ColbyMunro |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I watch Matt Colville's videos pretty religiously and today he dropped a video talking about Mike Mearl's homebrew initiative system. I really like it, and I'd like to try running it, but maybe you should tell me why it wouldn't work, or what might be adjusted to make it work better. Especially because there's a pretty big gap between 5e and Pathfinder, I'm guessing there's a lot I haven't considered on this topic.
MySinIsPride |
I haven't run it, but have considered ways to convert it to the Pathfinder system. I will likely use it during at least one gaming session and see how it goes.
I would change the +d8 for a bonus action (which is a 5e thing) to be the cost to perform a Swift Action. I would also add a +d6 or +d8 as a penalty if a player changed their mind. This would represent the, "S~@&, I planned to strike this guy but the Ranger just put an arrow in his skull. Now what?" type mental hesitation which occurs during the chaos of battle.
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
So, tell us what you want an initiative system to do.
for example, Mearls' system requires a character to decide whether he's going to throw a spell, or attack with a weapon, before he know which actions other people are doing, and before he know when he'll act in the round. (So, I'm not sure how Attacks of Opportunity work under such a system.) (Or readying actions.)
As a system, it does different things than d20 / Pathfinder's initiative system. It forces characters to declare what they're doing with less information. It makes combat less certain, because the initiative is likely to change from one round to the next. (If I go last in one round, I can declare a ranged attack and I'll likely act again before anybody can react to my last round.) Are those the sorts of things you want in your game?
Certainly, feats and traits that affect initiative in Pathfinder don't belong in such a system. (A +4 bonus to initiative, every round, is an enormous advantage.)
ColbyMunro |
Well, my main drive to implement this system is that I find initiative fairly boring and i think players do too. Having a system where the players are in between their turns seems optimal to me, as I know more than one player who starts to lose interest as they wait for their turn (when I am a player I am definitely a perpetrator of this.) At the very least this sparks interest at the top of every round as players have to consider what they will be doing, and hopefully this engagement stays with them as their plans go awry and they have to begin to think how they are going to adjust their actions.
This might be silly, but the lower number rolls also feel like it will make it easier to manage initiative. That's just a feeling but I tend to get caught when people start shouting initiative count with such a wide disparity between initiative. i'm probably totally wrong here considering I have to do initiative at the top of every round and adjust it as players actions change but I do have an initiative tracker so my feeling is that it would help?
I should have included this in the original post but for reference to the people that don't want to click the links that I put up:
Ranged attacks - D4
Melee attacks - D8
Spells - D12
+D6 to move and do something
+D8 to swap gear
+D8 for bonus action (which doesn't apply in pathfinder like was already mentioned)
Initiative works like golf where lowest goes first. Players must announce actions at the top of the round and add the proper dice if they change what they are doing.
And yes, obviously feats and traits like improved initiative wouldn't be allowed. However there's some cool ideas that you could use instead. I personally like the idea that a cavalier or similar class could help lead party tactics by issuing orders at the top of the round and players get a bonus to hit if they follow said orders (and a penalty to hit if they dont, so it would have to be used sparingly)
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Chris.
I personally don't like it because it slows down combat and makes it more difficult to make tactical decisions. Planning out your turn and coordinating with your party is what makes combat fun. A system that hinders this just makes combat less enjoyable.
It also seems unfair that ranged combatants get the best initiative, and this system doesn't account for move actions and swift actions.
ColbyMunro |
I agree with Chris.
I personally don't like it because it slows down combat and makes it more difficult to make tactical decisions. Planning out your turn and coordinating with your party is what makes combat fun. A system that hinders this just makes combat less enjoyable.
It also seems unfair that ranged combatants get the best initiative, and this system doesn't account for move actions and swift actions.
People who use it swear it actually speeds up combat, at least in 5e.
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cyrad wrote:People who use it swear it actually speeds up combat, at least in 5e.I agree with Chris.
I personally don't like it because it slows down combat and makes it more difficult to make tactical decisions. Planning out your turn and coordinating with your party is what makes combat fun. A system that hinders this just makes combat less enjoyable.
