sir Knight's AoO strikes Bobo for 5 damage with his longsword. Bobo sucedes on
his concentration check
Tick 8 : Bobo's spell goes off, giving him a +1 bonus on attack and damage. Bobo Starts an
attack
Tick 10: Sir Knight starts an attack.
Tick 15: Bobo's attack goes off wounding Sir Knight
Tick 16: Sir Knights attack further wounds Bobo
Tick 22: Both Critically hit eachother and die a bloody death.




Concerns:
Demons/Dragons that have really high BaB and spell like abilities. Its not pretty any way you lok at it.

Prestige Classes like the eldritch knight that provid full spellcasting and full BaB (thats what the 20th BaB drop is for)

Okay, we've got at least 2 seperate issues here. The latter, about attacks of opportunity, I think is a good one. Does everyone else think its a good idea that if a character moves into range of someone doing something that normally provokes an attack of opportunity, the AOO should still be provoked? I like it, its a good counter to wizards. And I vote that the attack be instantaneous, to be consistent with other AOO's.
By the way, the rules for both Jogging and Running forbid making an attack after such movement until a full Action Time has passed (thus it is like taking a double move in the core rules).

Now, as for Action Time progression:
I just finished an exhaustive comparison between the above proposal, the core rules, and my version. I compared someone standing still and making attacks, someone moving 30 ft (or 12 meters) then attacking, and someone moving 10 ft (or 4 meters) then attacking. I made these comparisons at level 1, 6, 11, and 16. The end result was that MtG's proposal becomes very far off of the core rules at all levels other than level 1, and is much less balanced.

This finding is based on an important concept: the value of a reduced attack from the core rules.
A Fighter at level 6 gets a +6/+1 from his attack chart. So how many +6 attacks is his +1 attack worth? The way to answer it is ask this question: if you asked that character how many +1 attacks you'd have to give him to REPLACE his +6 attack, what would his answer be?
This is the same as saying, how many attacks would you have to get to balance out taking a -5 to your attack? The third attack gets a -10, and the fourth gets a -15. I was very conservative in my estimates, and here's what I came up with:

Penalty.......#Atcks To Replace.........Value............Explanation
-5.....................2...........................0.5.............+6 = +1/+1
-10...................4...........................0.25............+11 = +1/+1/+1/+1
-15...................8...........................0.125..........+15 = +1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1

This means that a Fighter at level 6 has the EQUIVALENT of 1.5 full attacks, at level 11 has 1.75 full attacks, and at level 16 has 1.875 full attacks. Make sense?

 

[magic_gathering2001]

Could you show the results of your tests please?

Ill do my own in the mean time.

 

[Goken100]

Could you show the results of your tests please?

Ill do my own in the mean time.

Oky dok.
The following is a comparison of 3 systems (core, mine, and MtG's), three actions (just attacking, moving 30 ft then attacking, and moving 10 feet then attacking), and four base attack bonuses (+1, +6, +11, and +16). Each number is the number of attacks possible in one minute under each system when just performing the one action (these could have been kept per second or per 6-seconds, but its easier to use large whole numbers). The right two columns show the absolute value of the difference from the core rules of both my proposed rules and MtG's proposal. As we're trying to measure how closely we're sticking to the original game balance, lower numbers are better.

BAB.....Action......Old.....Goken...MtG.............Goken.Diff...MtG.Diff
1.......Attack...........10......10...17.14...............0...........7.14
1.......30ft.Comb......10.......5....6.32...............5............3.68
1.......10ft.Comb......10.....7.5...10.91.............2.5..........0.91

6.......Attack...........15......12......20................3...........5
6.......30ft.Comb......10....5.45....6.67............4.55..........3.33
6.......10ft.Comb......10....8.57......12............1.43...........2

11......Attack.........17.5......15......30.............2.5..........12.5
11......30ft.Comb......10.......6.....7.5...............4............2.5
11......10ft.Comb......10......10......15...............0............5

16......Attack........18.75......20......40............1.25.........21.25
16......30ft.Comb......10....6.67.......8............3.33...........2
16......10ft.Comb......10......12...17.14...............2...........7.14
.................................................Sum........29.56........72.46

See what I mean?
A few interesting things to note:
The normal sum of differences of my proposal shows a weakening (by the arbitrary measure of magniture of 23) and MtG's proposal shows a strengthening (by the arbitrary magniture of -49). I would say it is preferable to show a mild weakening because: (1) The estimate of how many full-bonus equivalent attacks under the core rules is generous indeed and (2) this does not take into consideration how much more versatile a character with a high BAB is now that all actions quicken, not just attacks.

