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
What is your way for doing Initiative?
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="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7555379" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Ok so we all know that we are looking at things within a context of this game., right? It's in comparison to other options that exist within that context. </p><p></p><p>Police practice shooting for CoM because that is the best and safest option. It produces the most reliable choice. Their is not a better option. Also, most body armor that renders a bullet ineffective instead of simply non-lethal is highly visible before the policeman decides to shoot. So if he sees the heavy gear that can have plate insert he can make an informed decision - perhaps opting for gas if that's an option or containment or waiting for heavier firepower. Key is the body armors that can reduce the effectiveness to zero are rare. </p><p></p><p>In this 5e house ruled example, we have the exact opposite situations.</p><p></p><p>The "added thing" that renders a subset of the effects sometimes ineffective even when they work is not rare and not visible. </p><p></p><p>And the key difference is **there are alternatives** and thatsxehere the rub comes in. </p><p></p><p>You see, while you go off on damage the effects mentioned were mostly not damage, not double damage but control. That control is initially bought at the expense of extra damage.</p><p></p><p>So let's do an easy example.</p><p></p><p>Ray of Frost vs Firebolt.</p><p></p><p>Both require the to-hit for any effect at all. </p><p>One does more damage flat out everytime on a hit. </p><p>One does less damage and (RAW) reduces the enemies move for what is pretty much guaranteed one turn of their action.</p><p></p><p>But add in the house rule of re-rolling order and even possibly not knowing your order when you pick attacks and now that control speed reduction shifts from "trade damage for control" to "trade damage for a random chance at conttol." </p><p></p><p>That takes Ray of Frost from an arguably balanced trade-off to really not even close. In the context of the game those choices are now not a balanced pair of options and essentially it makes no sense now for them to be presented as such.</p><p></p><p>Now, one can try the "overall it balances out" but really for most of them that fails to be true.</p><p></p><p>To give up damage for Ray of Frost, one usually has a specific "need it slower now" need, and the fails vs goes twice does not "even out". This is particularly true in 5e given that more than a few combats dont see lasting that long on many foes. </p><p></p><p>A good example was a fight tonight vs skellies, where Ray's of Ftost could keep allies from reaching attack range, adding a bit of damage and then the shellie did not survive for the theoretical second move at slow. Here the initiative rework would result in sometimes wasted, sometimes did not matter but firebolts eould still be the 100% alternative.</p><p></p><p>Similarly booming blade for instance, it goes off once... so the random initiative shaft-me roll gives you the option for it going down before the enemy gets to move or no other gain from the field lasting longer until they move.</p><p></p><p>So, no, those results are nonsensical in the context of the options presented and they add not a degree of uncertainty or s sense of risky double or nothing but just a sense of "this gameplay seems not very thought out" --- which makes sense when one sees the proponent asking essentially if there are spells that would be hit this way.</p><p></p><p>There are already built into the options and effects presented chances of success and failure to reach a desired degree of "trade offs" between comparable alternatives. This change, made without due diligence, kicks that for a number of effects and options with the hope that it works out somehow. </p><p></p><p>Not a gameplay I would inflict on my players, but hey, to each their own.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7555379, member: 6919838"] Ok so we all know that we are looking at things within a context of this game., right? It's in comparison to other options that exist within that context. Police practice shooting for CoM because that is the best and safest option. It produces the most reliable choice. Their is not a better option. Also, most body armor that renders a bullet ineffective instead of simply non-lethal is highly visible before the policeman decides to shoot. So if he sees the heavy gear that can have plate insert he can make an informed decision - perhaps opting for gas if that's an option or containment or waiting for heavier firepower. Key is the body armors that can reduce the effectiveness to zero are rare. In this 5e house ruled example, we have the exact opposite situations. The "added thing" that renders a subset of the effects sometimes ineffective even when they work is not rare and not visible. And the key difference is **there are alternatives** and thatsxehere the rub comes in. You see, while you go off on damage the effects mentioned were mostly not damage, not double damage but control. That control is initially bought at the expense of extra damage. So let's do an easy example. Ray of Frost vs Firebolt. Both require the to-hit for any effect at all. One does more damage flat out everytime on a hit. One does less damage and (RAW) reduces the enemies move for what is pretty much guaranteed one turn of their action. But add in the house rule of re-rolling order and even possibly not knowing your order when you pick attacks and now that control speed reduction shifts from "trade damage for control" to "trade damage for a random chance at conttol." That takes Ray of Frost from an arguably balanced trade-off to really not even close. In the context of the game those choices are now not a balanced pair of options and essentially it makes no sense now for them to be presented as such. Now, one can try the "overall it balances out" but really for most of them that fails to be true. To give up damage for Ray of Frost, one usually has a specific "need it slower now" need, and the fails vs goes twice does not "even out". This is particularly true in 5e given that more than a few combats dont see lasting that long on many foes. A good example was a fight tonight vs skellies, where Ray's of Ftost could keep allies from reaching attack range, adding a bit of damage and then the shellie did not survive for the theoretical second move at slow. Here the initiative rework would result in sometimes wasted, sometimes did not matter but firebolts eould still be the 100% alternative. Similarly booming blade for instance, it goes off once... so the random initiative shaft-me roll gives you the option for it going down before the enemy gets to move or no other gain from the field lasting longer until they move. So, no, those results are nonsensical in the context of the options presented and they add not a degree of uncertainty or s sense of risky double or nothing but just a sense of "this gameplay seems not very thought out" --- which makes sense when one sees the proponent asking essentially if there are spells that would be hit this way. There are already built into the options and effects presented chances of success and failure to reach a desired degree of "trade offs" between comparable alternatives. This change, made without due diligence, kicks that for a number of effects and options with the hope that it works out somehow. Not a gameplay I would inflict on my players, but hey, to each their own. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is your way for doing Initiative?
Top