After a recent game session I was told by one of my players that I NEED to start rolling initiative for each enemy involved in combat separately because I was running encounters unfairly, and that enemies shouldn't all be allowed to go on the same initiative count because it makes fights more difficult by allowing multiple foes to easily surround a PC, use tandem tactics, or do damage to a PC without them having time to react between attacks. He went on to say that he felt it to be unrealistic that large groups of enemies act simultaneously. Not that I should consider it, or that it might be a good idea. But that I NEED to start running games that way.
I usually roll initiative for each group of like enemies separately. If a BBEG has a eight warrior minions and six expert minions, the BBEG will go on his own initiative, the warriors will all go on another count, and the experts will likewise have their own. I was under the impression that this was the common and accepted way to tackle initiative.
When responding to the player's audacious demand, I told him that there was no way I was going to be able roll and keep track of a dozen or more initiative counts and which constantly moving miniature each of them belong to on the map on a regular basis while still paying attention to damage, status anomalies, and so on. I also commented that the PCs aren't entirely without ways to interrupt their foes; AoOs (including those made with combat reflexes and/or reach weapons), readied actions, immediate actions, or even burning hero points to act out of turn. Finishing my argument for why I wouldn't be changing my methods I asserted that while not perfect, group initiative for enemies speeds up lengthy combat by not having to keep track of many enemies independently and is a concession for the sake of simplicity. Apparently my explanation, which I thought I delivered politely enough, all things considered, wasn't satisfactory and the player got quiet and stormed off.
So my question is this: Does anybody actually roll initiative for each enemy separately every single combat? How many enemies do you regularly get up to in one battle? How well does it work for you?
I do initiative checks the same way you do; it would be too time-consuming to track initiative for every individual minion, plus combat would take even longer than normal since I'd have to jump between PCs and NPCs much more often.
Each group of equal creatures get one initiative roll. Some times that means the group of minions acts before the party, some times it means it acts after the party. Either way, after one round the initial advantage is gone.
I haven't had any complaints about that way of doing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run initiative the same as you.
The only thing I do different is use a d12 not a d20.
The d12 is the ginger haired step-child of dice, it needs some love. It also makes Improved Initiative, etc. more useful. Nothing annoys me more than when a NPC with +12 on initiative loses out to the -2 initiative guy due to fluke rolls.
And before anyone says nothing annoys my players than the +12 elf PC going after the shambling corpse in the initiative order.
If this was happening to me I would calmly explain that as GM I have enough to do, this is the way I am going to do it and if they have a problem they can leave the table if they wish.
I don't think there is anyone out there who really does this by default. I mean, if there is a group of minions and a leader, they will probably delay until there leader gives the command to attack, so they'll end up on the same initiative anyway.
I only roll several times if there are clearly distinct groups of creatures as in the aforementioned example the minions get one Ini and their boss gets one.
If a player readies an action and interrupts a certain baddies turn, you should however reflect that in future rounds correctly. So if there are 3 bandits acting on Ini 10 and a player readied his crossbow shot on the second bandit closing in, he should be up after the first and before the second bandit in the future.
Edit: I just realized, in combat with a single group of enemies, the PCs basically have the same initiative as well and can also employ all the tactics your player complained about. A round breaks down to
NPCs - PCs - end of round. No unfair advantage whatsoever.
We do group initiative too, for the most part. Mooks and bbeg may have separate initiatives, but not individual mooks. In a previous group we just did round robin by players to simplify. Highest initiative goes first then counter clockwise around the table. It kept combat quick because we didn't have to remember order since we were in order.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I also do initiative in the way presented by the OP. Groups of like enemies act together, "leader" or "boss" type characters/monsters go on their own initiative count. Sometimes if I run an encounter against an enemy party (as in no two characters are really "same"), then I'll roll initiative for each one separately.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So... is the player from the OP's story not aware of the "Delay" option in combat? Through use of delay, the party could choose any initiative count they wanted, and have the entire party act on that count, in any order. This would allow the PCs to do all of those "unfair" things the player was complaining about the monsters doing.
