You read the title, so you know what I want in this thread.
Actually, I can't come up with a good mechanic (set of bonuses) which achieve the following:
- skilled combatants act first (= BAB?)
- Small and lively vs. huge and slow (= Size-Mod.?)
- is Init about:
-- being faster/more agile (= DEX) OR
-- being faster to assess the situation (= INT/WIS?)
Hmm... Maybe I gave me my answer myself.
But I am eager to get your ideas!
I like the way init is right now. Never had any problems with it.
|
I had some near fist-fights ensue when a friend that I've been gaming with for 25 years played a campaign I ran these past few years. I had used the standard rules for initiative (keep the same count each round, rolling only once, really), rather than roll each round as we (right or wrong) always had done.
Sometimes I like to roll each round. Many times, I prefer just running rounds based on the regular count, unless some folks have delayed or readied etc., and moved their count.
I don't think we really need a new initiative mechanic. Unless, you can show me what you think is broken about a DEX check?
Lastly, I am always coming up with ways to speed up mechanics, so a few days ago while preparing for our next game, I was considering NOT rolling... you heard right. This approach would blur the line between the game and reality a bit, but basically - just have the players take turns as they are ready to do so (potentially saving some time calling out turns, or waiting for some to be ready). Now, I realize this is radical. If I try this approach, I'll be sure to return to this thread and let you know how this goes. Exceptions would include those PC who for geographical or proximity or swiftness reasons must go first, because its logical that they should.... I'm pretty sure that why we use the DEX check.
Well, just the first point I mentioned is the best reason why there is need for a new "mechanic".
I realize that mechanic might be the wrong choice of word (no native speaker).
What I meant was another set of bonuses instead of "only" DEX + feats.
Init right now is just too random over the course of all levels.
I think initiative works just fine as it stands. Improved initiative represents traning in being "faster on the draw". Besides that, dexterity is your ability to make your body do what your brain tells it to as fast as possible. Its true that perception does have some say in initiative, and I know there exists a feat somewhere to shift your Wisdom bonus to your initiative, but I've always thought that wisdom's real effect upon initiative was for the spot and listen checks to determine whether or not your were surprised by the encounter. Higher wisdom = higher perception = higher likelyhood of participating in the suprise round (if there is one) = going faster than everyone else when viewed in relative perspective.
I've had a monk with maxed out listen and spot, improved initiative, and a high dex, who's every action in the surprise round was "ready to use deflect arrows on any missle that passes within where I could reach with a 5' step". Possibly a bit outside the rules, but it seemed fair: he could have opted to charge in for flurry attempts.
Net result: he was almost always able to act in the surprise round, and he caused great frustration to the opening salvo from the enemy, both by catching the first missle and creating cover for the target with his body for many others.
The way it looked "in game"? The monk suddenly steps to the side and catches an arrow right in front of the wizards face, then pushes the wizard to the left and right with his other hand, causing two more arrows to miss their mark. Howls of frustration come from the bushes, and the hobgoblins charge into melee.
Summary: I think initiative, especially in light of its previous incarnations through the editions, is just fine.
Hmm... No. Skill ranks are no good solution. "Acting as fast as possible" isn't really what's been covered by a skill (no "theory" to learn besides practize, etc.)
While I might not convince you to add some level dependent stats to the initiative roll, I will think about it some more.
But adding BAB and size to the roll might be the right way for me.
(As I said, bad title. Just meant "DEX-only" isn't good enough)
I agree with the "DEX only is not enough". But with perception check to act on the surprise round, you then indirectly include the WIS/INT variable in the initiative.
For the BAB... I am afraid that this would remove the edge Rogues have over Fighters. A Fighter class might be good to attack, but not necesseraly quick to react. And the poor spellcaster will often take his turn last at higher levels if BAB was include in this check. I would prefer not adding BAB to INIT.
But the idea of using size modifier seems very logical. Size modifiers are already includes in other aspect of the game. AC, CMB, BAB...
I would suggest that the size modifier for INIT be the same as for AC.
Maybe there should be a feat to replace DEX by INT for INIT. "I knew this was going to happen..."
Or maybe it is not a feat and only an option.
WIS : almost already includes. Perception check for surprise round.
BAB : not really good idea. disadvantage for rogues in favor of fighters
SIZE : very logical. mechanic already use in other rules
INT: maybe an option or a feat
|
|
with perception check to act on the surprise round, you then indirectly include the WIS/INT variable in the initiative.
I've never had an issue with it the way it is. I agree with YULDM that the surprise round is where those with superior senses get their edge.
