Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5026993" data-attributes="member: 2011">I don't mind the D10 plus mod part of it. That works fine.I only mind the "declare actions, lose init, now your actions are obsolete", and the "we lost init last round, we won init this round, so we have back to back actions before the opposition can react" aspect of these rules.There were a lot of game systems in the 80s that had lousy init rules. They were experimenting a lot back then cause nobody had a good init system. I don't see a need to go back to that (quite frankly) idiocy. And they are especially worse in PBP where people don't want to post their actions twice (and roll feat rolls, just to change actions, that's just plain stupid).One other note on this. Every round is twice as long in PBP by using the core book init system. For example:Players 1-5 declare actions = 5 posts, DM declares init = 1 posta) players win init = 5 more posts of rolls, DM posts enemy rolls and all outcomes, total = 12 postsb) players lose init, DM posts enemy rolls and outcomes, players post 5 more posts of rolls, DM posts player outcomes, total = 13 postsPBP is slow enough without having 12 or more posts per round. In a circular init system with init only being determined in round one, it becomes 1 post per player and 1 post per DM per round for a total of 6 posts (plus one extra in round 1 by the DM).Half the number of posts and in PBP, half the amount of time.It doesn't make sense to use an anti-PBP init system, just because it is written in the book.</blockquote>

Verification