You are well within your rights to batch up initiatives. It's just incumbent on you to not take undue advantage of it. Coordinate as much as the NPCs would be capable of coordinating, but not more.
So... is the player from the OP's story not aware of the "Delay" option in combat? Through use of delay, the party could choose any initiative count they wanted, and have the entire party act on that count, in any order. This would allow the PCs to do all of those "unfair" things the player was complaining about the monsters doing.
Considering how many synergistic spells and abilities the party regularly employs to quickly and efficiently dispatch foes, I was surprised that he basically complained that it was too easy for PCs to get flanked, or get tripped by one enemy and attacked by another before he can get up. Seemed rather tame in comparison to me.
|
I tend to do as you do and roll initiative for each group of foes, e.g. in a fight with a Gnoll, Hobgoblin and 5 goblins I would roll initiative three times and have the goblins all go together.
If the guy is really bothered about this then you could effectively roll for each by rolling a number of d20 equal to the number of foes in a group (e.g. 5 for the 5 goblins) and use the lowest of those dice results for initiative for the group, explaining that those who rolled higher are delaying until the slowest member goes.
Now this means your foes will start lower in initiative and you may not be able to keep track of who is flat footed accurately (but that is in favour of the players), but after the first round of combat it shouldn't make much difference.
You're doing it how all the gms I know do it. Don't really see a problem.
Your player sounds like a complete sissy. But really, give him what you want. If he wants to make such a big deal out of it, let him feel the wrath of a downside. Throw a fight at them with something like 20-30 minor enemies. And go through the effort each round of rolling 20-30 times for initiative. The sheer amount of time wasted will end up showing your player that he's being an idiot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use the "Name" system.
If it has a name, it get's its own initiative. If there is a group that have the same "name" (i.e.: human warrior 2 or goblin commando) then that is their "name" for purposes of initiative.
I believe the RAW is "whatever works best for the DM", but your method is by far the most common that I have seen. Now, having said that, if a low level party is facing 4 skeletons, I might roll each individually to increase the drama of an otherwise dull fight, but no way in hell a player tells me I have to do so.
|
|
It's not just the rolling time, it's the "which guy is that now?" time as you try and recall which of the 30 goblin minis relates to the initiative of 12...
I have done individual initiative, to try and remove this exact coordination issue - but I was using DM's Familiar software as my initiative tracker, which rolled for you and applied modifiers automatically. It wasn't faster and made very little difference to tactics or outcomes other than slowing the game down. It's one of those things you have to accept as part of the playable aspect of the game.
While in theory the player is right, that going on the same initiative can be an advantage to the enemy, remember PCs have the same option. All the PCs can delay until the slowest party member, and then all go one after another on the same initiative count.
(Although, that means players are rolling more dice for initiative and have more chances to get a low roll. I guess to simulate this for the bad guys, you could just roll one initiative dice for each enemy, and then use the lowest roll for all of them as well.)
What about group initiative for the PCs as well? Roll one dice for the whole group, and each player applies their individual modifiers to that roll. Same for the enemies. This takes some of the randomness out of initiative and places more emphasis on your init modifier, and makes it less likley your slowest party member will drag the whole group down if they want to coordinate.
It's your game, if he doesn't like the way you play then just tell him to find another group to play with.
I'm normally not of the school of thought that "the GM's word is law and if you don't like it then leave". I like to think that a game is a shared story and everyone gets a fair say, and if the player asked to open up the matter for discussion, I probably would have (though with the difficulty involved it would take quite a convincing tongue from one of my players to encourage me to actually change how I run initiative). However, the demanding tone rather than merely a discussion put me on edge.
Your player sounds like a complete sissy. But really, give him what you want. If he wants to make such a big deal out of it, let him feel the wrath of a downside. Throw a fight at them with something like 20-30 minor enemies. And go through the effort each round of rolling 20-30 times for initiative. The sheer amount of time wasted will end up showing your player that he's being an idiot.
I tried to "teach a player a lesson" one time, early in my GMing career and it was nearly the end of it, so while the thought crossed my mind, I quickly dismissed it.
