New initiative system

[RigaMortus2]

I've been toying with the idea of a new initiative system. In actuality, it would probably end up reworking a large part of how combat works in and of itself. If you are familiar with the RPG Feng Shui, it's basically borrowing their init system and just modifying it slightly. I want to simulate a person who kind of goes "all out" and can do a string of continuous attacks or actions before the enemy gets to go, rather than the "stop and go" of traditional turn based combat (I go, you go, I go, you go, etc.) Here is how it works...

You have a base init score and roll a die (haven't decided which, let's go with a d10 for this demonstation) like normal to get your init. So lets's say we end up getting a total of 15 for init. The person with the highest init goes first as usual. Each action costs you 3 init, and you keep performing actions until you get down to 0 init. So in this example, the person that rolled a 15 would have about 5 actions (15/3 = 5) whether they are movement, a single attack (per action), casting a spell, or using a skill. He could chose to take 1 action at a time, and wait to see how everyone else reactions (so he takes 1 action and his init drops to 12) or he could do a sort of "combo" and do multiple actions until he hits init 0, then he gets to see how others react but he very well can't do anything about it until everyone else hits init 0 as well. Then init rolling happens again and we repeat. I am also thinking of allowing an active parry or dodge option that cost 1 init to perform, which basically will let you make an opposed roll when someone attacks you.

I am not necessarily thinking of applying this to D&D, but perhaps my own homebew setting/system. I just wanted to get thoughts on it. What is good about it, bad about it, any potential problems?

Thx!

 

[Nonlethal Force]

It certainly makes combat more lethal for low rollers. If a typical D&D combat lasts four rounds, getting an init of 12 or higher could mean you finish an encounter before the other guy reacts.

It would also affect how movement across the battlefield goes. tanks might find it hard to be meat shields because the opponents might get to move twice in a row, get to the mage, and kill him before they even get to act.

In general, it wouldn't be a bad system for non-lethal combats. For a game with the finality of D&D, I don't think it would work as well.

 

[RigaMortus2]

It certainly makes combat more lethal for low rollers. If a typical D&D combat lasts four rounds, getting an init of 12 or higher could mean you finish an encounter before the other guy reacts.

It would also affect how movement across the battlefield goes. tanks might find it hard to be meat shields because the opponents might get to move twice in a row, get to the mage, and kill him before they even get to act.

In general, it wouldn't be a bad system for non-lethal combats. For a game with the finality of D&D, I don't think it would work as well.

True... One drawback I realized is that it enforces you to have a high init because having a high init does two things for you... It lets you go first, and it lets you take more actions.

One way to curb this is to have an active dodge/parry mechanic, so even if it isn't your turn, when an opponent tries to hit you, you can still react by getting out of the way (and it would only cost you 1 init point, while it just cost the other guy 3). I planned on making an "automatic" dodge or parry feat that doesn't cost any init to use as well... Anyway, still toying around with the idea...

 

[Acid_crash]

Instead of having all actions cost 3 initiative points, have it work where different actions take up their own number of points. Include defensive actions in this, and have it set where if a person isn't spending a point to defend then the attacker can roll against a more passive defense, but if he spends a point to actively defend against the attack, then his defense will be higher.

Also, have it where for every 30ft (forr example) of movement costs 2 initiative points. If they move 60ft, it costs 4 points. Then if they attack, it costs another 3 points. That's 7 so far. Also have it that for each additional attack, it costs one more point than the previous.

If one attack costs 3 points, then 2 attacks cost 7 points, and 3 attacks would cost 12.
Or, first 10 feet costs 1 point, next 10 ft costs 2 more, then next 10 ft costs 3 more, etc. Have it incrementally higher.

So, if this example continues... Moving 30 feet would cost 6 points, two attacks would cost 7 more, that's 13 points spent.

All this would make a person think....do I spend all this for attacking, and how much will I sacrifice if my attacks don't connect and I have nothing left to spend to defend myself with???