It also seems unfair that ranged combatants get the best initiative, and this system doesn't account for move actions and swift actions.
This isn't 5th Edition.
And if it does speed up combat, it probably does so by removing decision-making.
ColbyMunro |
Why does it matter if it's 5e or not. They are similar enough systems that it's not the end of the world in trying to implement this.
Also how does it remove decision making? You still get the same amount of actions per round. You still get to decide what you are doing, it only penalizes you if you decide to change what you were planning on doing at the top of the round, meaning you'd likely be forced to go later or last in the turn order. As I understand the system, if someone kills the dude you were planning on meleeing that turn with a ranged attack, you roll a new initiative die to move to the next person and attack them instead (you never have to specify which creature you are attacking at the top of the round, only what attack you are doing)
From what I've read, it's faster because it removes the analysis paralysis of "what do I do" when it comes to your turn. You are still thinking tactically at the top of the round, coming up with a short group consensus on what to do, but there is a fog of war aspect that is much more prominently displayed in this system. In the usual d20 initiative system, players have some sort of feeling or pressure that there is a "right" answer to what they should be doing on that turn, when that really is not the case. This system, from what I have read from the people who have played with it, say that it rewires that sort of thinking. Forcing players to act with less information may not be the end of the world in games that opt into this variant way of play, and may actually be more reflective of the hectic nature of combat.
As an aside, I think there may be something to this system in regards to high intelligence scores because of the declarative of actions at the beginning of rounds. What I mean by this, is high intelligence creatures probably have some understanding of what lower intelligence creatures are going to be doing that round (as in thinking steps ahead of others) and can take the declaration phase into account when planning what they are going to do. This is perhaps a needless level of complexity to a system that is already fairly complex, but something I definitely feel is interesting and worth exploring.
As for the ranged attacks getting the best initiative, I'd probably put light weapons in the same initiative die category of d4. (and two handed weapons in the d12 category.) I'm also partial to spell casting being at a lower initiative die but adding the spell level to the initiative to reflect the difficulty of precision in casting spells of greater power levels.
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
ColbyMunro |
There's ways to remove analysis paralysis. Removing tactical teamwork and making it more annoying to plan your turn is a terrible way to do that.
Probably not entirely, but maybe enough to make the game flow smoother. I also still dont agree that people who run this system are "removing tactical teamwork", if anything it gives the players a combat phase that is indulging in tactical teamwork. Ive always house-ruled that players/characters can only speak about one line to one another during their free action anyway so there would be more teamwork in my games, at least.
Everyone who has posted about it who has playtested it seems to think it's really interesting and fun and I find it personally intriguing. I'm not gonna try to convert you to the system, that's not the point of the thread. I'm just trying to find out what pitfalls might occur so I can preempt them when I do try this out (probably next weekend) and have it run as smooth as possible. If it does suck, then I'll switch back to normal initiative. No harm there.
Schadenfreude |
Although it's talking about a somewhat different system, this article addresses a few of the complaints Cyrad raises, so you may find it useful to think about.
The short version is, declaring you action beforehand doesn't mean you can't still choose where to move and whom to target, so tactical teamwork is still possible.
Feats like Improved Initiative might retain their value by having that player declare their action last, so they can act on slightly better information than the others.
I'd also support the idea of light weapons rolling a smaller dice, and larger weapons rolling a larger one.
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
I already pointed out the pitfalls. It hinders tactical teamwork because it randomizes the turn order every round after you already decided what to do. This makes it more difficult to coordinate actions. The only perk to the system is that it gives a moment where the party can discuss the round, which is something a party can do WITHOUT a system that randomizes initiative every round. It would actually be better if the initiative wasn't based on what action you take.
If you like it, then that's great. However, I see many people in those links that did not like the system.
phantom1592 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I see no way this would be faster and adding extra steps between the combat rounds doesn't sound more exciting or engaging to me.
Honestly, coming from 2E where we rolled every round and added weapon speed to every attack, I was downright giddy with Pathfinder's Initative concept. Roll once... keep the order, unless you want to change it. Commence butt-kicking.
I didn't even realize how much I hated Rolling every round until I wasn't doing it anymore.
