|
I was looking over the 1e AD&D initiative system and thinking poking needles in my eyes may be more fun. Then I got to thinking about the 3 systems of initiative.
1e
2e
pfRPG/3e/4e
Out of the 3 of them I still think that 2e had the best system. Quick, simple and allowed some tactical input into a round.
For example; I'm a Fighter vs Magic-User
In 1e... actually I have no idea really, and truth be told that secret went to the grave with Gygax.
In 2e... Do I go for the "big hit" with the 2H sword, or swap to a dagger for the quick spell disrupting stab? Changes round to round.
In pfRPG/3e/4e... Hope my initiative die roll is higher and then ready an action to smack the dude. For that initial die roll I know when I go until one of us is dead.
2e just appeals from a dramatic point of view.
Anyone else got any thoughts on the matter?
Third edition initiative was one of the big sellers for me. I hated, loathed, and despised 2nd edition, and I didn't like the initiative rules. They essentially made you go around the table twice to get through a round. Seemed very inefficient to me, and there was far too much time wasted corralling the players. 3rd edition thankfully simplified this, allowing combat to run smoother.
|
The inefficient, extra long 2E individual initiative system is great so long as it doesn't slow down the game -- so, you can do it with a small group of PCs, or maybe if you want to take the time in a really important, campaign climax fight.
But for large groups, for high level play and for most fights, it is too long. Start at the left of the DM and everyone gets a turn, clockwise. Nothing wrong with it.
We do standard 3.5 initiative for large fights with many different types of enemies, but we re-roll initiative every round for smaller fights or ones where there's only one or two different enemy initiative scores to keep track of. It adds a lot to the game, IMO. It makes the difference between a good init score and a bad one much more pronounced, and it makes spells like nerveskitter and sign much less godly (while at the same time making them much more tactically interesting).
|
|
Problem I have with the 3e+ initiative system is it's formula. I go - you go - I go - you go. Great for a game of chess but for me not very evocative. 1e had the same issues. As 2e was the game I DM'd the most I didn't really have a problem. Everyone rattles out what they are going to do, then roll dice + mod. Then I would start counting from 1 up with people acting on there initiative number.
I guess as Zurai mentions above rolling each round can stop the stale/static feeling of a round. But I guess I really liked that action took differing times. It in short made sense. Guess 2e felt more like "action" and each round was a risk because you didn't have the almost god-like knowledge a head of time of who would go first.
Having said all that if you use battle-mats then the 3e/4e initiative makes for a more structured "board game" battle (I don't mean that in a bad way btw).
S.
Guess 2e felt more like "action" and each round was a risk because you didn't have the almost god-like knowledge a head of time of who would go first.
That goes away if you reroll every round. There are still problems we're sorting out (such as how held or delayed actions work, and how long effects that last one round last), but overall it's made the combats much more chaotic and much less predictable. Sometimes the entire party will get to act twice in between the BBEG's rounds, sometimes it's the reverse (and that can really suck), and most of the time the fastest guy goes first.
|
I typically prefer the 3rd/PF/4th system, it reduces the amount of time spent rolling dice by so much that I'm willing to let go of the slight loss of realism.
Under the more complex systems you still have a given person doing only so many actions in so many rounds, so it's not that big of a difference to me.
If I'm DMing a caster and there's a fighter just kind of standing there waiting for me to open my mouth, the caster holds his casting action and calls out for help. It makes sense that he wouldn't want to turn his focus away from the guy with the big chunk of metal who's eying him with interest; instead he's going to call for some interference, take a step back, and once it's safe, he'll let the spell loose.
I have to say I'm with w0nk. Combats, even at low level, are long and complicated enough for my groups without the extra baggage of complicated initiative systems or re-rolling initiative every round.
Plus, we have a couple of players one of which is still new to the game and one of which tends to not pay attention when it's not his turn (much to the rest of our annoyance) and we've basically got them on a system of "spend the time between rounds deciding what you're going to do, because you know when your next turn is so you'll be ready and won't spend your initiative going Uhhh I'm Trying To Decide What To Do".
|
|
Much of the "long" battle syndrome came with the hp-bloating 3e/4e edition - I'll admit it started in 2e for dragons. I am not implying that 2e's initiative system would work with 3e or 4e, because I think it wouldn't. Remembering that spell casters had no dex bonus and if hit lost their spell in 2e/1e. That is what I miss, what spell you cast was important - they have tried to capture this in 3e with concentration checks, but for that to work the opponent needed to have readied an action to interrupt the spell being cast.
Still horse for courses,
S.
|
|
we rolled initiative every round and have been doing so for years. It hasn't been a problem and new players pick it up pretty easily. We based round duration on the players turn so if he went last in one round and first in the second you counted off a of the duration. Holding was good till end of round. Sometimes nothing happened and you did nothing. It worked both ways. Somebody was designated to do the counts each game.
We feel that it brings a much more chaotic action in the fight.
We feel that it brings a much more chaotic action in the fight.
I'd agree, and chaos is something my games need less of. ;)
|
|
Much of the "long" battle syndrome came with the hp-bloating 3e/4e edition - I'll admit it started in 2e for dragons. I am not implying that 2e's initiative system would work with 3e or 4e, because I think it wouldn't. Remembering that spell casters had no dex bonus and if hit lost their spell in 2e/1e. That is what I miss, what spell you cast was important - they have tried to capture this in 3e with concentration checks, but for that to work the opponent needed to have readied an action to interrupt the spell being cast.
Still horse for courses,
S.Still playing with concepts for a linear initiative system myself instead of the standard cyclical.
Running into problems though with delayed and held actions, spell duration and iteratie attacks.
The linear initiative system was actually one of my favorite things about Exalted. It is not easy to duplicate in D&D/PFRPG though. It relies on speed modifiers for weapons, actions and spells to a large degree and works on a smaller variable (1 to 10 usually instead of 1 to 20 usually).
-Weylin
I was thinking that if you wanted to use 2e style in 3e type games, you would have to use the 2e system wholesale I think. d10 + mods (DEX means nothing except in surprise rounds). d20 gives a too large of a range of numbers and "counting up" would become a pain.
Still for me d10+2 (dagger) vs d10+10 (2H sword) seemed "right" compared with d20+dex vs d20+dex. 2e made magic weapons very cool with each "plus" decreasing the weapons speed. Power Word spells were scary as all hell.
Still as I said after 10 odd years of 2e's initiative system 3e+ system just seemed bland.
S.