 

[Li Shenron]

I would try to avoid giving more actions for a high init result, so at least I'd add a hard limit. For example, if I used this system in D&D I would still make sure that it doesn't allow more actions than a normal D&D round.

That could mean something like this:

- in any round you can still only do either (1) a full-round action, (2) a standard action and a move, (3) two move actions

- each type of action would cost a certain amount of init, e.g. 10 for a f.r.a., 5 for a s.a. and 3 for a move

- some multiple f.r.a. might be splitted: multiple attacks are still altogether a f.r.a. but they take 5 init each

If you can choose whether to do all actions at once or not, this becomes a sort of variant delay rule (the normal delay rule concerns ALL your actions together). However, you may actually make the "init cost" unavoidable, so that you HAVE to split your round. We played once with something like this [multiple attacks worked so that you did the first at your Init count, then the next 5 Init later and so on...] but we didn't like it.

Some issues to handle:

"Round ends at 0" is not a very good idea: if the character rolls a low Init, he won't be able to delay (because he might delay below 0, losing the actions) and this seems a bit strange...

 

[RigaMortus2]

I would try to avoid giving more actions for a high init result, so at least I'd add a hard limit. For example, if I used this system in D&D I would still make sure that it doesn't allow more actions than a normal D&D round.

That could mean something like this:

- in any round you can still only do either (1) a full-round action, (2) a standard action and a move, (3) two move actions

- each type of action would cost a certain amount of init, e.g. 10 for a f.r.a., 5 for a s.a. and 3 for a move

- some multiple f.r.a. might be splitted: multiple attacks are still altogether a f.r.a. but they take 5 init each

If you can choose whether to do all actions at once or not, this becomes a sort of variant delay rule (the normal delay rule concerns ALL your actions together). However, you may actually make the "init cost" unavoidable, so that you HAVE to split your round. We played once with something like this [multiple attacks worked so that you did the first at your Init count, then the next 5 Init later and so on...] but we didn't like it.

Some issues to handle:

"Round ends at 0" is not a very good idea: if the character rolls a low Init, he won't be able to delay (because he might delay below 0, losing the actions) and this seems a bit strange...

I was thinking of removing delay altogether. At least, the way it works in D&D. When the GM calls init and yours comes up and you don't want to take it, it drops by 1 until you either (a) decide to act or (b) get to init 0. I may have a note (like in Feng Shui) that if you have an init of 1 or 2, you can perform an action that cost 3 init, but then you zero out.

 

[RainOfSteel]

This system places a heavy need/desirability on feats that grant initiative bonuses, and gives a huge benefit for taking them, much larger than before.

Imp. Init: +4, Lightning Init: +4, Veteran: +2, Dex (18 + 6 from gloves + 6 from Manual, +4 through 16th level: 34): +12. Total: +22. That would be pretty nasty, especially against all those creatures that usually don't take all that stuff.

You might want to make init. bonuses based on BAB, nerf the Dex bonus by 1/2, and then change the intiative feats to give much smaller bonuses, like only +1 (since it affects the number of actions in combat).

 

[Nifft]

Dexterity becomes way too strong in this system. (It's already the best stat in normal D&D.)

Consider making Initiative checks not gain a bonus from any stat. Perhaps add BAB to Initiative instead of a stat bonus. That way fighter-types would go before wizard-types, which would IMHO be nice & fair, since the wizard-types tend to end fights exceptionally quickly otherwise.

Suddenly, the Eldritch Knight doesn't look weak...

Cheers, -- N

 

[RainOfSteel]

Consider making Initiative checks not gain a bonus from any stat.

I thought of recommending that for a moment myself, but as Dex is linked strongly to Init. in people's minds, I don't think getting rid of the bonus altogether would be popular or accepted. That's why I went with recomended Dex give 1/2 its bonus.

 

[Notmousse]

Wow... I'd get three actions without rolling in the LGCS (+11 init) Well... four if I roll at least a 1.