What is your way for doing Initiative?

[5ekyu]

With cyclical initiative, you have foreknowledge of the order of actions, thus you can abuse it. With non-cyclical, you can try to do tactics, but because of the randomness of the rolls, it won't always work out as you plan.

Cyclical Initiative:
Round 2: (now the order of initiative is known)
1. PC A
2. PC B
3. Monster
4. PC C

PC A decides to shove Monster to knock prone, knowing PC B will get to attack with advantage. Player B attacks and then the Monster gets up and attacks. PC C, knowing PCs A and B will go before the monster next round, likes how the shove worked and uses his attack to shove instead of dealing damage. On the next round, PCs A and B will both get to attack with advantage.

Non-cyclical Initiative:
Round 2: (same as above, but no one knows for certain what the order will be next round)
1. PC A
2. PC B
3. Monster
4. PC C

Same strategy but PC A shoves (hoping either PC B or C might go before the monster, they don't know) , PC B attacks with advantage, Monster goes, PC C shoves instead of dealing damage.

Round 3: (oh, look! a new order... no one knows who is going when! how exciting! )
1. Monster
2. PC C
3. PC A
4. PC B

Oops! The monster goes first and gets up, attacking PC C and rolls a critical, PC C is dead! Boo-hoo! PCs A and B weep over their fallen comrade, attacking wildly and hoping to avenge the death of PC C.

So, yeah... there is a definite advantage to using a cyclical system that players (and the DM LOL) can exploit. The inherent randomness of re-rolling every round doesn't make teamwork and such impossible, but makes it more challenging.



Yeah, I would certainly say we do!

Yes again you zeem to draw the line for abuse and exploit at some esoteric line you imagine.

I draw it at the rules and mechanics as established within the gameworld everyone agrees to.

The difference is, i see what you prefer as different, not an *abuse*. I dont need to portray it as if it is sone cheat. Its just a different set of mechanics and rules that - it seems to me - are not fully worked out thru their system,impacts and require a lot of rules that end up removing and reducing the ability of the players to make choices that matter.

But it works for your gang and thats fine.

But for whatever reason, tou see a need to claim the alternative play like i described is not just different or an alternative or a preference but an actual *abuse*.

Well, if you need that, thats on you.

So, again, you do you.

 

[5ekyu]

I find it interesting about the debate of spells and duration considering the designers built-in the alternative system of non-cyclical initiative (for those of you who forgot, it is page 270 of the DMG).



Obviously, they saw no issue with spell durations using a variant system. There are plenty of ways to rule it so spells will still have all their potential effects, sometimes in favor of the characters and sometimes not (if they are the target of a spell).

The simplest way is to say for each round of duration a spell has, the target of the spell benefits or is hindered for one of its rounds. Sure, it is an adjustment on the wording of many spells which affect a target until "your next turn", etc., but it is hardly a big problem to adjust for.

If you think it is a big problem, just don't try this variant... maybe it is too difficult for you to handle?

Your case just gets stronger with every single post.

 

[5ekyu]

They didn't see an issue, because it all evens out over time.

Actually its in a section of GM toolbox which includes a whole duite of all sorts of different options and a big intro cautioning you about them while encouraging them

It in no way promises any of them are fine or balanced or good or bad for a game and goes into essentialky giving advice on testing them before jumping in whole hog.

If what you got as far as "we doin'it right" is that its in that chapter as opposed to the other core sections, yeah, that says a lot.

 

[Blue]

It is an assumption. You are assuming the the duration of the effect starts from when the casting is finished. It doesn't. The duration starts from when the effect starts. Usually this will coincide with the completion of the casting, but in the specific example of Command, the effect doesn't start until the creature's next turn. At that point it lasts for 1 round.

Completely and undefendably untrue.

Take a look at any of the paladin Smite spells. The first sentence of each is "The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before the spell ends, [effect]". Right there you have an effect that does not start at casting and in fact may never occur, but the spell can still run out of duration and end.

As a matter of fact, since the duration is "Concentration, up to 1 minute", you would imply that since the duration hasn't started that neither has the concentration. This is trivial easy to see isn't the case.

Really, there is no leg to stand on to say that a spell's duration doesn't start on casting. It (a) makes no sense something doesn't start when it starts, (b) has no precedent in the rules for this or any other edition of D&D, and (c) would break concentration as we know it because that is part of the duration.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually its in a section of GM toolbox which includes a whole duite of all sorts of different options and a big intro cautioning you about them while encouraging them

It in no way promises any of them are fine or balanced or good or bad for a game and goes into essentialky giving advice on testing them before jumping in whole hog.

If what you got as far as "we doin'it right" is that its in that chapter as opposed to the other core sections, yeah, that says a lot.