I am in no way suggesting this for a core Pathfinder rule, but the way Initiative is handed in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer game is kinda' cool (but slow). First you determine Initiative order. Next, starting with the last person (the one with the highest Init), you go around and say what you're going to do, until you get to the first person (the one with the lowest Init). Then, starting with the first person (with thh lowest Init), you actually do the die rolling and resolve all the checks and what not. The neat thing is that is gives the faster people the opportunity to see what the slower people are going to do and react accordingly. Counter spelling would actually make sense. Fast people could decide to use Power Attack or Full Defense based on what's happening around them. You can steal your buddy's kill :). It's a fun system but could bog down games with lots of combat and/or large numbers of combatants. Still, if you're looking for another way to run Initiative in your home game, give it a try.
Well yesterday we build some pc to play and i ask if for my cleric i can add my WIS mod to init...
At first it was a joke but after discussing about that we thought that it wasn't so bad, because WIS reflect as how we do thing with intellect, i think for Cleric WIS, Arcane user, it a better way to change tne init, as for Fighter with STR or Rogue DEX Mod, may be the player can chose for his PC Witch Mod is useful and Stay with, it can be an option. With DEX Mod first or the most useful Mod in second Choice for Class.
So this mean that each class is good in what it knows so it will be good for them to act faster when they do their job.
Tell me what do you think about using primary stat Mod as initiative mod, perhaps when the PC is in class of play ?
Or only using Choice Stat's class for initiative mod ?
|
I agree with the system, but for the example i would prefer AEG L5R for the example of telling what the PC want to do in order of init but it will be better to beggin with the lower init to the better in this idea, and when all said what they want to do then beggin with the highest init to do his action, and so on.
What do you think of that
|
I´m wondering if with all this changes the game will be something resembling D&D 3.5 or something completely diferent(D&D 3.75) if so; why not make the jump to 4.0?.
Because 4.0 is such a long, long, long way down from 3.5 that one is very likely to break something making said jump. I tried it and my sense of immersion and enjoyment were broken. I caution you against a similar leap lest you too be damaged.
|
|
I know I'll get flamed for this but I always liked weapon/action/spell speeds over the 3.0/3.5 lump initiative system. One of the biggest problems was the "I go/you go" repeated routine that I just could not accept. I tried it, and hated it so intensely that I almost was going to fall back into 2nd after buying into 3.0/3.5
Get knocked out - keep your same step when you wake up in the combat
Change your action - ex. drop your two handed sword to throw a dagger at the bad guy who about to finish one of your fallen friends- happens at same speed no matter what. No wonder fighters have little control of the battlefield in 3.5, nothing they decide to do over the course of the round will change how quickly they do it.
The elimination of weapon speed gave us the nonsense of AoO as a poor substitute and penalty to mitigate a living round. It was a compromise (admitted by the devs)in 3.0 that has caused more problems than it was worth - of course all IMO.
I find I am using more and more 2nd ed features to smooth out 3.5 than anything else.
I understand this is an issue of backwards compatibility, so I apologize for the sidetrack/rank.
|
You read the title, so you know what I want in this thread.
Actually, I can't come up with a good mechanic (set of bonuses) which achieve the following:
- skilled combatants act first (= BAB?)
- Small and lively vs. huge and slow (= Size-Mod.?)- is Init about:
-- being faster/more agile (= DEX) OR
-- being faster to assess the situation (= INT/WIS?)Hmm... Maybe I gave me my answer myself.
But I am eager to get your ideas!
Me also thinks INIT rules are fine as they are...
I have suggested before on another thread, I think Init should be a Ref check. It is after all a reaction thing, which is what is covered under Ref saves.
I know I'll get flamed for this but I always liked weapon/action/spell speeds over the 3.0/3.5 lump initiative system. One of the biggest problems was the "I go/you go" repeated routine that I just could not accept. I tried it, and hated it so intensely that I almost was going to fall back into 2nd after buying into 3.0/3.5
Get knocked out - keep your same step when you wake up in the combat
Change your action - ex. drop your two handed sword to throw a dagger at the bad guy who about to finish one of your fallen friends- happens at same speed no matter what. No wonder fighters have little control of the battlefield in 3.5, nothing they decide to do over the course of the round will change how quickly they do it.
The elimination of weapon speed gave us the nonsense of AoO as a poor substitute and penalty to mitigate a living round. It was a compromise (admitted by the devs)in 3.0 that has caused more problems than it was worth - of course all IMO.
I find I am using more and more 2nd ed features to smooth out 3.5 than anything else.I understand this is an issue of backwards compatibility, so I apologize for the sidetrack/rank.
No Flaming from me I agree. Bring back weapon and spell speed. It doesn’t have to be complicated. Just subtract the number from your ini roll.
Weapons
Natural = 0
Light = -2
Medium = -4
Heavy = -8
Spells
Level 0 = 0
Level 1-2 = -2
Level 3-4 = -4
Level 5-6 = -6
|
|
I also think Initiative is mostly fine the way it is. The only thing that I'd definitely change for my own games, is the already mentioned concept that all combatants need to declare their actions in ascending order and that the combat round only starts afterwards. This also happens to be used in AssassinX, a delightfully bloody and brutal RPG system.