ColbyMunro |
I see many people in those links that did not like the system.
I've been through the comments and threads (searching out enworld forums too) and i've yet to find someone who's actually tried it and didn't like it. There are certainly people who think it could be improved in one way or another but no one who outright thought it was bad. Again, the general consensus from those people was that combat moved faster too, though that might be an issue with 5e that isn't one with pathfinder. I know the combats I run in PF tend to be slow, so that's why I'm excited about it.
Edit: also i'm getting tired of defending this system that I havent tried to people who also havent tried it and are coming off a little more than dismissive. If you don't think its a good idea, that's not the thread. If you have ideas on how to improve or solve any problems that might arise I welcome your imput. When i do try this, and if it is actually bad and too much to monitor, then i will come back and tell you so you can say "told you so."
TriOmegaZero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, my main drive to implement this system is that I find initiative fairly boring and i think players do too.
Not me. I've played in a game where we rolled every round. By the end, I was purposefully delaying my turn to the end of the round to avoid the enemy getting two turns before I got my next one. (I even just announced the initiative I was delaying to instead of my actual roll.) Give me the boring static initiative over chaotic, ever-changing initiatives any day.
ColbyMunro |
ColbyMunro wrote:Well, my main drive to implement this system is that I find initiative fairly boring and i think players do too.Not me. I've played in a game where we rolled every round. By the end, I was purposefully delaying my turn to the end of the round to avoid the enemy getting two turns before I got my next one. (I even just announced the initiative I was delaying to instead of my actual roll.) Give me the boring static initiative over chaotic, ever-changing initiatives any day.
See edit above but I think the system is a little more complex and interesting than rolling a d20 and adding your initiative every round.
TriOmegaZero |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I would still choose to take my turn at the end of the round rather than waste my time rolling multiple dice every round to determine when I acted.
More die rolls does not equal more interesting.
TOZ |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: also i'm getting tired of defending this system that I havent tried to people who also havent tried it and are coming off a little more than dismissive. If you don't think its a good idea, that's not the thread.
Then stop defending it. No one is forcing you to respond to the posts that point out its flaws.
ColbyMunro |
That does bring up something I hadn't considered. I don't know that you'd be allowed to delay your action like that during the "announcement phase." I think if things really changed by the time your turn rolled around and you absolutely couldn't make your announced action work, then you would add new dice.
I'll have to look into how holding actions works a little deeper. The guys on enworld have had about a month to figure this stuff out, I'm working off of one afternoon and night of research.
ColbyMunro |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ColbyMunroe wrote:Edit: also i'm getting tired of defending this system that I havent tried to people who also havent tried it and are coming off a little more than dismissive. If you don't think its a good idea, that's not the thread.Then stop defending it. No one is forcing you to respond to the posts that point out its flaws.
Flaws are fine, im more talking about "it's bad because it's bad" or "the way you want to game is wrong" sort of posts. I don't know that it is bad, it seems fun to me, but it also seems extremely interpretive, so I'm trying to fortify myself from the inevitable weirdness that will arise from running it. I'll try to be less defensive.
Although it's talking about a somewhat different system, this article addresses a few of the complaints Cyrad raises, so you may find it useful to think about.
The short version is, declaring you action beforehand doesn't mean you can't still choose where to move and whom to target, so tactical teamwork is still possible.
Feats like Improved Initiative might retain their value by having that player declare their action last, so they can act on slightly better information than the others.
I'd also support the idea of light weapons rolling a smaller dice, and larger weapons rolling a larger one.
Also thank you Schadenfreude, I'm reading the article now.
phantom1592 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: also i'm getting tired of defending this system that I havent tried to people who also havent tried it and are coming off a little more than dismissive. If you don't think its a good idea, that's not the thread.
Are you sure?
I really like it, and I'd like to try running it, but maybe you should tell me why it wouldn't work
I've played in a lot of different games, and a lot of different systems all using very different initative systems. Pathfinder is so far my favorite. West Ends D6 Star Wars was my least favorite. Rolling every round never speeds up the combat... and frankly I don't have an answer to 'Initiative is boring' Combat is the exciting part, In all my years, I 've never seen anyone excited about the initiative phase...