It's not just the rolling time, it's the "which guy is that now?" time as you try and recall which of the 30 goblin minis relates to the initiative of 12...
Exactly!
What about group initiative for the PCs as well? Roll one dice for the whole group, and each player applies their individual modifiers to that roll. Same for the enemies. This takes some of the randomness out of initiative and places more emphasis on your init modifier, and makes it less likley your slowest party member will drag the whole group down if they want to coordinate.
Sounds a lot like what we did for 2E AD&D. That's an idea worth entertaining for a session. A couple sessions ago I tried to institute Arcanis' initiative clock (too complicated to explain here if you aren't familiar with it, but basically each action has a speed which moves you forward so many "ticks" so you might go several times before someone doing a slow action) to see if that helped matters any, but it became a mess.
We had a situation in a game where the GM was pretty much ignoring initiative altogether (because it took too much time, in his eyes) and allowing players to act whenever it was "generally their turn". I'm bringing this up because it led to the players doing basically what your player did- point out the many problems this was causing and insist on an initiative order.
I think most GMs run the enemies in a group for the reasons that have been stated, but to focus on the player's demand alone is to lose sight of his actual complaint. He feels like their opponents are using this rule of convenience to exploit strategies they would otherwise not be able to pursue, or pursue as effectively, and furthermore that his character is being placed in unfair situations with no time to react. Whether or not this is true in your eyes, it is how your game is being perceived by your player, and it deserves to be addressed with more than a "this is standard practice" brush-off. There are ways to reassure the player on these fronts (or address any actual problems that may have inadvertently developed in this area) without resorting to a strict initiative order for NPCs. Address his real problem (this perception of unfairness) and I'm willing to bet his demand for this particular solution will evaporate.
I run iniative by the groups too. There is nothing unfair. For every instance that seem unfair the opposite occurs too. What about the rogue who catch every one flat footed because the group fail to beat the rogues iniative.
In my group, the GM has delegated initiative tracking to one of the players who has an I-Pad app for that. There's a brief logjam as all the PCs call out initiatives and he enters them, sometimes having to ask what someone's bonus is (because that's how you break ties). So the badguys get whatever the DM calls out, usually something like "Give me a Boss on init 20 and roll 6 mooks with a +2 bonus". A few keypresses (well, not keypresses because it's a touchscreen, but whatever) later and that player calls out "Ok, Boss is first." After the GM has resolved the boss's actions, he calls out "Who's next ?" and the ipad player responds "PC1" or "Mook 1" or whatever. When someone delays or something like that, the app has a way of dragging them into the right order. I don't use it myself, so I'm afraid I can't offer any more detail. I think it has the option to do the d20 rolling for you, but the players would miss all tossing a d20 and complaining when they roll a 1 or cheering when the GM rolls a 1.
I have game where iniative isn't even used. Everyone goes at the same time. Action have costs so when you action take effect is based on the cost and fast you are. Your speed was caluclated off you dexterity, intelligence and skill reduced by encumberance which brought str into the equation. The more strength less the encumberance penalty.
Ultimately this is the better system. But I have no idea how you would apply it to PF.
My DM only groups up in really large battles, and even then doesn't group *too* much.
In your example, the 8 mooks would get split into two groups of 4, and the 6 expert minions would be grouped into two groups of 3, most likely.
When it's a smaller fight, like the party vs 6 bandits, each one gets it's own little sticky with a number on it, and then initiative order is tracked via magnets on a magnetic white board. Works *very* well, IMO.
I use the "Name" system.
If it has a name, it get's its own initiative. If there is a group that have the same "name" (i.e.: human warrior 2 or goblin commando) then that is their "name" for purposes of initiative.
What a simple, glorious idea. So stolen. Thanks!
|
While in theory the player is right, that going on the same initiative can be an advantage to the enemy, remember PCs have the same option.
