Quick and simple.
My proposal, add the BAB to all initiative checks.
Why? Because skilled combatants are just faster in reacting to combat situations (keeping a cool head, etc.)
OTHER OPTION
Instead of using BAB one could use the REF-save bonus as a initiative bonus.
But I much prefer BAB (since a fighter should be better at this than a rogue).
|
Quick and simple.
My proposal, add the BAB to all initiative checks.
Why? Because skilled combatants are just faster in reacting to combat situations (keeping a cool head, etc.)OTHER OPTION
Instead of using BAB one could use the REF-save bonus as a initiative bonus.
But I much prefer BAB (since a fighter should be better at this than a rogue).
And an ogre should be faster than a goblin? Doesn't really seem right to me. Plus it's adding complexity where it's not needed.
I don't see why adding just one additional (and well known) number is that much of an extra complication, but good point with the ogre/goblin stuff.
Back to the drawing board...
But all of you, please feel free to suggest further ideas!
|
Tactical Advantage (Ex): starting at 2nd level, a fighter gains a bonus to its initiative value in the second and later rounds of an encounter of one point at each round, up to a maximum equal to half its class levels.
This represents training aimed at gaining an edge over adversaries during protracted fights, adapting the combat style to the enemy strenghts and weaknesses, and constantly gaining a faster response time.
A fighter that chooses Tactical Advantage does not gain Bravery.
Example: Rodus the 4th-level fighter rolls 15 for initiative, Dex bonus included. At second round, his initiative value goes up to 16 in the round order. At the third round, his initiative value goes up to 17. At fourth and later rounds, Rodus' initiative stays at 17.
|
|
Tactical Advantage (Ex): starting at 2nd level, a fighter gains a bonus to its initiative value in the second and later rounds of an encounter of one point at each round, up to a maximum equal to half its class levels.
This represents training aimed at gaining an edge over adversaries during protracted fights, adapting the combat style to the enemy strenghts and weaknesses, and constantly gaining a faster response time.
A fighter that chooses Tactical Advantage does not gain Bravery.
Very cool concept for the tactically minded. Not too keen on having this as a class ability, as playing with the initiative order as a core class ability is quite fiddly and not every player's cup of tea.
I'd replace the 1/2 class level by an "initiative points pool" equal to the Dex modifier (see Combat Reflexes) and let the character spend the points as he wishes over the course of the encounter to improve his order.
I'd see this as:
- an advanced feat in the Improved Initiative tree. The follow-up feat would allow to double the Dex bonus.
- a special ability (Time domain) and/or a spell in the Transmutation school using 1d4+Dex bonus as the initiative points pool.
Tactical Advantage (Ex): starting at 2nd level, a fighter gains a bonus to its initiative value in the second and later rounds of an encounter of one point at each round, up to a maximum equal to half its class levels.
This represents training aimed at gaining an edge over adversaries during protracted fights, adapting the combat style to the enemy strenghts and weaknesses, and constantly gaining a faster response time.
A fighter that chooses Tactical Advantage does not gain Bravery.Example: Rodus the 4th-level fighter rolls 15 for initiative, Dex bonus included. At second round, his initiative value goes up to 16 in the round order. At the third round, his initiative value goes up to 17. At fourth and later rounds, Rodus' initiative stays at 17.
I like this idea, but as a fighter-only feat. I would change it to half of BAB instead of class levels and that it modify the initiative roll, not come in on the second round. It would also be changed that it cannot be used if the character is surprised.
-Jack
A change in initiative order could allow a fighter to take his turn twice before his opponent.
An ogre and a fighter are both have the same initiative number. The Ogre has a better init modifier, so he takes is turn juste before the fighter.
On the fighter's turn, he attacks. His tactical advantage raise is initiative number one point higher, placing BEFORE the ogre on the next round.
Is this what this proposition suppose to do? Allowing to attack an enemy and then attacking again before the enemy on the following round?
|
|
Is this what this proposition suppose to do? Allowing to attack an enemy and then attacking again before the enemy on the following round?
Neat, eh?