At the end of the day, all the actions are taking place in the same 6 seconds anyway having multiple rolls with multiple types of dice is just over complicating things.
If each class had a different die... or each weapon had a different die... I still wouldn't like it much, but there would be a certain consistency. The overall goal is to make combat run smoothly like a well oiled machine. Anything that causes you to stop, reset, and think in the middle like this is only counter productive.
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
So, ColbyMunro, it's not a bad idea. I don't think it will necessarily blow up in your face, although there may be cascading issues in the Pathfinder rules, which you'll need to address (how to handle a Magus, who uses a scimitar in her left hand while throwing spells with her right; or a monk with a bow, who fires once, and then uses his feet to make Attacks of Opportunity, or an alchemist drinking a mutagen...)
Explain it to your players. Try it. See what happens, and decide whether it adds to the game you want to run.
Gulthor |
Honestly, coming from 2E where we rolled every round and added weapon speed to every attack, I was downright giddy with Pathfinder's Initative concept. Roll once... keep the order, unless you want to change it. Commence butt-kicking.
I didn't even realize how much I hated Rolling every round until I wasn't doing it anymore.
I feel this so freaking much.
Irontruth |
Well, my main drive to implement this system is that I find initiative fairly boring and i think players do too. Having a system where the players are in between their turns seems optimal to me, as I know more than one player who starts to lose interest as they wait for their turn (when I am a player I am definitely a perpetrator of this.) At the very least this sparks interest at the top of every round as players have to consider what they will be doing, and hopefully this engagement stays with them as their plans go awry and they have to begin to think how they are going to adjust their actions.
How specifically does this system engage a player when it's not their turn? I don't see anything new about doing things outside of your turn.
I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, I'm just pointing out that maybe this isn't solving the problem you think it is solving, but doing something else instead.
ColbyMunro |
With classic initiative I've had a long time issue of people distracting themselves until their turn comes around and not knowing what to do when they're up and dragging it out even longer and it becomes this cascading effect of disengagement with combat.
With this other system, at the top of each round you participate in strategy, and then the individual turns likely move faster due to the announcing of what they were going to do. They're more likely to be clued into assessing the combat due to the probability of people going later having to change their announced action.
This is my feeling on it anyways, I'll be running it on Saturday so we'll see. Also to Cyrad, I have now seen a few comments of people who tried it and didn't like it, but it still seems the vast majority of the system is enjoyed by players.
Irontruth |
It doesn't get them to pay attention when it's not their turn, it just splits their turn up into two phases, which means they pay attention twice, but the duration isn't doubled, it's just split.
I've had the same problem you were having, people not paying attention when it wasn't their turn. My solution was to make initiative incumbent on the player paying attention. I removed specific individual turn order and instead made it for the group.
Typically turns go like this in pathfinder:
Player A
Player B
Monsters
Player C
Player D
But if you adjust your perception of it slightly, it's:
Player C
Player D
Player A
Player B
Monsters
Or you could start it with monsters first, or whoever. The point is that basically turns tend to become a block for the group. So there's not really anything gained by tracking initiative individually, except for characters with very high initiative and even then, only in the first round. Players who do want to highly coordinate with each other can easily delay and rearrange their turn order to suit their strategy.
So, I encourage it. I tell the players, "Okay, what do you do?" and let them decide their order and take their actions. If someone isn't paying attention, I don't remind them they didn't do anything. Once there's a lull, or I know everyone has gone, then it's my turn. Players who need to look up spells have to do so quickly, which tends to mean they let someone else go while they look up the spell. Which saves the whole group time and makes combat shorter.
Mearls initiative system doesn't do this. It does other things, like trying to make incentives to do certain kinds of actions and making certain other actions a penalty. It changes the mechanical interaction between certain action types. There's nothing wrong with that (I personally wouldn't use it), but it isn't the thing you said you're looking for in your opening post.