Not to mention, many players seem to believe they're entitled to five minute's yacking between actions, so in the greater scheme of things, I know which side is benefitting more from an unrealistic level of coordination.
|
|
After a recent game session I was told by one of my players that I NEED to start rolling initiative for each enemy involved in combat separately because I was running encounters unfairly, and that enemies shouldn't all be allowed to go on the same initiative count because it makes fights more difficult by allowing multiple foes to easily surround a PC, use tandem tactics, or do damage to a PC without them having time to react between attacks. He went on to say that he felt it to be unrealistic that large groups of enemies act simultaneously. Not that I should consider it, or that it might be a good idea. But that I NEED to start running games that way.
Sounds like he NEEDS to run his own game.
|
|
Your player sounds like a complete sissy. But really, give him what you want. If he wants to make such a big deal out of it, let him feel the wrath of a downside. Throw a fight at them with something like 20-30 minor enemies. And go through the effort each round of rolling 20-30 times for initiative. The sheer amount of time wasted will end up showing your player that he's being an idiot.
If not, the other players will show him, one way or another.
Yeah, no one tells me what I NEED to do in my game. I'm all up for everyone setting down and discussing things, and having their own voice and that voice being considered, but at the end of the day the GM is the final say so. If that's not cool, then people can leave, or they can GM their own game...and find out how frustrating it is to put tons of work into designing an adventure with a logical plot and realistic NPCs to have people come up and complain about something this petty.
When I have half a dozen or less NPCs/monsters to run, I'll roll individually, but anything more than that and I'm clumping stuff together. I've played in games where everyone rolled seperate, each hit point, leathal or not, is tracked, and ever plus or minus is calculated....and had fights between a party of four against less than half a dozen creatures take the better part of a day long session. I like sticking with the rules as close and as long as possible, but sometimes considerations need to be made...that's why there is a GM in the first place.
|
Your player sounds like a complete sissy. But really, give him what you want. If he wants to make such a big deal out of it, let him feel the wrath of a downside. Throw a fight at them with something like 20-30 minor enemies. And go through the effort each round of rolling 20-30 times for initiative. The sheer amount of time wasted will end up showing your player that he's being an idiot.I tried to "teach a player a lesson" one time, early in my GMing career and it was nearly the end of it, so while the thought crossed my mind, I quickly dismissed it.
In this case, though, the player simply isn't considering the cost of his request. You should grant him his wish, and assign him the duty of tracking it all and declaring the next in the combat order throughout the round. If he doesn't want to do it, then you're more than justified in doing things your own way, and you did at least try to meet him in the middle.
|
|
In my face-to-face games, I used to always do group initiative. Since switching to part-time face-to-face and part-time VTT, I've gone for separate. The VTT (maptool) does the separate and handles this for us automatically. I just click the 'sort' or 'next' button as needed.
Were there no VTT in my campaign, I'd probably go back to groups.
I used to be a dictator GM.
When i was running a group of eight, I wouldn't allow players to talk strategy unless it was their turn and was something to be said in less than six seconds.
Just tell your player it could ALWAYS be worse. You are using a happy compromise that is virtual canon for all GMs.
(I've relaxed the reins a bit since)
I use the "Name" system.
If it has a name, it get's its own initiative. If there is a group that have the same "name" (i.e.: human warrior 2 or goblin commando) then that is their "name" for purposes of initiative.
This is what I use; it works out quite well.
I do occasionally make exceptions, particularly at low levels when the party might be fighting 2-3 enemies that are intended to be some manner of challenge; though not named, these are better than your average grunt and therefore merit their own initiative. But if it was those monsters, plus 2 enemies of a different type and a named bad guy, then they get bundled into 3 separate sets of initiatives.
...When I have half a dozen or less NPCs/monsters to run, I'll roll individually, but anything more than that and I'm clumping stuff together....
THAT's what I do as well. The group runs into 15 skeletons, I roll a single initiative for the group.
The group runs into 7 orcs, I MIGHT roll for each or maybe decide on a single roll (depends on the situation).
A fight with three fighters, six thieves, and two guard dogs, I'll usually roll three initiatives (one for each group).
For the big fight, at the end, against the boss and his goons, I usually almost always roll individually, unless there are MANY adversaries, then I'll group up.