It happens already when the enemy delays or when he readies an action which puts him behind you in the initiative order. The feat or the spell gives you a limited possibility to achieve that.
|
|
Thanks to everyone for the evaluation of a simple idea I came up in 10 minutes.
Please, elaborate further and add your own!
@Lockworks: the advanced feat in the Improved Initiative tree sounds good, but I'd like better to stay with a progressive bonus (maybe capped at strenght/dex mod?), instead of a flat one. Obviously it's just my own taste.
@Repairman Jack: excellent points.
@YULDM: yes, the result is that a fighter could act twice after his opponent has taken his turn and before the same opponent acts again, just once per encounter.
round 1:
(20) - rogue
(17) - goblin (high Dex)
(16) - ogre (low Dex)
(15) - fighter (medium Dex)
round 2:
(20) - rogue
(17) - goblin (high Dex)
(16) - fighter (medium Dex)
(16) - ogre (low Dex)
round 3 (and further):
(20) - rogue
(17) - goblin (high Dex)
(17) - fighter (medium Dex)
(16) - ogre (low Dex)
Let's just think this as a delayed action in reverse.
This option should be available as an advanced feat (with adequate prerequisites) or as a class feature at the expense of something else equally important - the first thing that came to my mind was Bravery.
|
|
@Lockworks: the advanced feat in the Improved Initiative tree sounds good, but I'd like better to stay with a progressive bonus (maybe capped at strenght/dex mod?), instead of a flat one. Obviously it's just my own taste.
Glad to help.
One caveat: some GMs (myself included) don't always roll initiative in the open for the bad guys and don't display the exact numerical results of the initiative rolls modified by the Dex mod.
I do it when I need to curb the metagaming tendencies of some of my players: it's amazing what some people can deduct from an opponent's Dex modifier and Improved Initiative feat.
Why exactly should a fighter have a better initiative than a rogue?But I much prefer BAB (since a fighter should be better at this than a rogue).
Because Initiative is not just about being fast, but also to know where and when to act.
The fighter trains ALL HIS LIFE for this. That's why at least he should be better in this.
Maybe a (or the above mentioned) fighter ability might be a quite good idea.
When a rogue is practicing for combat, he's ALL ABOUT getting the first hit in and overwhelming his target. Look at the classic example rogues: Assassin (one shot kill), Street Thug (surprise attacks), Scout (see and react to enemies first), and Highwayman (ambush).
The simple fact that they are likely to train in Sneaking, and have Sneak Attack that benefits from flatfooted opponents, makes it so the Rogue would be the PRIMARY person to train and desire striking first in combat.
..
Now, the proposed "after combat starts" ability of moving up in Initiative (like a limited reverse delay), fits a combat person much more, because it's all about the tactical boost in combat reactive speed. This is something that would befit a tactically combat oriented class, not just a sneaky strike first class.
So no on BAB for Initiative. Yes on Fighters getting an Initiative modifying ability after combat starts.
When a rogue is practicing for combat, he's ALL ABOUT getting the first hit in and overwhelming his target. Look at the classic example rogues: Assassin (one shot kill), Street Thug (surprise attacks), Scout (see and react to enemies first), and Highwayman (ambush).
The simple fact that they are likely to train in Sneaking, and have Sneak Attack that benefits from flatfooted opponents, makes it so the Rogue would be the PRIMARY person to train and desire striking first in combat.
You just disagreed to yourself.
All those classes you named, don't train for being fast in combat,
they train to SURPRISE their foes and luckily strike them down in the first round.
That is clearly a difference.
Once they lost their moment of surprise, they are in (big) problems.
I believe all characters should be able to take any feat or skill. This allows a player to truly make a character that he has conceived. I don't like power gamers but I do love customization. No to Bab bonus to initiative for me. But new feats that aren't overpowered. I am always a fan of.
I like the ideas everyone is coming up with just remember to keep them balanced.
When a rogue is practicing for combat, he's ALL ABOUT getting the first hit in and overwhelming his target. Look at the classic example rogues: Assassin (one shot kill), Street Thug (surprise attacks), Scout (see and react to enemies first), and Highwayman (ambush).