Another option is popcorn initiative. You roll (or just declare who goes first, based on the situation, or special abilities like Alertness) to see who goes first, then after that person is done, they pick who goes next. You can only pick someone who hasn't acted that turn. If you're the last person to go in the round, you can pick anyone, including yourself, to get first in the next round.
If a player wins initiative, the party can just pick each other and leave the monsters to go last. But that means that at the start of the next round, the monsters do the same thing, effectively giving them all 2 turns before the players get their second turn. In this way players have to pay attention to who hasn't gone yet and decide on a good time pick for them to go. There are lots of variants and discussions on the concept of popcorn initiative if you search the internet.
FFG's Star Wars does a similar thing. You roll and get "slots" for the group. Any character can go on any slot though, so if the rogue is an initiative specialist, but doesn't actually want to go first, he can let the wizard take the turn, and the rogue takes a later one. Each person can still only act once per round, but it requires the group to coordinate and make decisions together.
PiccoloBard |
Having to declare your intended action before anyone's moved in the round just sounds so inefficient. By the time your turn actually comes up, the state of the combat may have changed such that your original plan isn't even valid anymore. If anything, I suspect I'd be *more* confused about what to do on my turn in this system than I am with normal initiative (like if my turn rolls around and the obvious thing to do is cast a certain spell, but I previously declared a melee attack and can't cast a spell unless I delay further -- with regular initiative I could just cast the spell). I feel like it would get very frustrating very fast. I'm not a Divination specialist, I just play one in this game! ;)
What surprises me most, though, is that as far as I can tell, the "anti-metagaming" faction isn't up in arms about this system encouraging discussion between players during combat (which I'm not against, but I have seen some people be).
ColbyMunro |
What surprises me most, though, is that as far as I can tell, the "anti-metagaming" faction isn't up in arms about this system encouraging discussion between players during combat (which I'm not against, but I have seen some people be).
Honestly this is the hardest thing to justify in the system for me. I think what i'll end up doing is as the party adventures together I'll let them talk longer during the planning phase, and have it represent the characters anticipating the others actions because they know each-other fairly well, and have fought together on a number of occasions. Starting out, I may keep the strategizing to a minimum of what can be reasonably discussed in such a short window of time.
However, this might break the system so honestly I don't know. I wan't the players to experience the full extent of what's available to them with this, but I also want it to be realistic. It's a quandary for sure.
SmiloDan RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
My 5th Edition game is going to try this next week. I'm not too optimistic about it, but the guest DM wants to try it, so we're going to try it. I usually DM, so this is my one chance to play.
I'm not looking forward to rolling every round, and I'm either going to play my rogue (who uses Cunning Action or two-weapon fighting A LOT) or a barbarian/Circle of the Moon druid (who uses rage, wildshape, and bonus action healing), so I'll be penalized practically every round.
Also, how does it work with Reactions and responding with Bonus Actions, like healing word or other "emergency" bonus actions?
Irontruth |
Specifically as a 5e player, that's the part I really don't like about it. You get penalized for having useful bonus actions for your class. With the RAW, it makes it feel like Rogues are good at doing things faster. With this alternate rule, it means if a Rogue wants to go fast, they have to forgo their class ability. It seems counter intuitive to how it feels in the base game, and I like how the base game feels.
Bwang |
Having played a similar, but less thought out, system, it works to mix things up. Combat stops being a 'going for a slice of pizza' or 'Finished my turn, bathroom break' affair and really makes you pay attention. It is great for those of us raised in speed chess or wargames (me), but can be pure hell on Storyteller and Role Players. Powergamers are either too focused on that one thing they do or have to actually start thinking for a change.
The one problem that the group has is one of their rotating DMs never applies the negative action economy to his mooks. They all get better reactions than the PCs, in practice, as they really don't watch which mook is which.
Some tricks they use (1) placing the relevant die behind the figure (2) ties to the bigger die (3) Feats and classes affecting die size, although multiclassing is shafted. One other thing is they place skittles or M&Ms to mark '+'s to the number on the die. These can be for any number of conditions and penalties: encumbered, prone, stunned, etc. When your turn comes around, the nibblings get eaten. Table rule those are the only snacks at the table!