My group doesn't even give it a second thought. But, then again, they are big users of the Delay and Ready actions... So, even if I roll a 20 for my group of monsters, the PC party usually gets on top in a round or two.
Ultradan
I feel like we're not getting the whole story here. Were you powergaming/roflstomping the players, using the shared initiative against them? Have you ever killed a PC doing so?
If the answer is no, maybe the player is the problem.
I run a 4e game where I do indeed roll seperate initiative for all the antagonists. In the last game we had this ended up meaning that, through fluke rolls, every one of the PC's got to go, in order, before any of the NPC's. So they felled my orc Paladin on the first round.
If your players are owning the encounters so thoroughly, then maybe it's time to graduate them from encounters with any mooks, maybe?
As to "but it's hard to keep track of the initiative for so many critters" - well, that may be true, but how do you keep track of the HP for them? Can't you apply this same system to initiative rolls?
Were you powergaming/roflstomping the players, using the shared initiative against them? Have you ever killed a PC doing so?
Actually, oddly enough, this conversation occured after a lengthy session that contained but 3 combat encounters, 2 of which had only a single foe (final leg of RotRL book 2). All 7 PCs are still on their origional characters.
I run a 4e game where I do indeed roll seperate initiative for all the antagonists.
Even all of the minions? Is it difficult to keep track of which initiative corresponds to which mini when there are many on the field?
If your players are owning the encounters so thoroughly, then maybe it's time to graduate them from encounters with any mooks, maybe?
They get a pretty solid mix of encounters featuring few and many enemies of various difficulties. They have a rather large party, so having them tackle single foes or small groups isn't usually the best of encounter design (converting the AP to PF I already have to redesign the encounters anyway, and buff them to be of appropriate ELs).
As to "but it's hard to keep track of the initiative for so many critters" - well, that may be true, but how do you keep track of the HP for them? Can't you apply this same system to initiative rolls?
For small encounters I keep track of HP in my head; with more than several I jot down damage on each one identified by who they are engaged with. W1 would be the enemy who is NW square adjacent to a player named Will for example. R5 would be an enemy who is to the E of a player named Roy. As each moves, or as the PCs moves, I can quickly scratch out W1 for W3. With initiative tracking, that is a whole extra step slowing down combat, especially since I like to use the notecard method, where each PC or group of enemies is on a card and I can flip to the next when a turn is over. Needing 12 extra cards and having them correspond to a dozen particular enemies would be...tedious.
Back in the day, we only rolled initiative if someone got killed/KOd or to find out if an attack interrupted a spellcaster. Otherwise, it seldom really mattered who went when. Ah, good times. :)
Have you tried electronic initiative trackers? I use an ipod ap to do it.
My PF DM uses Herolab. He builds some pretty intense encounters, and I don't know if he could do it without the Herolab to give him all the attack bonuses, etc.
But if you're a purist pencil-and-paper man, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask one of the players to track initiative for you, whether or not you bow to sir's demands. In fact, it's such a good idea I'm thinking of instituting it in my 4e game.
But if you're a purist pencil-and-paper man...
I prefer the term "poor". :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should definitely roll initiative separately. If a large number of enemies have the same init modifier then group them up at least. Like you have 15 skeletons, do 5 groups of 3 rolled together. I agree with the complaints levied against you. If you want to use group tactics then do what the players have to and have one or more delay or hold their actions.
|
|
You should definitely roll initiative separately. If a large number of enemies have the same init modifier then group them up at least. Like you have 15 skeletons, do 5 groups of 3 rolled together. I agree with the complaints levied against you. If you want to use group tactics then do what the players have to and have one or more delay or hold their actions.
I agree with this. I also roll seperate, but I do understand both sides of the arguement. I think your player could have been a bit more diplomatic in his approach. One way that might be a comprimise is to allow the players to roll initative as usuall, then you roll your group initative. Where ever you start in the players initative, instead of having all of your enemies go at once, just start pluging in a few between each character. This would make it easy to remember, and still allow your players a bit more of a chance to react to individuals instead of a horde.