Also of note, I ran the test under the rule that MtG seemed to be proposing (intentionally or not, I'm not sure) that attacks should be possible after a double-time move (jog). The two sums of absolute differenes were:
Goken: 22.4
Mtg: 84.3
So while MtG's suggestion falls even further behind, my own rules seem to veer closer to the core balance if all characters are able to move about at double speed at all times. I'm reluctant to allow it, however, because it seems kind of silly. Why call it double-time (jog) if characters do it all the time without any extra effort or penalties?

Anyways, I do appreciate someone taking an interest, and helping me think all this stuff out. Thanks much, please keep the suggestions coming.

 

[magic_gathering2001]

Sorry this took so long my computer crashed in the middle of my post

Level......Core......Goken......MtG
1...........10.........10...........8
12..........10.........12..........10

BAB.....Action......Old.....Goken...MtG........... ..Goken.Diff...MtG.Diff
1.......Attack...........10......10...17.14....... ........0...........7.14
1.......30ft.Comb......10.......5....6.32......... ......5............3.68
1.......10ft.Comb......10.....7.5...10.91......... ....2.5..........0.91

6.......Attack...........15......12......20....... .........3...........5
6.......30ft.Comb......10....5.45....6.67......... ...4.55..........3.33
6.......10ft.Comb......10....8.57......12......... ...1.43...........2

11......Attack.........17.5......15......30....... ......2.5..........12.5
11......30ft.Comb......10.......6.....7.5......... ......4............2.5
11......10ft.Comb......10......10......15......... ......0............5

16......Attack........18.75......20......40....... .....1.25.........21.25
16......30ft.Comb......10....6.67.......8......... ...3.33...........2
16......10ft.Comb......10......12...17.14......... ......2...........7.14
.................................................S um........29.56........72.46

You messed something up in there, Not sure what yet

Here is what I got per 60 ticks

BAB.....Action......Old.....Goken...MtG
0.......Attack...........10......10...8.57
0.......30ft.Comb......10.......5....4.61
0.......10ft.Comb......10.....7.5...6.67

6.......Attack...........15......12......10
6.......30ft.Comb......10....5.45......5
6.......10ft.Comb......10....8.57......7.5

11......Attack.........17.5......15......15
11......30ft.Comb......10.......6........6
11......10ft.Comb......10......10......10

16......Attack........18.75......20......20
16......30ft.Comb......10....6.67.......6.67
16......10ft.Comb......10......12........12

20......Attack........18.75......30.......30
20......30ft.Comb......10.......7.5.....7.5
20......10ft.Comb......10........15.......15

I don't know how you got the differences though

Wizards spells per round
Level......Action.......Old.....Goken.....MtG
1...........Cast.........10......10.........8.57
1...........30ftComb...10......5.........4.61
1...........10ftComb...10......7.5.......6.67

12.......Cast.............10......12......10
12.......30ft.Comb......10....5.45......5
12.......10ft.Comb......10....8.57......7.5

Actions per Actions

BAB.....Action......Old.....Goken...MtG
0.......Action...........1......1.......1
0.......30ft.Comb......1......1.......1
0.......10ft.Comb......1......1.......1

6.......Action...........1.5.....1.2......1.17
6.......30ft.Comb......1.......1.08......1.08
6.......10ft.Comb......1.......1.14......1.13

12......Action.........1.75......1.46......1.5
12......30ft.Comb......1........1.1........1.2
12......10ft.Comb......1.......1.17......1.33

16......Action........1.88......1.67......2
16......30ft.Comb......1.......1.22.......1.33
16......10ft.Comb......1.......137........1.6

20......Action........1.88......3...........3
20......30ft.Comb......1.......1.38.......1.5
20......10ft.Comb......1........1.75.......2

Based on this...
BaB Action Time
0-5 7 ticks
6-10 6 ticks
11-16 5 ticks
16-19 4 ticks
20+ 3 ticks

movement should stay the number of ticks it is

 

[Goken100]

Heya Magic. I'll give an example how I calculated my chart and we can compare notes.

As I understand it, you propose a character's actions to take 7 ticks until the BAB is +6. If a tick is half a second, each action takes 3.5 seconds.

The number of actions taking 3.5 seconds in a minute that could be accomplished is:
60 / 3.5 = 17.14. The number you got was 8.59, which is exactly half of mine. Does that mean you're agreeing that seconds should be a second long? And that low level characters should actually take slightly longer than the traditional 6 seconds to complete an action? I'm not necessarily opposed to that, I'm just trying to make sure I understand.