Beyond that, adding 1/4 or 1/2 of a character's level to Initiative checks
is something that sounds pretty decent, although I think 1/2 would be a bit too much; as I don't see why the ancient wizard would actually react faster than a young and agile rogue.
Definitely not BAB though, as using BAB would imply that a standard paladin can react faster in combat than the standard rogue; never mind when you would compare a dexterous fighter and a default rogue. Size is already in the equation, as small creatures tend to have a higher dexterity modifier than large creatures. Effectively making size matter twice seems unnecessary. Bringing back weapon/spell speed is an interesting idea, although I dislike the advantage it would give "run and gun'' tactics.
|
Bring back weapon and spell speed. It doesn’t have to be complicated. Just subtract the number from your ini roll.
Weapons
Natural = 0
Light = -2
Medium = -4
Heavy = -8Spells
Level 0 = 0
Level 1-2 = -2
Level 3-4 = -4
Level 5-6 = -6
I kinda like this. I would however change the weapon speed to something to do with weapon lengths. -2 for two handed weapons and maybe a +1 for 'small' weapons such as a dagger
I kinda like this. I would however change the weapon speed to something to do with weapon lengths. -2 for two handed weapons and maybe a +1 for 'small' weapons such as a daggerBring back weapon and spell speed. It doesn’t have to be complicated. Just subtract the number from your ini roll.
Weapons
Natural = 0
Light = -2
Medium = -4
Heavy = -8Spells
Level 0 = 0
Level 1-2 = -2
Level 3-4 = -4
Level 5-6 = -6
Hmmm
Natural = +2Small = + 1 (Daggers Shuriken)
Light = 0 (Short Sword, Rapier, Scimitar)
Medium = -2 (long swords)
Heavy / Long = -4 (2h swords, Battle axes)
Huge / extra long = -8 (Pike Halberd)
For my PBP I have simplified intitative even more than 3.5. Since the rounds are cyclical, once intitiative is rolled (d20+dex) my rounds look something like this when two players roll higher than the monsters.
Player 1, Player 2. Critters. All players. Critters. Players. Critters. Players. etc... We do not move to round two until all P have gone at least once or rather you can not move twice before everyone has gone at least once.
Using other abilities will mean everyone choosest their best ability in essence driving initiative to a single d20. If you wanted to take a feat or ability to add or replace dex, there is precedence (weapons expertise, monk's wis to AC). And would be the mechanic I would argue for. (not that I think it is necessary).
BAB is already figured into INI as well, with multiple hits at higher levels. For example BAB 6 gets two attacks BAB 1 gets one. More details/logic:
If you want to add BAB imho you will effectivly rule the spellcasters out of combat. I say this guessing that a fighter can take down a creature in multiple hits, which after BAB of 6 you get. This also assumes a spellcaster will go down one in one or two hits, which might mean they are out of combat before ever getting in. (This might just be because my players target spellcasters first though). Look at it this way a wizard and a fighter both roll a two on INI. Dex is the same, 20 (at level 20) in prime attribute. The fighter goes first and makes 4 attacks with a +5 weapon (min of 44 damage). The wizard would have 23-80 hp (w/o con bonus).
Tangent
Perhaps a BAB/5 could be added to the current roll to get what you are hoping for? Though again I like the feat/ability to replace/add another ability to ini.
Although I believe there are many interesting ideas in this thread regarding initiative, I believe the status quo should stand. However, just as gamers have done throughout the history of the game, I think house ruling options is the way to go. As a compromise, perhaps give an options book (Similar to the Players Options of 2 Ed) or maybe some sidebar space in either the PHBK or DMG for Pathfinder.
Of course, as can be seen on many of the threads on this board, gamers don't have to have a new mechanic or rule book to experiment in their homebrew games. As long as the core books have a default rule system. Everyone can play as they wish. It is the same thing for Hit points, initiative, class hit dice, etc. You get my drift.
So my vote is for status Quo/Backwards compatibility and honing the rules as they are in 3.5 ed. After all isn't that why most of us are playing PathFinder? So our 3.5 ed books are not obsolete. Otherwise, why wouldn't we consider 4th ed or an entirely new system? I want to be able to play all my new Pathfinder APs, adventures, and campaign settings with all of my old WOTC/D20 3rd party publishers. Backwards compatibility is the only way we can accomplish this.
I have always and will always do inititive round by round.
Makes you think more, just because you go first this round, the guy who goes last might go first next round, effectively getting to bac to back actions. (not really but it does seem like it)
I do think spells of higher level should have inititive penalties.
I STILL DON'T, AND HAVE EVEN TYPED MY RESPONSE IN ALL CAPS TO ADD EXTRA WEIGHT AND HEFT TO THAT OPINION. DID IT WORK, OR SHOULD I PUT MY POST IN BOLD TOO?!?!?!?
I can't quite hear you. I think you should put it all in bold.