Toying with initiative - phased and segments

[Mannahnin]

I've also been idly toying with the idea of coming up with a phased initiative system, but I've never started doing real work on it.

My rough idea would be to have 3 or 5 phases per round: very fast, fast, average, slow, very slow (maybe get rid of very fast and very slow). Different weapons and spells would have their own "speed factors" determining in which phase they go. Movement would be split in three thirds in the fast, average and slow phases. In each phase, order would be decided by side initiative. Just a very rough idea.

I remember reading recently about an RPG with fast and slow actions, though I can't recall exactly which one it is. Maybe the "Shadow of the" games (Demon Lord and Weird Wizard)? It sounded like a pretty good system.

 

[Mannahnin]

I have now fallen down the rabbit hole of imagining some combination of 5e reactions (beyond just opportunity attacks) and your description of phased initiative and I don't even want to imagine how it works with more than 2 individuals. In any case, thank you for the post!


View attachment 408148

Thanks for reading and commenting! With phased actions it can sometimes help to use cards or something on the table in front of the player as a reminder of what action they're taking/phase they're acting in this round.

Edit: And now I am trying to remember Star Fleet Battles, which feels like a bad choice.

Yeah, in the middle of thinking about this I had a sudden flashback to old Car Wars action segments and thought to myself "oh no".

 

[Gus L]

Thanks for reminding me of these rules. I had read them a while ago but have never tried them out. They look like a very cool and functional system, adding some nice tactical depth and dimension to the minimalist OD&D base.

Given the abstracted one minute rounds, do you also abstract ammunition for missile weapons?

I don't but since no one fires missile weapons other then throwing knives and axes more then once usually (the rules for firing into melee are harsh ... but fair I think). I would likely in a game with more missile fire. Not exactly sure how though.

 

[Mannahnin]

There also needs to be something in there about delaying one's action until-unless it makes sense, so for example an archer with higher init. can shoot at someone who doesn't break cover until a lower initiative.

That was meant to be in there.

I just made a quick edit to 5, from "If the attacker moves first, delay their attack by 1 initiative segment per 5’ of movement." to "If either party must move first, delay the attack by 1 initiative segment per 5’ of movement." That covers archers needing to wait until the target comes into LOS.

 

[Mannahnin]

I don't but since no one fires missile weapons other then throwing knives and axes more then once usually (the rules for firing into melee are harsh ... but fair I think). I would likely in a game with more missile fire. Not exactly sure how though.

That makes sense. B/X, 5TD, and TNU have no prohibitions on firing into melee (just situational penalties to hit like cover, if applicable), and those are the systems I've run in recent years. Also a tiny dip of the toe into the GLOG, which as far as I recall also allows shooting into melee.

 

[Gus L]

That makes sense. B/X, 5TD, and TNU have no prohibitions on firing into melee (just situational penalties to hit like cover, if applicable), and those are the systems I've run in recent years. Also a tiny dip of the toe into the GLOG, which as far as I recall also allows shooting into melee.

The one I use is "if you roll under a 5 on the to hit - regardless of any bonuses etc - you do full damage to an ally". It's bad enough that people avoid it most of the time, but also will do it when things are tense.

I tend to think of light crossbows and throwing axes/knives as the dungeon missiles of choice (or silenced colt .45's depending... while bows (except maybe composite horsemen's bows?), javelins, arquebuses, and heavy crossbows (though these are like special purpose for shooting big beasties from ambush maybe - or at least I should write better arbalest rules) are field weapons - that just like 14' pikes are very dangerous upstairs and very hard to use well in the basement.

 

[Mannahnin]

The one I use is "if you roll under a 5 on the to hit - regardless of any bonuses etc - you do full damage to an ally". It's bad enough that people avoid it most of the time, but also will do it when things are tense.

Yeah, that's a good one. In practice in my 5TD & B/X mashup I did allow for hitting an ally on a 1, if they were in the line of fire, and impose Disadvantage or occasionally a worse penalty if the shot were really obstructed. Hitting a friendly didn't happen often, but enough to make the Thief (who tended to be very cautious and almost always shot instead of meleed) be careful and try to line up shots without obstructions.

I tend to think of light crossbows and throwing axes/knives as the dungeon missiles of choice (or silenced colt .45's depending... while bows (except maybe composite horsemen's bows?), javelins, arquebuses, and heavy crossbows (though these are like special purpose for shooting big beasties from ambush maybe - or at least I should write better arbalest rules) are field weapons - that just like 14' pikes are very dangerous upstairs and very hard to use well in the basement.

