Initiative order & multiple attacks.

[cignus_pfaccari]

Yeah, you take all of your attacks on your turn in the initiative order. The orcs will act after you're finished, assuming they survive.

D&D initiative isn't like Shadowrun initiative, so you don't take just a short action in each initiative pass; there's just a single initiative pass in each round of combat.

Ah, the good old days of early Shadowrun editions, where without initiative boosters, the combat's over before you get to go.

There's nothing quite like hearing the mage's player cheer because she got to go.

Brad

 

[werk]

I don't know the official rules well enough to follow them religiously. I plan on developing a lot of house rules as I go along.

I would urge you to learn the game before you try to 'fix' it, or just play another game that you know.

 

[sukael]

I would urge you to learn the game before you try to 'fix' it, or just play another game that you know.

Seconded. Trying to "fix" a system as relatively complex as D&D without intricately knowing the math first is just going to result in something even more "broken".

 

[irdeggman]

Seconded. Trying to "fix" a system as relatively complex as D&D without intricately knowing the math first is just going to result in something even more "broken".

Ditto.

From my experience making house-rules for D&D (3.5) is very tricky.

3.5 much more so than any other edition of D&D was "designed" to work interactively. That is every part of the rules affects other parts of the rules. So that making what appears to be a "simple" house-rule ends up having a potentially huge domino effect.


Be very, very, careful before messing with the core system it will likely have unforseen consequences down the line.

There are rules in place to cover interupteing attacks (the ready action is the prime example), delay allows you to go at a different point in the initiative order.

Things you need to watch out for particularly is how this type of ruling will affect how spells interact with the system you are trying to use.

As I said earlier I will absolutley guarantee that your players will ask about "weapon speeds" when you try to spread out the combat based on the number of attacks a character gets.

"How come he gets to swing his great sword as quick as I get to use my dagger?"

"My spear should be able to strike him first since it is "easier" to use."

etc, etc.

 

[akbearfoot]

If a fighter was surrounded by a bunch of goblins, and the party wizard cast a fireball that killed all the goblins but not the fighter...would you then allow all the goblins to attack the fighter once before they died?

Seems like what you're arguing for? How fast do spells happen? Can I move in my turn before the fighters first attack, even though he won initiative? Can I stab him first since I have higher dexterity...or my weapon is lighter...If it's dark outside and I have better visibility, does he attack slower? This whole line of reasoning gives me a headache.

The system is designed the way it is because it's probably the simplest way that can still make sense, without making a small battle take 2 hours and 3 sheets of paper worth of hash marks etc.


Visually, the goblins moved up and attack the fighter on their last turn, if they won initiative...on the fighters turn he takes 4 attacks and kills them before they get to go. If the fighter won initiative, he either moved up to them and gets ONLY 1 attack, or he delays until the goblins approach him, and they get 1 attack against him before getting cut down like in the first example.

 

[doosler]

I would urge you to learn the game before you try to 'fix' it, or just play another game that you know.

As far as this particular aspect of the game is concerned, I believe I've learned it: According to the official rules, when it's your turn to attack, you make all of your attacks for that round. If you have higher initiative than the opponent you're facing, you make as many attacks as you possibly can on him in that round, and if he survives your attacks, then he can retaliate with all of his attacks for the round.

I would just rather imagine a battle in which, throughout each 6 second period (i.e., each round), players and their opponents are trading blows. Whoever wins initiative strikes first, and has a chance to incapacitate his opponent with that first blow, meaning no retaliation, but if a player wants to make multiple attacks, he will have to accept that his opponent will have a chance to make one or more of his attacks before the player is able to make all of his attacks for the round.

Thanks for your warning, werk, but I think we'll manage to have some fun without switching to a different game. But just in case, which game do you suggest? Checkers?

 

[doosler]

If a fighter was surrounded by a bunch of goblins, and the party wizard cast a fireball that killed all the goblins but not the fighter...would you then allow all the goblins to attack the fighter once before they died?

Seems like what you're arguing for?

It depends on initiative. If the wizard has the best initiative, followed by the goblins, followed by the fighter, then assuming the fireball is deadly enough to kill all of the goblins, they would not have an opportunity to attack the fighter. Also, unless the fighter chose to drive his sword into the blackened, fallen body of one of the goblins, then he wouldn't get an attack in that round either.

Now, if you present me with a wizard who can cast two spells per round, then that's a different story. Assuming the wizard still has the best initiative, and the first fireball doesn't kill off all of the goblins, can the wizard shoot off his second fireball in that round before any of the goblins can take a swing at the fighter? I would rule against it.

 

[irdeggman]

It depends on initiative. If the wizard has the best initiative, followed by the goblins, followed by the fighter, then assuming the fireball is deadly enough to kill all of the goblins, they would not have an opportunity to attack the fighter. Also, unless the fighter chose to drive his sword into the blackened, fallen body of one of the goblins, then he wouldn't get an attack in that round either.

Now, if you present me with a wizard who can cast two spells per round, then that's a different story. Assuming the wizard still has the best initiative, and the first fireball doesn't kill off all of the goblins, can the wizard shoot off his second fireball in that round before any of the goblins can take a swing at the fighter? I would rule against it.

How would you incorporate swift and immediate actions? This is something (and just one of the "somethings") that needs to be addressed if "spreading out" the actions of a single character throughout the round.

How about "weapons speeds"?

How about "special" actions - like readied actions, grapple, trip, improved trip (allows an immediate attack following a successful trip), cleave (you get an immediate extra attack), etc.?

Just briefly looking this "quick house-rule" over comes up with these questions that must be addressed at the same time. As I pointed out earlier - adding a house-rule can cause a lot more problem that is immediately obvious.

 

[chitzk0i]

I am in the process of writing an adventure/campaign to put some friends through. I don't know the official rules well enough to follow them religiously. I plan on developing a lot of house rules as I go along. Hopefully things will remain consistent. I am not sure exactly how I will handle combat, but I can tell you one thing for sure: No one is making 4 attacks on an enemy in a single round without the enemy having a chance to make a single attack on them.

It's not like the party is facing an army of sleeping orcs sequestered in Tactical Deployment Closets™. If the players surprise an enemy, there's a surprise round first where you only get a standard action.

 

[werk]

Thanks for your warning, werk, but I think we'll manage to have some fun without switching to a different game. But just in case, which game do you suggest? Checkers?

Checkers is turn based as well, you'd probably not like it.

Simultaneity

I'd suggest AD&D, I think, but I'm not familiar with a lot of systems outside of D&D.