ColbyMunro |
So as an update, we played this with some new players and some players who have been playing the typical one initiative roll system for the entire d&d/pathfinder experience. Everyone liked it, though it was a bit clunky to run in the two combats we played, just cause I implemented it off the cuff after getting nervous the week before and running the game as normal.
There was however some dissension that one player felt that they should be able to add dice as soon as something in combat changed what action they were capable of taking. After the game we had a short discussion (more like a best friend debate) and ended up resolving it. He ended up agreeing that only adding dice when your initiative dice comes up works if, and only if there is no talking to other players on your actual turn. This is my intention with this system anyway, so it was really just me and him agreeing that things need to run smoother. Everyone sort of agreed that as we get more familiar with it, it's going to move faster.
The most consistent praise was that it was dynamic, and it definitely changed the flow of battle. A kobold rolled really low and made an escape which let him trigger a trap ending up in a collapsing ceiling. Honestly, one of the better combats ive ever run (i'm a fairly new dm though)
I ran weapons of different types with differently weighted die and that was a change to this system I absolutely think is worth implementing. Also, spells are d6 to cast, when it gets to your turn you can cast a cantrip immediately, and have to wait the spell level in initiative to cast anything else. strategically, it makes spells harder to use, and gives a little bit of versatility to lower level spells. This might be tough at higher levels though.
Oh and also the UA for 5E came out on this, if anyone would like to take a look.
Kirth Gersen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the general consensus from those people was that combat moved faster too, though that might be an issue with 5e that isn't one with pathfinder.
What slows down combat are, in order of importance:
1. People not knowing their options / having info on them ready (e.g., looking up spells in the rulebook during their turn)2. Battlemaps, grids, and moving around dolls.
3. People unsure about the rules in general (newbies)
4. People with low-efficiency habits (rolling dice separately instead of all at once).
Initiative rolls don't really compare to those, in my experience.
SmiloDan RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
We tried it. I didn't like it. I found it clunky and time consuming. It took me out of the flow of the battle. It also punished creativity and rewarded doing the same thing every round. (We play 5th Edition, and one guy just stood still and shot cantrips all battle, so he just rolled 1d4 each round.) I especially didn't like how it hampered reacting to changing circumstances.
5th Edition is very dynamic, and encourages moving around the battlefield, but this version of initiative punishes moving by making you add +1d6 to move (at least the version we played did).
I guess it's good for ranged characters or dagger wielders. But if you are a mobile spellcaster with bonus action options, you're going to go last. I often almost got skipped since my initiative was higher than 15, and the DM only kept track of initiatives 1-15 on his sheet.
Frol |
I'm really interested in trying this system for my game too. My only problem is that one of my player's character is pretty maxed out on initiative (high Dex, Improved initiative, Reactionary trait and a scorpion Familiar). I would like to find a way to reflect that so that my player wouldn't feel cheated by this system.
Here's what I'm thinking:
Improved Initiative makes you roll one dice category lower than what is prescribed in the system (for example, a d8 becomes a d6) I think that would be a good fit.
To reflect the rest of his habilities, i'd let my player roll twice and keep the better result. A bit clunky, but I'm unable to imagine something better.
Any suggestions?
blahpers |
I'm really interested in trying this system for my game too. My only problem is that one of my player's character is pretty maxed out on initiative (high Dex, Improved initiative, Reactionary trait and a scorpion Familiar). I would like to find a way to reflect that so that my player wouldn't feel cheated by this system.
Here's what I'm thinking:
Improved Initiative makes you roll one dice category lower than what is prescribed in the system (for example, a d8 becomes a d6) I think that would be a good fit.
To reflect the rest of his habilities, i'd let my player roll twice and keep the better result. A bit clunky, but I'm unable to imagine something better.
Any suggestions?
Depends. Why are you interested in trying this system? What problem are you trying to solve with it, and what other problem are you trying to solve with your changes to it?
Frol |
Depends. Why are you interested in trying this system? What problem are you trying to solve with it, and what other problem are you trying to solve with your changes to it?
I dunno. I guess I just like to try new ideas.