To give an example for movement, it takes 2 seconds for a medium character to move 10 feet. Therefore, to move 10 feet then attack under MtG's rules is 2 + 3.5 seconds = 5.5.

The number of times a chacters can move 10 ft and then attack (when thet attack takes 3.5 seconds) in a minute would be:
60 / 5.5 = 10.91

By the way, the method for evaluating each plan involves subtracking the proposal from the core rules. However, we don't care if the value is positive or negative, we just want to know how far off target the result is. So we take the absolute value of each difference and sum them up. If we use MtG's proposal where each tick is a second, that the sum of the abosulte values of the differences is 35.73. That is much better than 72.46, but still not as good as 29.56.

Note that your chart is slightly inaccurate, as my proposal does not include a jump at the 20th level, but your calculations imply that they do. I've therefore omitted the 20th level from the above sums. I they were included, however, the MtG plan would further fall behind due to that jump in speediness.

 

[magic_gathering2001]

OK I think I see where we are mixed up...

I just converted your movement to ticks, in my system a tick is 1/2 second, so all of the listed values are in half seconds (in my system only)

Secondly, 30 seconds of combat in my system is anout the same as sixty seconds of yours or sixty seconds of Core rules. This means it should probably be converted back to seconds, but I like it in half seconds.

S ohere is my final suggestion (what that whole chart was meant to support)

Ticks are arbitrary measures of time which can be changed based on how long you want combats to be (guessed average: 23 ticks)

BaB Action Time
0-5 7 ticks
6-10 6 ticks
11-16 5 ticks
16-19 4 ticks
20+ 3 ticks

Cat of Speed.....................Speed (m / 6 ticks).............Spaces (2m) per tick
Encumbered small character.......3..............................0.2 5
Small character........................6...............................0.5
Small level 6 monk....................9...............................0.75
Medium character....................12..............................1
Medium level 6 monk.................15.............................1.25
Medium level 12 monk...............18.............................1.5
Medium level 18 monk...............21.............................1.75
Jogging medium character..........24............................2
Jogging medium level 6 monk......30............................2.5
Jogging medium level 12 monk....36.............................3
Jogging medium level 18 monk....42............................3.5
Running medium character.........48.............................4
Running medium level 6 monk......60.............................5
Running medium level 12 monk....72.............................6
Running medium level 18 monk.....84............................7

Are we clear?

 

[Goken100]

OK I think I see where we are mixed up...

I just converted your movement to ticks, in my system a tick is 1/2 second, so all of the listed values are in half seconds (in my system only)

Secondly, 30 seconds of combat in my system is anout the same as sixty seconds of yours or sixty seconds of Core rules. This means it should probably be converted back to seconds, but I like it in half seconds.

S ohere is my final suggestion (what that whole chart was meant to support)

Ticks are arbitrary measures of time which can be changed based on how long you want combats to be (guessed average: 23 ticks)

BaB Action Time
0-5 7 ticks
6-10 6 ticks
11-16 5 ticks
16-19 4 ticks
20+ 3 ticks

Cat of Speed.....................Speed (m / 6 ticks).............Spaces (2m) per tick
Encumbered small character.......3..............................0.2 5
Small character........................6...............................0.5
Small level 6 monk....................9...............................0.75
Medium character....................12..............................1
Medium level 6 monk.................15.............................1.25
Medium level 12 monk...............18.............................1.5
Medium level 18 monk...............21.............................1.75
Jogging medium character..........24............................2
Jogging medium level 6 monk......30............................2.5
Jogging medium level 12 monk....36.............................3
Jogging medium level 18 monk....42............................3.5
Running medium character.........48.............................4
Running medium level 6 monk......60.............................5
Running medium level 12 monk....72.............................6
Running medium level 18 monk.....84............................7

Are we clear?

OK, that makes sense, thanks.

Both the action speeds and movement speeds that you're suggesting are double what I thought. I COULD run a comparison between the old system, where it takes 6 seconds to get things done, to this suggestions, where things are done closer to 3 seconds, but there's not any reason to do so. For one, we know they'd be vastly different. And for another, the comparison I already ran is a better measure. When EVERYTHING is doubled in speed, then effectively nothing is doubled. The comparison I already ran is therefore valid, and my proposed system of progression is a closer approximation to the core balance.