The simple fact that they are likely to train in Sneaking, and have Sneak Attack that benefits from flatfooted opponents, makes it so the Rogue would be the PRIMARY person to train and desire striking first in combat.
You just disagreed to yourself.
All those classes you named, don't train for being fast in combat,
they train to SURPRISE their foes and luckily strike them down in the first round.
That is clearly a difference.Once they lost their moment of surprise, they are in (big) problems.
I didn't negate my own point, I reinforced it.
Rogues need to go first in combat. That's what Initiative gives. Once combat starts, having a 200 in Initiative does nothing for you, since you are taking turns at that point on. Having a higher Initiative than anyone else means you are focused on First Strike concept.
Hence why BAB to Initiative would be a bad idea.. because then it makes FIGHTERS good at going FIRST, not ROGUES. Initiative = First Strike, not "great at combat tactics".
Giving Fighters a MID-COMBAT Initiative altering ability is what you are looking for, which I said in my post as well.
Why exactly should a fighter have a better initiative than a rogue?But I much prefer BAB (since a fighter should be better at this than a rogue).
Because Initiative is not just about being fast, but also to know where and when to act.
The fighter trains ALL HIS LIFE for this. That's why at least he should be better in this.
Maybe a (or the above mentioned) fighter ability might be a quite good idea.
Next to flanking, the number one way for a rogue to get of Sneak Attack is by having a higher initiative result (as combatants are flat-footed until after they act in the first round of combat.) After that, rogues generally have to result to falling back on arcane spells (Grease, Invisibility, Color Spray, Glitterdust, etc.)
If you want your fighter to be faster, take the Improved Initiative feat, which as an untyped bonus, stacks with itself.
If your campaign demands it due to fluff reasons, give Improved Initiative as bonus background feat to fighters.
But to argue in the the same vein as the post quoted above: everyone knows that rogues are better and faster than fighters because rogues = Ninjas, and Ninjas are fast, smooth, cool, strong, powerful, and sweet
That true and I am also against a mid-combat increase. It's just not worth it because it will slow down the combat again (well I think so).
But I would like to see AT LEAST the fighter get a bonus to his initiative (+1 per 3 levels or so - like bravery, but in addition not instead of it)
But again, if the fighter gets it, why not the ranger? Or the paladin? or the Barbarian?
Know what I mean?
I just think that initiative is about reflexes AND combat training and I really would like to see this incorporated into the rules.
|
|
This still does not change the fact that mid-fight initiative changes allow characters a double move benefit which should NEVER happen for a lot of tactical reasons.
It happens already when the enemy delays or when he readies an action which puts him behind you in the initiative order. Also, when the enemy is held, paralyzed, knocked unconscious or otherwise can't act on his turn.
I don't agree with "Improved Init feat".
It's not to improve the fighters, but to improve ANY characters Init.
So my point stays in voting for a special fighters ini-bonus.
(and making it a flat bonus, no +1 per round or such).
While the merits of such a feat are still up in the air, I don't think your point is too solid.
I mean.. grab the TWF feat and you get to attack twice at level 1 every single round. A Quickened spell allows you to cast twice before another creature's action, etc.
There isn't a "fundamental" mechanical problem with doing this feat. It's the Fighter getting a bonus.. it's just allowing him to do 2x the actions once in a while, against a few foes, not really "making them dazed". Not any more than Quickened Spells or TWF does.
...
Now a good way to question this is if the Fighter should be getting this much added power.
Or, is this a solid enough mechanic to add to the game... it's a bit of bookkeeping involved.
I don't think that the initiative system needs a huge change, it works okay as is. Not perfect but okay - and it is simple and thus easily houserule-able. Any big changes might cause havoc with back compatibility.
That said, BAB is an interesting option and it would certainly help out the Fighter and friends quite a bit. Doesn't strike me as the right answer though. If I could make one change to the initiative rules it would be to add Wisdom modifiers to initiative modifiers. Dexterity measures reactions, Wisdom measures perception - both of these are needed to 'win' initiative.
The number of times I've been punched and saw it coming but was just too slow to do anything about it....
