Initiative Question

[King Nate]

What would mechanically be affected by having players roll for initiative every round?

I understand this will make combat take longer (this is not an issue for the group), but is there anything that would change because of this? I can't think of any which is why I am looking for help.

Thanks for any help I can get on this subject.

 

[fba827]

Well some powers cause effects that last until the end of your turn.

So if the PC goes last one round, uses his power that creates a 1 round zone, and then ends up going first/second the next round, his power would fizzle before it really had a chance to do anything.

To account for that, you'd have to start keeping track of what round an effect ends (rather than simply saying at the end of person Xs turn).

Or, the flip side, some monsters have auras that cause effects to any an ally/enemy that starts its turn near it. By going first one round and then last the next round it could get a boost to how much damage its really doing (potentially damaging a PC twice - once the first round and a second time the second round) without even moving yet if went first then last.

 

[King Nate]

Thanks, I didn't think about that, however now that I am thinking about it, wouldn't it just balance itself out?

Sometimes your effects wouldn't last as long and sometimes they would last longer?

 

[fba827]

Thanks, I didn't think about that, however now that I am thinking about it, wouldn't it just balance itself out?

Sometimes your effects wouldn't last as long and sometimes they would last longer?

It would balance "in the grand scheme" -- however, some players might get annoyed/frustrated if they feel they "wasted" a power use because it had no real effect (as if it were a player that just kept missing on attack rolls).

 

[On Puget Sound]

It would greatly add to the luck element in fights. Getting 2 turns in a row before your opponent, or letting them act twice without a chance to react, heal, save, etc, makes a huge difference. And adding more luck swinginess to fights results in more lethality overall, which is why fumble rules suck and critical hits were nerfed in 4E.

Why does randomness increase lethality, you ask, since the luck cuts both ways? Here's a simplified illustration. You have the Sword of Luck. Whenever you roll a 20 while wielding it, you immediately slay whatever you're fighting. Orcus, Orcus's Mommy, doesn't matter. But whenever you roll a 1, you die.

Luck will be bad sometimes and good sometimes. Any rule that makes good "better" and bad "worse" increases the chance of death in the eventual fight in which your bad luck happens.

 

[cmbarona]

It'd make a warlord's job a heck of a lot more difficult. I don't know about clerics, but I play a warlord in a 4-person game with a rogue, warlock, and wizard. One of the first things I and the Rogue try to do is to pair up our initiative orders correctly so that I go directly before him. That way, a bonus I confer to him (e.g., Furious Smash) doesn't lose its usefulness in the shuffle of combat (e.g., an enemy shifting away so we have to reposition ourselves for flanking).

 

[Blizzardb]

Just out of curiosity, why do you want to do this? A long time ago I played AD&D with rollling initiative every round and it was horrible. The time spent rolling dice, the illogical things that happened because people took two turns in a row...

I suppose you could say the battles were more unpredictable this way, but I don't think this is the best way of achieving this effect.

 

[Dracorat]

If by your own contention, it doesn't greatly change things, why artificially increase the length of combat for little to no value to your group?

It doesn't even make sense logically. On the surface you want to say "but everyone doesn't act in a choreographed fashion in combat" which while true, no person in combat really gets huge speed bursts and slow bursts (for lack of better description) either.

So in short, yeah you can do it. It was even a variant rule in prior editions.

But why would you?

 

[Mengu]

I would severely dislike this rule too, as a Warlord player, who likes to know where everyone is going on the initiative order. We delay actions, ready actions, etc. quite frequently, not to mention all the kinds of bonuses people get till the end of their next turn. If the power that I went through great lengths to hit with, does nothing because of re-rolled initiative, I'd be rather upset. Similarly if I was stunned until the end of a monster's next turn, I'd hate to have to spend 2 turns stunned. Being stunned is already quite boring and frustrating.

This does not make a good house rule with the current rule set.

 

[Seule]

Part of the balancing of delaying and readying is that you move your initiative to the new lower number, rerolling would negate that. In addition, what happens if someone is still delaying at the start of the next round? Do they get to roll, or are the now missing an action for the entire combat?

--Penn