Initiative Variant (Speed Factor) - actual use

[toucanbuzz]

... Although a funny side effect of the -4 that heavy, two-handed weapons get is that it makes using versatile weapons two-handed really attractive. Unless I'm mistaken that using a two-handed doesn't incur the penalty, only if it has the two-handed property?

Yeah, a versatile weapon would give you the option each round of +0 modifier (normal use) or -2 (two-handed). If you wanted to increase the odds you act first, it'd be a better option than a static heavy, 2-hander. (On an aside: regular bows have always gotten love from D&D).

 

[toucanbuzz]

I really find this idea interesting. How do you handle declaring monster actions? Do you declare them after the players, out loud? Do you internally decide them while the players are deciding, then stick to them? Do you just decide them on the spot when it's the ghoul's turn?

RAW simply says decide before you roll, which isn't much guidance. Since the idea of weapon speed initiative and declaring actions hearkens from AD&D, I personally follow that system by secretly declaring monster Actions first. It avoids bias so I don't [subconsciously] craft monster strategy around what I know my players will do.

But, I don't announce to the players what the monsters are doing. My hobgoblin warrior might opt this round to throw his dagger at the wizard despite having attacked the last two rounds with a sword. The only clues the players get are what they see, just like always.

 

[seadaily]

Yeah, a versatile weapon would give you the option each round of +0 modifier (normal use) or -2 (two-handed). If you wanted to increase the odds you act first, it'd be a better option than a static heavy, 2-hander. (On an aside: regular bows have always gotten love from D&D).

Whoa, I really messed up what I was trying to write there. From my reading of the variant it seems to me that initiative modifiers are based on weapon qualities not so much how you’re wielding the weapon. As such I thought a versatile weapon used two-handed still had no penalty, which is why I was thinking of combining the heavy and two-handed categories as it seemed silly to use a d12 greataxe at -4 when you could use a d10 battle axe at no penalty in two hands. I’m fully willing to admit I misinterpreted the rule and applying a -2 for using a versatile weapon two-handed certainly smooths out the spectrum for speed factors.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I totally cheat. It makes everybody's life easier, chiefly mine.

“Turns out that everyone’s being controlled by an aboleth, who’s also reading your minds!”

 

[Ath'kethin]

“Turns out that everyone’s being controlled by an aboleth, who’s also reading your minds!”

Pffft. As if!









. . . it was a mindflayer . . .

 

[mAcular]

I'm looking at the Speed Factor rules. It says "ranged, loading" weapons take a -5. Does that mean a longbow would get a -5? Is it all ranged weapons, or just ranged weapons that are also loading?

How do you think this compares to the Greyhawk Initiative, by the way?

Also, what do you do with class features and abilities that do things like give Advantage to Initiative rolls? Do you just apply them as normal?

 

[Ath'kethin]

I think the penalty applies to weapons that are both ranged and loading, so bows no crossbows yes. That's how we play it.

And I never used Greyhawk Initiative, so I can't speak for that one. I've used the weapon speed variant initiative in every campaign I've run since 1995, so that's my go-to.

 

[Coroc]

Weapon Speed factors are broken for light and heavy weapons, since

a) a light wepon moves slower in many cases

b) a heavy weapon usually has longer reach and should atttack first if you want to add realism.

E.g. Your blunt two handed hammer in your perception might take much longer time to swing at the attacker with the dagger but
you would start your movement much earlier and in the end you can bet that the hammerhead (on ist long lever) is moving much
faster than you can lounge with your dagger.

This System only makes sense, when you allow attacks of opportunity as soon as an oponent with a short reach enters into the fighting distance of someone with a long reaching weapon. From that Point on it gets to complicated, which is not the base idea of D&D next.

 

[toucanbuzz]

It says "ranged, loading" weapons take a -5. Does that mean a longbow would get a -5? Is it all ranged weapons, or just ranged weapons that are also loading?

As Ath put it, -5 only applies to crossbows. I use a homebrew that provides a +0 if the crossbow is already loaded in that round (within reason, such as hearing wolves in the woods and loading a bolt). To me, the -5 appears designed to penalize loading, not aiming.

Long term, I'd like to see a supplement or homebrew that applies weapon speeds to every weapon, making weapon choice more meaningful. This would range from +2 to -5, and it'd be no more complex than the current system in that you'd write down your modifier next to your weapon.

How do you think this compares to the Greyhawk Initiative, by the way?

No comment? Read but not played, and opted for the "speed factor" rather than Greyhawk. In a nutshell:

* no meaningful effect for choice of weapon or spell. Any melee is d8, any spell d10, and loading a heavy crossbow is a d4?
* advantages casters too much. A fighter is locked into a melee action, but a caster can pick any spell s/he sees fit, to attack, defend, dispel, heal, etc.? Didn't solve the "analysis paralysis" of players picking the perfect spell. And a 9th level spell casts just a quickly as a cantrip? Pfft. My primary complaint about this proposed variant.

Also, what do you do with class features and abilities that do things like give Advantage to Initiative rolls? Do you just apply them as normal?

Yep.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Weapon Speed factors are broken for light and heavy weapons...This System only makes sense, when you allow attacks of opportunity as soon as an oponent with a short reach enters into the fighting distance of someone with a long reaching weapon. From that Point on it gets to complicated, which is not the base idea of D&D next.

Agree that ideally, if we're going to use Weapon Speed, it should be influenced by Reach. I'm very familiar with Sean Reynold's rant from a decade ago about how weapon speeds are bogus, and with Hackmaster's system that does away with rounds and uses Reach as a tie-breaker for when two foes close ranks. I've contemplated but never implemented a fix.

Making Reach relevant without dragging your combats to a crawl:

1. Home-brew weapon speeds that take into account Reach. DEX characters already benefit from a bonus to Initiative, and there is valid criticism they get a "double dip" using finesse weapons by getting another +2. With a d20 variant, it's not huge, but if you want realism, you could craft your own with rough ranges of +2 to -5. Up front a lot of arbitrary work. You could take inspiration from the free online Hackmaster rules, but you're opening yourself up to player argument if everyone is not in agreement.

2. Alternately, if a melee action is declared and an enemy closes rank, whoever has Reach can opt to strike first no matter the initiative (though you don't get to Act twice, you could still move when your initiative comes up). This would reflect the difficulty of getting into range of a sword wielder using a dagger. After closing ranks, initiative applies as normal. If the enemy disengages, whether by choice or being forced away (e.g. shoved or Thunderwave spell), the Reach rule applies again. If both Initiative and Reach are exactly the same, resolve with a d20 roll. This requires a TON of work. Hackmaster assigns a Reach number to each weapon reflecting its size and maneuverability, then a modifier based on the wielder's size, such as -1 for short.

In conclusion, it may not be easy up front, but I think it could be done.