Just thought I'd throw that out there as no one else seemed to have mentioned it yet. Although it's not a new idea at all. ;D
Peace,
tfad
The only problem I've found with Initiative is that it always remains HIGHLY dependent on the random roll.
Even at the highest levels, I see most character having between a +2 and +6 modifier to their Initiative.
Here's what I mean.
At lower levels, even the Fighter's attack bonus is fairly low compared to the d20. "The best of the best" combat people still are looking at a +1 BAB, +4/5 Stat mod, and maybe a +1 from a feat or so. "The Best" is still looking at only around +7 modifier at first level.
This means against even a naked target (AC 10), you are still looking at not reaching 95% chance to hit.
As you go up in levels, and get better at fighting, your attack bonus sky rockets and even the Wizard is looking at a +10 BAB base (hitting the naked target nearly every time).
...
So what does this mean for Initiative? Do we never get any better at going first in combat after thousands of fights?
I could understand if there's just some folks that don't do well at going first... but what about those that seem like they should be focused on it? Rogues... Rangers... Monks. Anyone that would consider a scouting role.
So they can blow a low resource (feat) on getting a +4, and then hope that their stat modifier is pumped high enough to make that random d20 roll not mean as much.
A Rogue with a 28 Dex (18 + 6 stat item + 4 from levels) has a +9 from his stat. Blow a feat and he has a +13.
If he rolls a 1, he could STILL lose against someone just being lucky (rolling a 15 or higher on his d20). That's still a 30% chance of failure against a person with NO bonus to Initiative at all.
That's still very dependent on the randomness factor, and I can't really figure out why. What is it about perceiving a target and reacting first that should be so much more random than something like general melee combat?
If this is just another "hidden way to depower rogue's Sneak Attack to justify it's being part of his class" (see Weapon Finesse thread), then it's once again a bad logic.
|
|
I don't agree with "Improved Init feat".
It's not to improve the fighters, but to improve ANY characters Init.So my point stays in voting for a special fighters ini-bonus.
(and making it a flat bonus, no +1 per round or such).
How'd it work out in your playtest? Personally, I have no prob with such an ability as a feat since fighters get so many of them.
And yet, it's still possible to do all those things with current rules. Delayed actions allows 2 rounds worth of actions to occur. Yes, the person is letting it happen, but "time-wise" it still occurs. Surprise rounds and going first allows a Dragon to move up and full attack before the defender gets any chance of doing anything.
You mention that TWF and Quickened Spell have a cost involved. Alright, so let's say there's a cost added to the proposed idea.. maybe, -2 on all attacks if you intend to do this, and can't move during the new action, etc.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you allow this sort of thing happen at other times for other reasons, then the fabric of the game doesn't break down because of the result of this proposed idea... it's just that you haven't nailed down the cost quite yet to allow it.
There's a difference from what you are saying. One approach is to actually discuss the mechanic, and come up with ways of making it playable.
Your approach is to basically dismiss it out of hand and shut down any discussion of the mechanic whatsoever, based on a logic that fails when put up against a multitude of other examples in the core rules.
|
|
[...]Alright, so let's say there's a cost added to the proposed idea.. maybe, -2 on all attacks if you intend to do this, and can't move during the new action, etc.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you allow this sort of thing happen at other times for other reasons, then the fabric of the game doesn't break down because of the result of this proposed idea... it's just that you haven't nailed down the cost quite yet to allow it.
If we use BAB, the cost of a penalty on attacks can be most straightforward. 1 point of BAB could be spent to move 1 point in the initiative order and would result in -1 penalty for attacks on the next action.
I suggested using the DEX modifier, which doesn't scale nearly as much as BAB, doesn't give as many moves within the initiative order and is already used as the limit on AoO in Combat Reflexes.
Obviously it shifts the focus from the hard-hitters to the nimble hitters, but I'd rather give more options to character concepts rather than to classes.
Finally, I think that the initiative shift should be declared in the round preceding the shift.
That's for what I "created" the Warfare skill in my D&D.
One of it's most common uses is to analyse the battle (full action, feat for standard action) and substitute your initiative with a skill check.
... hmm, maybe the initiative should remain as is with this skill...
... oh man, I am totally losing oversight about my houserules...