As I said, my main problem is to try to be fair with one of my player who put alot of thought to make sure he always wins initiative. He plays a sorcerer with fairly high Dexterity, has the reactionnary trait (+2), has the improved initiative feat (+4) and has a Scorpion Familiar (+4). He's what you would call a Minmaxer to say the least! But i don't mind.
SmiloDan RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
I'm really interested in trying this system for my game too. My only problem is that one of my player's character is pretty maxed out on initiative (high Dex, Improved initiative, Reactionary trait and a scorpion Familiar). I would like to find a way to reflect that so that my player wouldn't feel cheated by this system.
Here's what I'm thinking:
Improved Initiative makes you roll one dice category lower than what is prescribed in the system (for example, a d8 becomes a d6) I think that would be a good fit.
To reflect the rest of his habilities, i'd let my player roll twice and keep the better result. A bit clunky, but I'm unable to imagine something better.
Any suggestions?
Improved Initiative: -2 to initiative
Reactionary: -1 to initiativeScorpion familiar: -2 to initiative
Dex is a wash, since no one benefits from or is penalized by their Dex modifier.
Please note: I am not a fan of this system. In addition to being clunky, slowing down the game, punishing creative pay, and eliminating action flexibility and reactions to changing circumstances, it seems to arbitrarily assign values based on a bunch of unrelated game numbers.
Weapon damage dice are utterly unrelated to how fast they are to use, spell level has nothing to do with how quickly you can cast the spell, using a swift action shouldn't make you slower, and it ignores the fact that even though it's turn-based combat system, supposedly all actions occur during the same 6 seconds, so you should be able to react to different circumstances.
I am not a fan.
Frol |
I am not a fan.
You made that abundantly clear; Duly noted! ^__^
Thank you for your input, even though you dont like the system.
I'm not inclined to apply too much negative "bonuses" to this system though... I would prefer not to have to start counting initiative at -4 just for the kick of it. But I'm afraid mathematical bonuses are inevitable, given the circumstance.
Lets see:
Improved Initiative: roll one dice category lower.
Scorpion familiar: roll twice, keep the better result.
Reactionary: -1 to initiative roll.
Seems fair... right?
SmiloDan RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
I don't know how fair that is.
Rolling 1 die smaller is, on average, just a -1 bonus. And it costs a whole feat.
Also, you're adding THREE different types of initiative modifiers: Changing some dice sizes, rolling additional dice, and a static modifier. It's already kind of confusing, since you have to keep track of different types of dice for different types of actions. And you have to do it EVERY. SINGLE. ROUND.
I would suggest streamlining the type of modifiers to just one. Choose either a bonus for each source of bonus or a cascading reduction of dice size for each bonus you get. Rolling twice is just messy, since you're often rolling multiple dice, sometimes of the same kind, sometimes of different kinds.
You can have the minimum reduction to initiative be 1. If they roll 1d4-5, they get a 1, not a -1 or -4.
Remember, this is a time consuming method of keeping track of initiative. Making it even more complex is going to make it take even longer. It already has a lot of moving parts, and it requires a lot of additional bookkeeping by the GM/DM.
It just slows down combat, which is already relatively tedious in Pathfinder, since there lots of ephemeral bonuses to keep track of already (like flanking, higher ground, aid another, bless, heroism, prayer, haste, etc.) and ephemeral penalties (fatigue, shaken, sicken, etc.). Instead of flowing smoothly from one character to the next, moving from one round to the next with ease, it grinds combat to a halt EVERY. SINGLE. ROUND. just to shuffle the deck of player order. If shuffling player order is desirable, you can get similar results by emphasizing and encouraging the delay action, introducing more spells and powers that use an Immediate Action, and play the monsters in such a way that they provoke more Attacks of Opportunity.
Also, if you are going to penalize PCs for moving, you're encouraging martials to stand still and make full attacks. You're also encouraging ranged combat (and ranged spells) and penalizing melee combat. This also increases the martial/spellcaster disparity.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but in practice, I found it to be a failure.
Graelsis |
Hellow people, may the goblin godess bless you all.
I agree with the majority here, this sistem is just dog poop, and we all hate dogs, dont we?
