Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 7715891" data-attributes="member: 6776133">Been thinking about this. Whenever I contemplate a change, I have to weigh the complexity of the change against its benefits. See if I value the benefits more than the drawbacks.  But changes are hard to implement across multiple players when they're already accustomed to a particular method. So for me, the benefits have to be 4 times as good as the drawbacks/complexity or I don't want to make the change. Cyclical initiative has a lot of precedent and people are used to turn-based play across games. Popcorn initiative is popular in my kids' group. Hands go shooting up all the time for who wants next. But let's say each turn does take an average of 3 minutes. In a 5 player game, the time between turns is arguably too long. Maybe up to 20 minutes between turns when you account for all of my NPC turns too. Alright that seems like it could be more engaging. Having a declarative phase does seem like I can overlap a lot of the time players use to decide what they're going to do. Because even if the declarative phase takes 5 minutes, that reduces the time between turns by 10 minutes, I think. So at minimum, I think I like having a round-by-round initiative, declarative phase, resolution phase. Past that, it's a question of implementation. How simple, how complex, how much should speed of various actions play a factor? Mearls has a roll based on each action, with additional dice for additional actions on a turn. That seems okay. But it also seems like you can generally expect characters to behave the way their class is designed. So, generally speaking, a fighter is gonna fight, a caster is gonna cast. That suggests to me an initiative die that's distinct for each class. For example, fighters might get the best die because they're "the best at fighting" and all that means. While maybe wizards get the worst or slowest die since they're not strictly combat-oriented. Haven't tested anything but I'm just gonna postulate a d6 for fighters and a d12 for wizards. Rogues on a d8, clerics on a d10. (Obvs subject to revision). Now that adds a bit of variability (which detracts from predictability), but also reasonably approximates the speeds that character's act during combat. And it's one die, not multiple, so you won't need to consult a chart when you act - just look at the initiative die on your character sheet. So that's minimal change there. Now, if you wanted to, you could add in the speed factors of spells and weapons as listed in the DMG. I'm not sure I would - but you could. You could list the initiative modifier in the weapon itself. And I guess each spell level? Then in practice, lowest rolls go first, and so on. For monsters, I suppose I'd default to a d10 and maybe modify that by their dexterity modifier. Step the die up or down per modifier? Flat change? Not sure yet but I am certain I don't want any more than one modifier on any single roll. I'd want to test it out, but that seems reasonably simple in process: use your class-based initiative die, modify by weapon speed or spell speed. Declare phase. Roll dice. Resolve phase. Roll dice. Hopefully minimal rules-referencing. If that reduces time between turns to 10 minutes instead of 20 minutes, AND maintains "off-turn" engagement with the game, that all fits my requirement of getting 4x the benefit. IMO. Anyone see any pitfalls or something I missed? -Brad</blockquote>

Verification