Initiative problems

[Altissimus]

Hey folks,

I recently ran an arena-style encounter in my campaign, where the good guys came up against a group under arena rules (enclosed space; a crowd baying for blood; predefined combat starting positions; and a ready, steady, go! start).

This posed some minor problems for me, in that all involved knew exactly when things would start. Therefore, initiative was either a) the finer milliseconds of highly-tuned god-like reflexes, or b) simultaneous.

I ran a couple of these encounters with option a, playing initiative as per the rules. If their mage won, the PCs were screwed. If the PCs won, the other group was screwed. This seemed most unlikely, given that 3 seconds (give or take) after the start, the fireballs would go off, and even if they passed in mid-air they should both still impact. However, quite often the opposing mage was the target of that fireball, and was dead before he had a turn.

I then tried it playing a simultaneous initiative, with everything happening in "real time" and players needing to state their actions before seeing the result. This was absolute chaos and gave me a headache, but was good fun for all and seemed more "realistic".

Has anyone found similar drawbacks of the turn-based combat that initiative prescribes? Any useful and innovative ways of mitigating this that you'd care to share please?

Many thanks,

A.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

There was a discussion a while back about using "tick" systems in which people were discussing some of the issues with simultaneity in combat. There are a couple systems pointed out by user GnomeWorks in that thread that looked especially promising to me, but I haven't had a chance to look at it (much less use it!) since then. Something in there might be worth a look for you.

I agree that it would be a neat addition to the rules, but a lot of attempts tend to dissolve into a mess of complexity or paradox. It seems the hard part is devising a system that find a balance of thoroughness and consistency; with speed and ease of play.

 

[Altissimus]

Thanks for the link, that's awesome and I'll have a read.

I agree that it would be a neat addition to the rules, but a lot of attempts tend to dissolve into a mess of complexity or paradox. It seems the hard part is devising a system that find a balance of thoroughness and consistency; with speed and ease of play.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Grand Poobah]

For arena fights specifically how about having some free standing walls that block line of sight between starting areas. Or drop in a monster or two, nothing major but not exactly trivial either, between both parties that needs to be dealt with first. These two options would mean both parties get a round or two to move in to position, cast buffs etc and hopefully remove the 3-2-1-go-fireball!-gameover scenario you've got now.

 

[radmod]

I absolutely hate the standard initiative system. I've been using simultaneous for over 20 years now and, to me, it is the only way to go. It might take some getting used to initially but, in the end, I've found players, especially newbies, understand it better since, well, it makes a lot more sense. The impetus is on the DM, however, but once you get it down it becomes fairly easy despite it's seemingly complicated system of rules (generally there are more 'rules' for simultaneous than standard but most are only needed in special cases.)

 

[Altissimus]

I absolutely hate the standard initiative system. I've been using simultaneous for over 20 years now and, to me, it is the only way to go. It might take some getting used to initially but, in the end, I've found players, especially newbies, understand it better since, well, it makes a lot more sense. The impetus is on the DM, however, but once you get it down it becomes fairly easy despite it's seemingly complicated system of rules (generally there are more 'rules' for simultaneous than standard but most are only needed in special cases.)

Please provide link to rules!!!!

 

[green slime]

Perhaps you could start using non-obvious targets? Beguilers? Clerics? Psionicists? Wizards with items/feats/abilities removing/reducing Arcane Spellcasting Failure?

Extremely Dexterous rogues (Elves) wearing no armour?

 

[radmod]

Please provide link to rules!!!!

Unfortunately, my rules are my own and I am in the process of re-codifying them for some new players. I should be done soon and will post them in the house rules.
To start you off I had posted in the house rules section about how to do simultaneous movement in the rare cases one has to have detailed explanations.

 

[Herzog]

The only 'problem' we've had with turn-based combat is with falling:

We had one encounter where one of our party members jumped after a monster that had fallen down a tower.
Because of the turn-based initiative, they kept falling past eachother, making attacks and attacks of oppertunity in the process. Although this was really silly, it posed no real problem, except that, if they really had been falling, they either should have had full attacks (when within eachother's reach) or no melee attacks at all (when they were outside of eachother's reach)

I'm not sure how the arena-setup is different from normal combat. If an enemy mage can wipe out the party's mage in the first round of combat during an arena combat, he would probably be able to do that in a normal encounter as well. Unless there is some other part of the equasion I'm not aware of?

 

[Jxuptosae]

I have thought about trying to change to nixing initiative and go with the simultaneous approach. Although I wasn't inclined to write up the rules myself, so I would also love to see some examples of what has worked for others.

To Herzog, I see the distinction. Given that in a normal encounter there are generally obstructions, plus, not everyone is visible, easily effected, or waiting for the moment they can get to business there is a difference. In a normal encounter, sure, that is a tactic. One I generally use as spell caster myself, and that I have other casters use when I am the DM. The thing is, what spell actually gets used is highly dependent on situation. In normal combat every combat can develop under different circumstances. It is safe to assume that in the adventuring world, very rarely would any two groups spot each other, get into a position without buffing/whatever, and wait until the exact some moment to begin trying to kill the other group. Situation is vastly different.

The way I have handled it is I keep Wizards/Sorcerers arena experiences separate from the close range Fighter/Barbarian/Rouge crowd. Some of the Wizard type books have rules on spell dueling, and I tend to do those. The typical arena format only works really well in regard to people that actually need to hit each other with a weapon. This also makes the group I DM for have some things they do for character development. I tend to keep magic a little light in my campaigns, not gone, just rare. (Meaning towns with Wizards/etc take total advantage of having magic, where as towns without do things the "mundane" way.) This makes the distinction make sense and be reasonable, given the world view and availability of magic in general.