Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1201197" data-attributes="member: 10201">Um, if a one-round effect is invoked on initiative count 13, it lasts until 14 of the next round.  What's so hard about that?  Now, mind you, the rest of your complaints about initiative-every-round are absolutely true.  And round-by-round init would *not* change the situation one bit, WRT my particular complaint--init count 25 followed by 20 is functionally identical to 5 followed by 20.  *That's* my complaint: a good init doesn't matter after the first round (regardless of the degree to which first-round actions carry through to later rounds).Actually, this started the other way 'round: i basically said that init is unimportant, and several people jumped on me, saynig it was very important.  My views have been somewhat modified, but if i have made an error, it's undervaluing, not overvaluing, init.That's why i said "circumstances don't allow it"--i'm postulating a situation where you do the best you can with the initiative, and that best is insignificant.  (Say, you get init when you spot the enemy out in the open within bow range, but have no ranged weapons, while the enemy is an archer.  You'll spend round one trying to close or wishing you had somewhere to get cover, and the first attack made will be by the archer who lost init.  Voila--you simply can't press your advantage.)Not identical, "pretty much the same"--either gives you a chance to act before your opponent does, but has no direct benefit after that first round.  The fact that one allows more complex actions is an artifact of the specifics of the system, and could be trivially altered.I'm not asking for more, i'm asking for different.  I don't *want* those advantages--in fact, the more people convince me of the power of first-round initiative, the more i think it's a bad thing, and would prefer the advantage to be metered out over the duration of the combat.Actually, what i want is a character who can sacrifice all offensive ability in return for not risking AoOs, and thus, say, dodge past the guard *instead of* fighting him.  the tumble skill helps with this, but it takes a lot of points--and thus a significant level--to pull it off reliably.  Or, a character who can reliably dash in and out with little or no chance of being hit, yes--and little or no chance of hitting the opposition, either, and not much damage when she does.But, mostly, i just simply want flexibility.  I generally prefer defensive characters, and there's really no way to do that in D&d3E, because defense is mostly passive.  Other than a few modifiers (Combat Expertise, fighting defensively, Dodge), all of which tend to be small in comparison to the overall totals, there's nothing i can *do* to avoid getting hit.  I mean, i can give up all attacks and all active defense in order to quadruple my movement; i can give up all movement in order to get 2 to 5 extra attacks; but the best i can do for defense is add 4?So...if i want to play a highly-mobile, acrobatic warrior, i should use the fighter class, instead of monk?  Seems to me that this is yet another case where the system isn't at its best when representing an archetype.Good point--because of the way in which AC, hps, hits, and damage are all tangled up together, you'd have to lower the hit die for a swashbuckler, too.To be effective, maybe.  But not to just do it at all. If you were to run a feat-free game (with no other changes), being a tank would still be a viable option, while being a swashbuckler would not.Depends.  AD&D1 determines actions as you use them.  DMG1, p61: "1. Determine if either or both parties are surprised. 2. Determine distance, if unknown, between the parties. 3. If both partyes are unsurprised, or equally surprised, determine initiative for that round. 4. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initiative:... 5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party which lost the initiative..."  (oh, and it goes into using individual, instead of group, init on the next page, as well as multiple attacks [all first attacks, all second attacks, etc., in init order]).AD&D2 does demand that you decide your actions, but only generally, first, and then determine init and execute them in order.  However, it does acknowledge that you're allowed to change your actions--and that could easily include completely altering what you're doing, depending on the GM.  DMG2, p54: "Player Determination:...This does not have to be perfectly precise, and can be changed somewhat,..."I confess that i'd already been playing for years when AD&D2 came out, and must have glossed over the combat round rules, because we always had everyone declare and resolve their action at once, when their turn came around (just like AD&D1 with individual init).  It wasn't until just now that i discovered that is, strictly speaking, a houserule.Huh.  I always used that rule.  Never had a problem.  It just meant that some of the warriors would generally protect the spellcasters (especially wizards) during a fight.  No big deal.  It worked in the PCs' favor a *lot* more than it hindered them--i can still remember a wonderful climactic battle, trying to stop the wizard before she cast *yet another* summoning spell.  And it's not as simple as "the guy who goes first wins" in AD&D2.  If you've already taken your action when the spellcaster's init comes around, it's too late to clobber her--i don't think there is anything like "holding your action".Sure they did.  They were just much vaguer.  And it was trivial to add even more options.  As far as stuff like Spring Attack is concerned, I would consider that to be Extraordinary.  Think about it: characters with Spring Attack is so fast and so nimble that they can approach an enemy close enough to attack, attack, and run away  all without an enemy ever getting a chance to react.  If that's not extraordinary, what the heck is?</blockquote>It's a kludge, because of the freeze-frame initiative system.  The basic principle ("i run up to just within range, smack him, and run away") is not at *all* extraordinary.  And, actually, i haven't been arguing against AoOs in this particular scenario (notice that the above does not say "i run up to just within range, smack him, and run away, all without the enemy even having a chance to touch me"). [i just reread Spring Attack, and noticed that it specifically immunizes you against AoOs during the action--that's not the part i'm going for, just the split movement.]  My complaint is having to run up, smack him, then stand around for a round while the entire combat situation changes, and *then* retreat.  I'd like to be able to use strategic feints within the game--things like running up to the edge of something nasty with the enemy in hot pursuit, and then at the last minute dodging back, hoping her momentum and lack-of-foreknowledge sends her into it.  I can't do that because i complete my movement--complete with avoiding the danger--before the enemy even begins hers, so she already knows where i'm going to end up, regardless of the route i take.  That's a fairly basic maneuver in support of the mobile-warrior archetype, which the game renders impossible.  Again, *you* introduced the "without getting hit"--my complaint isn't that i might get hit, it's that i can't do it all at once.Yep.  The disagreement is about what should be "core combat mechanics" and what should be "above and beyond."You mean like "Touch", "Flat-footed", and "regular"?  Huh? D&D3E: add the number in the box labeled "initiative bonus" to a die roll.  That's your initiative total.  The person with the highest init goes first, followed by the next-highest, etc.  AD&D2: add the number in the box labeled "initiative modifier" to a die roll.  That's your initiatiev total.  The person with the lowest (IIRC) init goes first, followed by the next-lowest, etc.  How is it "one more modifier"?[/QUOTE]

Verification