I'm sure that's a general warning for the section. For that specific rule in the section, the effects even out over time, so it's not really a big deal at all.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=6747365]blu[/MENTION]e Specific beats general. You are comparing apples and oranges with the smite spells vs. Command. Each of these spells tells you when to start counting the duration. With Command, you start it when the creature takes its next turn. With the smite spells, it starts when cast and finishes when you hit.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Yes again you zeem to draw the line for abuse and exploit at some esoteric line you imagine.

I draw it at the rules and mechanics as established within the gameworld everyone agrees to.

The difference is, i see what you prefer as different, not an *abuse*. I dont need to portray it as if it is sone cheat. Its just a different set of mechanics and rules that - it seems to me - are not fully worked out thru their system,impacts and require a lot of rules that end up removing and reducing the ability of the players to make choices that matter.

But it works for your gang and thats fine.

But for whatever reason, tou see a need to claim the alternative play like i described is not just different or an alternative or a preference but an actual *abuse*.

Well, if you need that, thats on you.

So, again, you do you.

It's hardly a line I imagine. Others see it and don't like it, either, which is why several people have posted alternative systems they use in their groups.

Obviously not everyone agrees to it or they wouldn't offer alternatives. I never said the system was an "abuse", only that it is prone to it. Maybe no one in your group ever acts with the idea, "Hey, I go before you, I should do something that will be way cooler and more OP because of it!" I can see it now, "Well, you really shouldn't. I mean, how would your character know he gets to act before mine?" And to that the first player responds, "Well, weren't you paying attention last round? I go before you." It's like the example in the DMG, the wounded fighter decides to attack the troll only because he knows the cleric will act before the troll does and can heal him before the troll attacks.

Of course you couldn't see what I prefer as an abuse, because you can't abuse it. You can't act with foresight. That's the beauty of re-rolling and declaring actions before you roll! The only reason using it requires some changes to other systems (such as spells) is because they simplified initiative in the first place! It doesn't remove any choices at all--a character can still do what they want as normal. All it does is remove predictability from the game and foresight to who will act when.

If you don't see it as abuse, that is clearly on you. I see that way, as do other DMs, which is why they added it to 5E as a variant. Like nearly everything else in 5E, they sacrifice certain things for simplicity, Initiative is simply another case of it. I've never used a cyclical initiative for that reason, never will, and wouldn't bother playing in a group that did. So we are safe that we never have to worry about playing together, which I, for one, am pretty happy about.

If you prefer simplicity, more power to you. Enjoy your game. I'll enjoy mine.

Your case just gets stronger with every single post.

I appreciate you acknowledging that.

 

[5ekyu]

It's hardly a line I imagine. Others see it and don't like it, either, which is why several people have posted alternative systems they use in their groups.

Obviously not everyone agrees to it or they wouldn't offer alternatives. I never said the system was an "abuse", only that it is prone to it. Maybe no one in your group ever acts with the idea, "Hey, I go before you, I should do something that will be way cooler and more OP because of it!" I can see it now, "Well, you really shouldn't. I mean, how would your character know he gets to act before mine?" And to that the first player responds, "Well, weren't you paying attention last round? I go before you." It's like the example in the DMG, the wounded fighter decides to attack the troll only because he knows the cleric will act before the troll does and can heal him before the troll attacks.

Of course you couldn't see what I prefer as an abuse, because you can't abuse it. You can't act with foresight. That's the beauty of re-rolling and declaring actions before you roll! The only reason using it requires some changes to other systems (such as spells) is because they simplified initiative in the first place! It doesn't remove any choices at all--a character can still do what they want as normal. All it does is remove predictability from the game and foresight to who will act when.

If you don't see it as abuse, that is clearly on you. I see that way, as do other DMs, which is why they added it to 5E as a variant. Like nearly everything else in 5E, they sacrifice certain things for simplicity, Initiative is simply another case of it. I've never used a cyclical initiative for that reason, never will, and wouldn't bother playing in a group that did. So we are safe that we never have to worry about playing together, which I, for one, am pretty happy about.

If you prefer simplicity, more power to you. Enjoy your game. I'll enjoy mine.



I appreciate you acknowledging that.

"Of course you couldn't see what I prefer as an abuse, because you can't abuse it. "

Wow!

Another magnificent point.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Once again, thanks!

You ignore the points of my post and then hide your messages. I offer examples and explanations, showing how the cyclical system is prone to abuse while the non-cyclical isn't. Since you won't address those points, why bother posting?

You amuse me. Have a nice day.

 

[Maxperson]

Once again, thanks!

You ignore the points of my post and then hide your messages. I offer examples and explanations, showing how the cyclical system is prone to abuse while the non-cyclical isn't. Since you won't address those points, why bother posting?

You amuse me. Have a nice day.

I think the point he was trying to make initially is that abuse is subjective. What you consider to be abuse, he views as a non-abusive feature.