You can still use it, of course, if you want to slow down the game to "turtle levels" (i hate turtles too). If you read a little bit above you will find some fantastic responses with pretty good reviews of the sistem.
I,m using the star wars edge of the empire system in my games and it works perfectly fine: fast fights, tactic encounters and a lot of side benefits
Frol |
I read all your thoughts on the new initiative system and I’m beginning to realize how much a hassle it is to try and make those rules fit PF. Maybe I’m handling the problem from the wrong side.
What I like about this rule is precisely that it makes combat less predictable by shuffling the order of actions in a round. That, and the fact that it hearkens back to previous editions of D&D way to handle initiative. What can I say… I’m an old couth, can’t escape that. The Nostalgia is strong in this one...
Instead of trying to fit PF into the very experimental D&D 5e set of rules, lets try to be creative about it!
Since I’m taking the time to write this message on my lunchbreak, I admit, its only a draft right now, but here’s where my head’s at :
First of all, lets keep the bonuses of PF as is. We’ll be adding them to the dice roll as normal and initiative stays a countdown. I feel its the only realistic way to keep my minmaxing player happy. Lets just up the dice a little to try to keep things a little more random than ending with everyone acting at the start of the round.
Move Actions : 1d8
Range Attack (per attack) : 1d6
Melee Attacks (per attack) : Light weapon : 1d8; One-handed weapon : 1d10; Two-handed weapon : 1d12
Spellcasting : 1d8 + spell level
Swift Actions : -1
Free Actions : No adjustment.
Reactions : I see no viable reason to change them.
What do you think?
Frol |
Whoops!!!
I just realize that the die rolls I suggested previously are incoherent with the idea of the system. Thats what happens when you write stuff in a hurry..... sorry guys!
Lets try this again:
Move Actions : 1d8
Range Attack : 1d12
Melee Attacks : Light weapon : 1d12; One-handed weapon : 1d10; Two-handed weapon : 1d8
Spellcasting : 1d8 - spell level
Swift Actions : -1
Free Actions : No adjustment.
Reactions : I see no viable reason to change them.
I admit its a bit counter-intuitive to assign bigger numbers to lighter stuff, but since the initiative is a countdown, a higher number means its faster...
Eltacolibre |
Quite honestly if you want to be a little more random...you can just have them reroll initiative every round, yeah i know someone with high initiative is still most likely going to go first...but is it really that bad? I mean if someone specialized into it and spent resources for it, might as well pay off.
It's still extra paper work tho, so might be more useful or not.
Graelsis |
Whoops!!!
I just realize that the die rolls I suggested previously are incoherent with the idea of the system. Thats what happens when you write stuff in a hurry..... sorry guys!
Lets try this again:
Move Actions : 1d8
Range Attack : 1d12
Melee Attacks : Light weapon : 1d12; One-handed weapon : 1d10; Two-handed weapon : 1d8
Spellcasting : 1d8 - spell level
Swift Actions : -1
Free Actions : No adjustment.
Reactions : I see no viable reason to change them.I admit its a bit counter-intuitive to assign bigger numbers to lighter stuff, but since the initiative is a countdown, a higher number means its faster...
I will give you my opinion in this matter. Since writtig steal my words from my head, i will try not to rampage and eat your face while i expose my ideas.
Avoid this system, from all cost. Extra rules are just extra barriers to smooth playing, and this system is pretty complicated for the small amount of benefits involved.
My recomendation, use the star wars system. it goes like this:
1. rol iniciative as you allways do.
2. You dont gain a initiative position for you, instead, you gain a position for your team.
3. Anybody in your team can use that position to act, it doesnt need to be you. The same system applys to the enemy.
And thats all, the best initiative system ive ever played with.
Frol |
Quite honestly if you want to be a little more random...you can just have them reroll initiative every round
I thought of doing this. It is alot simpler that way. But I like the idea that your choice of actions has an impact on your initiative score.
Right now, I'm enjoying the process of creation. Of course! if its turns out that its too complicated to try and addapt the system to our game, I might try your option.
But to be honnest, if it comes to that, I think I might as well keep the classic (and a little too static for my taste) way.