Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9649553" data-attributes="member: 7026594">They did not.  They used combat tables like 1E and OE.I played with that for years, and while it was undeniably cleaner and easier to understand than 1E initiative, I still find it clunky and slow and probably the second-worst initiative system after 1E.  The slower speed factors for longer weapons are also backward, as IRL weapons with longer reach almost always get to swing first.  1E only made bigger weapons slower on tied initiative, AFTER sides had closed to melee, so it was representing a realistic situation where the shorter, lighter weapon is already inside the longer weapon's reach and a tiebreaker representing the longer reach being unable to open the distance again. But 2E makes it a massively important part of the initiative system every round.1E is horribly explained and implemented, but I think the core concepts in there are great.  Simple side-based initiative, with special case exceptions to allow spells to be interrupted (and make magical devices like wands faster, and Clerical and powerful high level  MU spells slower, creating tactical depth), and for longer weapons to get first strike when sides are closing to melee, allow for verisimilitude while avoiding the slow around the table count-ups (2E) or count-downs (3E and later) of initiative. I still rank 1E at the bottom for the poor quality of implementation, though.</blockquote>