D&D 5E UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative

[Staffan]

Another thought occurred to me today, and I tried to imagine what this thread would look like if for 40 years we had been playing with Greyhawk Initiative (called, of course, simply "Initiative") and the latest UA proposed a new, streamlined version where everybody rolled a d20, modified by Dexterity, and then used the result in every round.

It's not too hard to imagine all the ways this new, innovative system would be considered "broken". I think the outpouring of h8 would be even greater and more vociferous.

You mean like when 3e came out and replaced 2e's initiative using Speed Factors (as well as the more detailed phase system from Combat & Tactics, for those of us who used that) with cyclical initiative?

 

[Coroc]

@Lanefan

Since you can run, climb, Mount a horse and even swim in plate i do not give any speed penalties



Armor in General was not to survive a combat with Minimum injury but to survive combat without any injury at all back in the days because every little injury could lead to infection and easyly kill People.

Any armor be it padded chain or plate was designed so that you could hope to not be injured easyly. Plate armor was giving virtual invulnerability, no arrow bolt or sword could penetrate it only eventually at Joints or openings. But even padded armor would withstand arrows or sword strikes.


Plate was so good that People gave up using shields with it. The weapon of choice for plate armor was a poleaxe, used by a similar armored fighter. it did not have much reach but was designed to deliver concussive damage which would eventually wear the opponemt down or to topple the oponent prone with Wrestling and leverage technics in which cases you could end it using a stilletto like dagger through the eyslits of the helmet or some other opening.

 

[Staffan]

Leather and studded leather have never existed, they would not protect against any piercing weapon. Only exception is Cuirbulli which is French for boiled leather and is a thick breastplate very stiff made from several layers of cured leather.

From the PHB description of leather armor: "The breastplate and shoulder protectors of this armor are made of leather that has been stiffened by being boiled in oil. The rest of the armar is made of softer and more flexible materials."

But you're perfectly right about studded leather - that's just dumb. Just adding studs to leather will make it less protective, not more. I think of it as having metal reinforcements on the inside, so the studs outside are where these reinforcements have been fastened - sort of a lighter brigandine.

 

[Athinar]

Thinking about it more, ranged characters are still going to have an advantage on initiative because they usually don't have as much of a reason to move vs a melee character.

I believe that is the history of War, Kill the emeny from afar first, then charge the enemy

mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad is to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat

 

[Curmudjinn]

I'd prefer static numbers for specific weapon and spell types.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Exactly. 5E was clearly designed around the RAW simple initiative system. Creating a new initiative system that adds extra costs for using certain types of actions vs. others is pretty much guaranteed to cause imbalances. It would be like suddenly changing football by saying incomplete passes cost the passing team 5 yards of field position. Suddenly passing is higher risk than before.

As I've learned to my chagrin, using analogies on this forum risks a deluge of literalism: we could enumerate countless reasons why this initiative system is not like adding a 5 yard penalty to incomplete passes.

But I'll acknowledge your intent, and agree that changing the rules changes the incentives. But I have to wonder if the game is so well balanced in that regard that we shouldn't mess with it, or do we simply accept current imbalances as "the way the game is"? I believe the latter, and my point was that if we had been using Greyhawk initiative all this time we would have simply accepted a different set of imbalances as the default state.

And, sure, you can pick any one imbalance...such as the additional penalty to TWF...and say "see how terrible this idea is", but that's an implementation detail that can be addressed.

In fact, one thing this new system offers is a way of addressing current imbalances. Is there already too much incentive to use ranged instead of melee? Great, increase the die to d6. TWF unfairly penalized? Roll once for each attack and take the lower. (Yes, that raises additional questions...instead of whinging about it think up solutions!)

Maybe this gets too complicated, but I for one think it's worth examining the options and looking for design solutions rather than just pointing out the flaws and dismissing the whole idea. The current initiative system has so many flaws of its own that it's worth considering.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I believe that is the history of War, Kill the emeny from afar first, then charge the enemy

mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad is to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat

Wow...I'm imagining how horrendously boring D&D would be if combat adhered to realism.

 

[RotGrub]

That's been discussed in other places - using the damage dice as the initiative roll.

I like it aesthetically. It would be very 2E, because Weapon Speed was all about 'why does that dude with the 12' pike act before the dude with a dagger'?

It would make martials declare actions with far more detail than a spellcaster though. Unless spellcasters did the variant of 'spell level + some size of dice', which would also bring back a HUGE amount of old school feel. More powerful spells were almost always longer to cast (Power Word Kill was a notable exception) and spell interruption was so painful back then...

The problem with weapon speed is that it doesn't take into account what your opponent is wielding. Your attack roll represents an opportunity to inflict injure your opponent. In actual fact, the guy with the pike would be more likely to keep the idiot with a dagger at bay (under normal circumstances), making it near impossible for the dagger character to even get close enough. The dagger wielding character would need to wait for an opening or feint to make one.

 

[RotGrub]

As long as they do not make the stupid 2ed initiative rule with weapon speed factors (which i unknowingly used and back then considered it a great way to balance daggers with two handed weapons in my foolishness) an official rule i am fine although i think as many ppl in this thread have analysed that this particular System has ist flaws and personally i prefer the simple Standard initiative System fro m5E

People think a dagger is quicker than a two handed sword AND THAT IS WRONG.

If two oponents are fighting armed with dagger vs two handed sword, the one with the two handed sword will strike first any time just because he has longer reach (and in real live propably kill the dagger wielder without getting a scratch from the dagger.

The weapon with the furthest reach usually goes first.
A ranged weapon shooting first in most cases especially with a cocked crossbow is not to unrealistic.

So please dear D&D dev Team, do not include weapon speed factors until you got yourself some understanding by watching a lot of scholagadiatora vids on YouTube.

Rather think about replacing leather and studded leather armor with something realistic like acheton buffcoat and brigandine, which have actually existed.

Some editions of D&D provided an AoO against unarmed characters attacking a weapon wielding opponent. IMO, the use of a dagger isn't much different in many situations.

Weapon speeds make perfect sense for sledge hammers, crossbows, spells, etc), but there needs to be an additional situational modifier that takes reach and surprise into consideration. In addition, a pre-loaded and aimed crossbow shot should be immediate.

 

[RotGrub]

Wow...I'm imagining how horrendously boring D&D would be if combat adhered to realism.

You've never rolled for initial encounter distance have you?

In a recent game I played, the characters encountered a group of trolls who were 5 rounds away. They had a blast using their range weapons and spells as the trolls foolishly charged the party. The ranger of the group was quite happy spotlighting his marksman ship.

So don't knock it until you've tried it.