Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The "Bonus" Turn for high Initiative
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7791311" data-attributes="member: 53980"><p>I really like the idea in Shadowrun myself, but 5e isn't designed like Shadowrun. In Shadowrun, boosted reflexes come at a hefty cost. You can pretty much build your concept around getting extra turns in combat.</p><p></p><p>You'd need a major redesign of 5e to allow the same in a balanced manner.</p><p></p><p>You're already getting an extra turn in 5e when you win initiative. Lets assume that the PCs will win the encounter (which is usually the case), that the combat will last 3 PC turns, and for simplicity that we are using group initiative.</p><p></p><p>1) PCs win initiative:</p><p>PCs - Enemy - End Turn 1 - PCs - Enemy - End Turn 2 - PCs - WIN!</p><p></p><p>2) Enemy wins initiative:</p><p>Enemy - PCs - End Turn 1 - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 2 - Enemy - PCs - WIN!</p><p></p><p>3) PCs win initiative (initiative > 20) in your proposed system:</p><p>PCs - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 1 - PCs - WIN!</p><p></p><p>4) Enemy wins initiative (initiative > 20) in your proposed system:</p><p>Enemy - PCs - Enemy - End Turn 1 - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 2 - Enemy - PCs - WIN!</p><p></p><p>In scenario 1, the enemy gets 2 turns during the encounter. In scenario 2, the enemy gets 3 turns.</p><p></p><p>In scenario 3, the enemy gets 1 turn. And in scenario 4, the enemy gets 4 turns.</p><p></p><p>As you can see by comparing scenarios 1 and 2 to 3 and 4, your system introduces a level of initiative contingent swinginess that 5e wasn't designed to handle.</p><p></p><p>That's not even considering the fact that in scenario 4 the enemy's actions are so front loaded that the PCs are likely to be forced to take a more defensive stance (damage mitigation) and therefore that encounter is likely to last even longer, and be deadlier.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 7791311, member: 53980"] I really like the idea in Shadowrun myself, but 5e isn't designed like Shadowrun. In Shadowrun, boosted reflexes come at a hefty cost. You can pretty much build your concept around getting extra turns in combat. You'd need a major redesign of 5e to allow the same in a balanced manner. You're already getting an extra turn in 5e when you win initiative. Lets assume that the PCs will win the encounter (which is usually the case), that the combat will last 3 PC turns, and for simplicity that we are using group initiative. 1) PCs win initiative: PCs - Enemy - End Turn 1 - PCs - Enemy - End Turn 2 - PCs - WIN! 2) Enemy wins initiative: Enemy - PCs - End Turn 1 - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 2 - Enemy - PCs - WIN! 3) PCs win initiative (initiative > 20) in your proposed system: PCs - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 1 - PCs - WIN! 4) Enemy wins initiative (initiative > 20) in your proposed system: Enemy - PCs - Enemy - End Turn 1 - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 2 - Enemy - PCs - WIN! In scenario 1, the enemy gets 2 turns during the encounter. In scenario 2, the enemy gets 3 turns. In scenario 3, the enemy gets 1 turn. And in scenario 4, the enemy gets 4 turns. As you can see by comparing scenarios 1 and 2 to 3 and 4, your system introduces a level of initiative contingent swinginess that 5e wasn't designed to handle. That's not even considering the fact that in scenario 4 the enemy's actions are so front loaded that the PCs are likely to be forced to take a more defensive stance (damage mitigation) and therefore that encounter is likely to last even longer, and be deadlier. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The "Bonus" Turn for high Initiative
Top