So that begs the question, why not have half-second ticks and use my system of progression? Well, there are a few problems with measuring everything in half-seconds:

1. The WOTC folks came up with the speeds that they did based on previous D&D work, playtesting, and what seemed reasonable to them. I also compared the speeds that were average in D&D to average speeds of people moving, and they match up ok. The speeds of high level monks also match up fairly well with record-breaking runners, so that's nice too. If you double speeds, it no longer matches up with reality and historical role playing precedent.
2. If the DM wants to estimate how long something will take, it is intuitively easy to figure in minutes and seconds, as these are used in the real world. It would be cumberson to have to multiply any of these estimates by 2 to make ticks.
3. There is no compelling reason to use half-second ticks. The original motivation of that though by MtG was to make it possible to both move and attack in about 6 seconds. However, I've shown that while that becomes aligned more closely for a first level character in the core rules, all other actions are very different from the original core rules. So it defeats the purpose. And recall, the balance wasn't good even when I didn't double the speeds. It would be much worse if I did.

As you say, it could certainly be converted back to seconds. I think that would be a good idea. But as I've shown, the progression that I suggested is only slightly different from your suggestion (if they're both in seconds) and more closely matches the core balance.

However, they are similar enough that you probably won't notice much difference in game play whichever way you go. So I'm just happy that there's someone who is willing to think about things like this. If only WOTC could do something like this for 4.0, eh?

 

[magic_gathering2001]

Both the action speeds and movement speeds that you're suggesting are double what I thought. I COULD run a comparison between the old system, where it takes 6 seconds to get things done, to this suggestions, where things are done closer to 3 seconds, but there's not any reason to do so.

Agreed, the numbers could easily be either so which is unimportant.

For one, we know they'd be vastly different. And for another, the comparison I already ran is a better measure. When EVERYTHING is doubled in speed, then effectively nothing is doubled. The comparison I already ran is therefore valid, and my proposed system of progression is a closer approximation to the core balance.

Exactly, if everything is halved in speed then nothing is changed so 30 ticks is 30 ticks regardless of how long a tick is, that is the error in your origional comparison. That 30 ticks should be equivalent to 60 ticks

So that begs the question, why not have half-second ticks and use my system of progression? Well, there are a few problems with measuring everything in half-seconds:

1. The WOTC folks came up with the speeds that they did based on previous D&D work, playtesting, and what seemed reasonable to them. I also compared the speeds that were average in D&D to average speeds of people moving, and they match up ok. The speeds of high level monks also match up fairly well with record-breaking runners, so that's nice too. If you double speeds, it no longer matches up with reality and historical role playing precedent.
2. If the DM wants to estimate how long something will take, it is intuitively easy to figure in minutes and seconds, as these are used in the real world. It would be cumberson to have to multiply any of these estimates by 2 to make ticks.
3. There is no compelling reason to use half-second ticks. The original motivation of that though by MtG was to make it possible to both move and attack in about 6 seconds. However, I've shown that while that becomes aligned more closely for a first level character in the core rules, all other actions are very different from the original core rules. So it defeats the purpose. And recall, the balance wasn't good even when I didn't double the speeds. It would be much worse if I did.

OK Ill trust you on this one

As you say, it could certainly be converted back to seconds. I think that would be a good idea. But as I've shown, the progression that I suggested is only slightly different from your suggestion (if they're both in seconds) and more closely matches the core balance.

No mine more closely resemble core balance on a strict, action to action basis. That is what the table is for to show that the numbers I chos most closely resembled the Core actions to actions values:
Actions per Actions

BAB.....Action......Old.....Goken...MtG
0.......Action...........1......1.......1
0.......30ft.Comb......1......1.......1
0.......10ft.Comb......1......1.......1

6.......Action...........1.5.....1.2......1.17*
6.......30ft.Comb......1.......1.08......1.08*
6.......10ft.Comb......1.......1.14......1.13*

12......Action.........1.75......1.46*......1.5
12......30ft.Comb......1........1.1*........1.2
12......10ft.Comb......1.......1.17*......1.33

16......Action........1.88......1.67*......2
16......30ft.Comb......1.......1.22*.......1.33
16......10ft.Comb......1.......1.37*........1.6

20......Action........1.88......3*...........3
20......30ft.Comb......1.......1.38*.......1.5
20......10ft.Comb......1........1.75*.......2

However, they are similar enough that you probably won't notice much difference in game play whichever way you go. So I'm just happy that there's someone who is willing to think about things like this. If only WOTC could do something like this for 4.0, eh?

Probably not, but...
I try to help, thats really why I browse here not to post, but to help critique (and hopefully construct) other people's ideas