Surprise (-20 Init) the penalty that won’t go away

[howandwhy99]

Once past the first round, initiative number doesn't actually matter. It's just cyclical.

Our initiative is a choice and rolled each round. 1d6 too, so it doesn't get out of hand to track.
R1 the players each roll separately. R2 they share. R3 they split into 2 groups and another single player declares actions privately.

R1 they split across the 1-6 spectrum with the orcs acting together.
R2 they win initiative, but delay to see what the orcs will do after an ultimatum.
R3 they split the party and 1 player disagrees with the plan and tries to stop it before it happens.

It can be simple, a choice, random, and very broad. It can be individual-only too, but I find that actually inhibits teamwork and often slows the game. Cyclical actually makes combat less exciting as you always know who's going next.

 

[Fifth Element]

First Wave Initiative

Kobolds x5 (Init 19)
Halfling Rogue (Init 17)
Elite Kobold (Init 16)
Cleric of Pelor (Init 8)
Dwarf Fighter (Init -8, Surprised, Rolled 11)
Elf Wizard (Init -12, Surprised, Rolled 5)

After 2 rounds the Second Wave Attacks

Cave Rats x12 (Init 7)

In this case the rats slide in after the Cleric...

Now my question is: Why is the Fighter and Wizard still being punished for a bad Wisdom check?

I can't help but notice that the Elf Wizard in your example would still be behind the Cave Rats based on his pre-penalty roll...

Besides that, you're looking at the initiative order too literally. In the initiative order A, B, C, D once A has taken a turn the order is now effectively B, C, D, A. Since an approaching enemy could effectively insert itself into the order wherever it chooses (by delaying), I can't see this as being much of an issue.

 

[darjr]

at first blush I didn't like it. Playing it was smooth and easy to deal with and I just liked it.

 

[Mercule]

Why not give characters who are surprised "disadvantage" and characters who surprise "advantage" on their initiative checks.

Pick one and stick with it. I'd say surprised characters are Disadvantaged. I had to resist house-ruling it for the play test.

at first blush I didn't like it. Playing it was smooth and easy to deal with and I just liked it.

I agree it played fine. It still rubs me slightly wrong, aesthetically. It's not a deal-breaker, but I'd like to see it tweaked.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Our initiative is a choice and rolled each round. 1d6 too, so it doesn't get out of hand to track.
R1 the players each roll separately. R2 they share. R3 they split into 2 groups and another single player declares actions privately.

R1 they split across the 1-6 spectrum with the orcs acting together.
R2 they win initiative, but delay to see what the orcs will do after an ultimatum.
R3 they split the party and 1 player disagrees with the plan and tries to stop it before it happens.

It can be simple, a choice, random, and very broad. It can be individual-only too, but I find that actually inhibits teamwork and often slows the game. Cyclical actually makes combat less exciting as you always know who's going next.

What? I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. Is this some sort of house ruled init check you've come up with? I'm note quite following (and you especially lost me at the metion of 1d6).

If this IS some sort of house ruled init you have devised, of course its not going to mesh with what the rules built.

All init is, is a way to keep order. Technically combat actions are all happening at once. Its not like I take my action and "freeze" in place until everyone else goes. That Wizard is fireballing me the same time I am charging him. It just so happens I get to declare my action before him (I roll higher).

The whole purpose of init is to keep track of who gets to declare their actions first, who goes second, etc. And there are readies and delays that change that order to keep things fresh. If you think that makes it predictable, its supposed to. Unless you want the DM to go "eeny meeny miny moe" while blindfolded to determine who goes each round.

 

[misalo1]

I can't help but notice that the Elf Wizard in your example would still be behind the Cave Rats based on his pre-penalty roll...

Besides that, you're looking at the initiative order too literally. In the initiative order A, B, C, D once A has taken a turn the order is now effectively B, C, D, A. Since an approaching enemy could effectively insert itself into the order wherever it chooses (by delaying), I can't see this as being much of an issue.

[MENTION=48135]Fifth Element[/MENTION]: I was using the Pre-gens and mixed up the elf and the halfling (oops)

I understand the Cyclical Initiative... and as one of my players pointed out if the fighter goes first there might be one less rat to attack the party... and we all know that less attacks is a good thing

I agree it played fine. It still rubs me slightly wrong, aesthetically. It's not a deal-breaker, but I'd like to see it tweaked.

[MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION]: I agree with you on that.

 

[Kzach]

Surprise rounds are so broken in 4e (and 3e) that whenever an author proposes having one in an adventure I'm editing I have to tell them not to do it - basically, that if the PCs do exceptional things to get a surprise round, then great, that's fine. But just building in things to easily have one side or the other surprised? Works awfully.

Being able to act twice before someone goes in systems where combats are decided in two rounds works if you don't want to actually do a combat (just narrate how the PCs win)... but it makes them _really_ suck for the PCs when they get surprised (so a lot of PCs just become immune to surprise - there's even an epic destiny that makes you have extra actions when you get surprised). It's also not at all balanced for melee vs ranged, since melee basically moves or charges, and ranged does as much as it wants to do.

Sorry but as far as I'm concerned, you just argued FOR the 4e version.

 

[Agamon]

All init is, is a way to keep order. Technically combat actions are all happening at once. Its not like I take my action and "freeze" in place until everyone else goes. That Wizard is fireballing me the same time I am charging him. It just so happens I get to declare my action before him (I roll higher).

Not really. If you charge that wizard and kill him, his fireball doesn't still go off. In fact, he never got a chance to declare that he was casting a fireball, and probably wouldn't if he survived the attack and you were standing beside him. It's nearly simultaneous, but not quite. In D&D, it does indeed track who goes "now", not "first" (aside from the beginning of combat).