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
Tried Speed Factor Initiative for the first time last night. Your thoughts?
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="redrick" data-source="post: 6604408" data-attributes="member: 6777696"><p>I always ignored speed factor in AD&D. Mostly because I was like 13. But I've been wanting to try it in 5e for a while, and finally got my group to try it out yesterday.</p><p></p><p>My main interest in the variant has been creating more chaotic combats. I hate the chess-like approach to combat where each player surveys the battle field, considers all her options, polls the other players on what they will do on their moves, and then finally declares an action. I've tried putting people "on the clock," or asking them to turn down the meta-game, but it ends up feeling like a never-ending battle. I loved the idea of asking players to declare their actions at the start of the round, without knowing when those actions would actually occur. This cuts down some of the meta-gaming on their part, and hopefully provides an organic way of getting them to make their decisions quickly.</p><p></p><p>The whole "speed factor" part was actually fairly unappealing to me, and I toyed with getting rid of it altogether. I could care less about the increased simulationist modeling, and we're not a very crunchy table. On the other hand, I like the idea of the different stages of combat from B/X D&D (though we never played that way when I was 9), and I could see how the speed factors created some of that, while allowing a lucky initiative roll to mix things up a bit. So I went with it.</p><p></p><p>I printed up an index card for each of us, with the various speed factors typed out. It took a little explaining, and, initially, players had a hard time remembering to add their initiative bonus to the speed factor, and the fact that some obvious actions were left out (being +0) was also initially confusing. ("Wait, I'm attacking with a short bow. Is that ranged, loading?")</p><p></p><p>We declared actions at the beginning of each round by going around the table. I tried to alternate clock-wise and counter-clockwise each round. It was hard for players to just declare their general action, without planning out their entire turn. (I wanted, "I'm gonna attack with my short sword and then follow up with my off-hand dagger!" but instead got, "I'm gonna go to here, attack this goblin with my short sword, hopefully kill him, and then get this one with my dagger.")</p><p></p><p>Players were frustrated when they charged into a room melee heavy, only to find that the goblins were all out of reach. "But can I cast sacred flame instead?" On the other hand, it was satisfying when they saw the same thing happen to a group of goblins, effectively burning 4 attacks in a round because only one goblin could get to a target.</p><p></p><p>The main frustrating thing was that it seemed to discourage improvisational actions. Without knowing what the scene would look like, players were hesitant to do "fun" things, and instead fell back on declaring their standard attack each round.</p><p></p><p>A few changes I'm considering next week.</p><p></p><p>1. If you decide not to take your declared action, you can choose to dash, dodge or disengage. Those actions are +2 if declared in advance.</p><p>2. If you see the opportunity to do something creative, you can take it. I might stipulate that you need to take the difference in speed factor as a penalty to your ability check. (Hopefully encouraging players to declare the fun actions at the start of the round.)</p><p></p><p>Anyway, what have all y'all's experiences been with this variant? How many people use declared actions but just ignore the speed factor? Do you feel like you lose anything by doing that? How do you encourage your groups to be creative in combat, but not contemplative?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="redrick, post: 6604408, member: 6777696"] I always ignored speed factor in AD&D. Mostly because I was like 13. But I've been wanting to try it in 5e for a while, and finally got my group to try it out yesterday. My main interest in the variant has been creating more chaotic combats. I hate the chess-like approach to combat where each player surveys the battle field, considers all her options, polls the other players on what they will do on their moves, and then finally declares an action. I've tried putting people "on the clock," or asking them to turn down the meta-game, but it ends up feeling like a never-ending battle. I loved the idea of asking players to declare their actions at the start of the round, without knowing when those actions would actually occur. This cuts down some of the meta-gaming on their part, and hopefully provides an organic way of getting them to make their decisions quickly. The whole "speed factor" part was actually fairly unappealing to me, and I toyed with getting rid of it altogether. I could care less about the increased simulationist modeling, and we're not a very crunchy table. On the other hand, I like the idea of the different stages of combat from B/X D&D (though we never played that way when I was 9), and I could see how the speed factors created some of that, while allowing a lucky initiative roll to mix things up a bit. So I went with it. I printed up an index card for each of us, with the various speed factors typed out. It took a little explaining, and, initially, players had a hard time remembering to add their initiative bonus to the speed factor, and the fact that some obvious actions were left out (being +0) was also initially confusing. ("Wait, I'm attacking with a short bow. Is that ranged, loading?") We declared actions at the beginning of each round by going around the table. I tried to alternate clock-wise and counter-clockwise each round. It was hard for players to just declare their general action, without planning out their entire turn. (I wanted, "I'm gonna attack with my short sword and then follow up with my off-hand dagger!" but instead got, "I'm gonna go to here, attack this goblin with my short sword, hopefully kill him, and then get this one with my dagger.") Players were frustrated when they charged into a room melee heavy, only to find that the goblins were all out of reach. "But can I cast sacred flame instead?" On the other hand, it was satisfying when they saw the same thing happen to a group of goblins, effectively burning 4 attacks in a round because only one goblin could get to a target. The main frustrating thing was that it seemed to discourage improvisational actions. Without knowing what the scene would look like, players were hesitant to do "fun" things, and instead fell back on declaring their standard attack each round. A few changes I'm considering next week. 1. If you decide not to take your declared action, you can choose to dash, dodge or disengage. Those actions are +2 if declared in advance. 2. If you see the opportunity to do something creative, you can take it. I might stipulate that you need to take the difference in speed factor as a penalty to your ability check. (Hopefully encouraging players to declare the fun actions at the start of the round.) Anyway, what have all y'all's experiences been with this variant? How many people use declared actions but just ignore the speed factor? Do you feel like you lose anything by doing that? How do you encourage your groups to be creative in combat, but not contemplative? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Tried Speed Factor Initiative for the first time last night. Your thoughts?
Top