Makes sense to me. With the scale of typical dungeon hallways and chambers in classic modules, though, and bearing in mind how SCA archers are able to snipe heads in a line battle, I think it's not too much a stretch for bows to be used.

 

[el-remmen]

My old 2E group used speed factors and casting time, but just added them to the d10 roll and then counted up. (I can't even remember anymore if that was just the rule in 2E or something we modified).

I vaguely remember a rule about going at the end of the round if you changed your declared action (but you could not change to a different spell - since you had to declare the specific spell during the declaration phase) but that is foggy. You also could not move before you cast a spell but otherwise movement was broken up to each segment. So the DM would declare "1" and everyone who wanted to move and had movement left would move a 5' box (and then any actions on '1' were resolved) and then "2" and so on. Many times people were moving every phase or were staying still to cast and then moving later 5 feet per phase. We used the 5' space as a unit of measurement way before 3E came out, so for us the weird part was using all your movement at once, not the way it used the grid (since we were already using it that way - we used opportunity attacks too!).

The stretched out movement throughout the round did help keep people engaged.

 

[Zaukrie]

My old 2E group used speed factors and casting time, but just added them to the d10 roll and then counted up. (I can't even remember anymore if that was just the rule in 2E or something we modified).

I vaguely remember a rule about going at the end of the round if you changed your declared action (but you could not change to a different spell - since you had to declare the specific spell during the declaration phase) but that is foggy. You also could not move before you cast a spell but otherwise movement was broken up to each segment. So the DM would declare "1" and everyone who wanted to move and had movement left would move a 5' box (and then any actions on '1' were resolved) and then "2" and so on. Many times people were moving every phase or were staying still to cast and then moving later 5 feet per phase. We used the 5' space as a unit of measurement way before 3E came out, so for us the weird part was using all your movement at once, not the way it used the grid (since we were already using it that way - we used opportunity attacks too!).

The stretched out movement throughout the round did help keep people engaged.

I like that style because it gets rid of the opponent standing still while you chase them problem.

 

[Gus L]

Makes sense to me. With the scale of typical dungeon hallways and chambers in classic modules, though, and bearing in mind how SCA archers are able to snipe heads in a line battle, I think it's not too much a stretch for bows to be used.

On of the things I try to avoid in thinking about RPG mechanics, especially combat ones, is stuff that seems cool, or is too specific, or too hyped. I think of this as the "Katana Issue" or more historically maybe "Gygax's Spear"*. The basic problem I see is the urge towards simulation (not Forge style situationism) that over complicates and privileges certain things at the expense of basic game logic and existing mechanics.

When I was a kid in the 1980's it seemed like every had their own table rules for katanas. These were always a bit absurd but built around the 80's obsession with all things Japanese and Japanese weapons in particular. Rules like katanas do 1D12 damage on the low powered end to they ignore all AC or have a percentage chance to cut off heads. It could get elaborate - I remember one DM (not a good one ... but a through one) whose katanas had different power levels and abilities based by quality mark and the "ancient master" who had made them. This last idea was very cool in concept, but in play it just introduced a bunch of magic swords that outdid the +3 Frostbrand or +5 Holy Avenger (also ok depending on the power level of the game I guess ... but badly implemented).

While 80's kids loving katanas (a sword that is cool and all but not really much different then most when it comes to cutting people up) is a funny sort of thing, the principal behind it isn't exactly. D&D rules and especially the oldest combat ones, exist within the context of the game, and for me that has to come first before any momentary sense of verisimilitude or popular conception of how fighting worked in ancient times. So while I suspect SCA archers popping up to shoot people in shield walls works in SCA fights ... it doesn't seem to have been super common in shield wall combat. I'm guessing that the sort of bow you can do that with won't do much to a good helmet or mail ... but I don't know. What I do know is that making special rules for it would mess up my game and how the mechanics generally work for melee combat. Suddenly having lots of archers firing into melee is optimal - which I guess makes hobgoblins even more dangerous?

To me the important part of mechanics is that they push towards the kind of game I want. I'm not much concerned about spotlight in combat (thieves and MU's tend to either stay out of it or nuke things with spells or sometimes a well set up backstab) ... but I don't play a game where combat is a huge amount of the player choice and decision making.

*While Gygax loved polearms he hated spears as a primitive weapon. There's a editorial in Strat Review on it - basically spears are for primitives tribespeople who deserve to be colonized (at least this was the tone I got from it) and pole arms are for baddasses like Swiss mercenaries. This rather ignores the fact the the spear has been consistently the weapon of choice on pre-modern battlefields which generally suggests that it works pretty damn well. I suppose a good spear is a pole arm though as well?