Modified initiative and my idea for a "middle magic" setting


Homebrew and House Rules


I am not a fan of the 3.5/Pathfinder initiative system. Yes, it speeds things up, but I've run into the problem (as both a player and a GM) that everyone 'checks out' after they're done with their turn. So, to keep everyone focused on the game, I'm going to implement the initiative system from old-school D&D. Specifically, the one from Darker Dungeons.

For those who don't know, Dark Dungeons is a retro-clone of the 1991 Basic D&D Rules Cyclopedia (not to be confused with the 4e Rules Compendium), a book that is a damn good game in its own right. Darker Dungeons is an updated version of those rules, adding a 3e-esque unified skill system. Here's how the initiative roll in that game goes down.

First, everyone announces what their character (or, in the GM's case, the monsters) is going to do. After that's been determined, everyone rolls to determine in what order the actions occur. There are different situational modifiers; a player who waits to see what the monsters are doing before deciding what they're doing gets a -2, someone who states their intent before the monsters gets a +2, etc.

Since this is done every round, it makes the combat less static, at the expense of making the encounter play out a bit more slowly. The good thing about using the version given in Darker Dungeons is that, since it uses a d20 roll rather than d10, feats that improve initiative (like, say, Improved Initiative) still work as normal; feats that allow someone to shift their spot in initiative order would do so in a slightly modified fashion.

Now, on to my idea for altering magic. For a while, I've been thinking about one of the problems with most roleplaying games: the fact that wizards/mages tend to become far more powerful than fighter-based classes. I also think it takes away from the mystery - what makes magic seem magical - when players can throw fireballs at only 5th level.

I actually came up with a solution while I was working on an AD&D 2e campaign: slow down spell progression. In Pathfinder, the way I would implement this is by limiting 1st-level characters to cantrips. At 3rd level, they would get access to 1st-level spells such as magic missile, they'd get 2nd-level spells at 5th level, and so on. It also postpones the point where their power starts to overshadow that of fighters.

The reasoning behind this was also from a setting standpoint; the most powerful magic is only capable of being wielded by truly legendary figures, not any smart one who just lives long enough. I'd probably ban certain spells outright, or postpone their use.

Unfortunately, due to my difficulties getting enough people together in one place, I've not had the chance to try this out yet. Any thoughts from someone with more hands-on GM experience?


Skinr wrote:
Since this is done every round, it makes the combat less static, at the expense of making the encounter play out a bit more slowly.

A lot more slowly.

Skinr wrote:
For a while, I've been thinking about one of the problems with most roleplaying games: the fact that wizards/mages tend to become far more powerful than fighter-based classes. I also think it takes away from the mystery - what makes magic seem magical - when players can throw fireballs at only 5th level.

Schrodinger's Wizard, what level are you talking about, etc., etc.

As for a serious response, you are crippling low level wizards who cannot compete with fighters in games WITHOUT a 5 minute-work day (if a low level wizard can nova, they win; if they can't, because they need to conserve resources, they are less powerful than fighters for a few levels). It should be noted that a 5 minute-work day is not the playstyle the game is supposed to be balanced against.

What you might want to look at is the 3.5 psionics system. Not to use it, but to make note that if you want to use a spell that scales with level you need to prepare it at a higher level slot. This is a good way to slow down the quadratic advance of wizards.

EXAMPLE: Magic missile shoots out 1 missile if you are 1st level and 2 if you are 3rd level. It is a 1st level spell in both situations. Under this variant, a wizard would need to prepare magic missile as a 2nd level spell in order to have it shoot two missiles. If a 3rd level wizard prepared magic missile as a 1st level spell, it would still only shoot 1 missile. Assume a spell is prepared at the minimum caster level required for a slot of that level (this creates problems with certain spells that do not scale nicely, the DM should rule on these on a case-by-case basis).

Dark Archive

Skinr wrote:
Since this is done every round, it makes the combat less static, at the expense of making the encounter play out a bit more slowly.

Worth it. PF/3.5 initiative is crap.

A speed system of any kind is better than a "roll once and be locked in that speed no matter what you do" system. What I use is considerably more specific than what you are putting out, but TBH with you - anything is better than what they created for 3rd edition. Your system should work just fine if you want it fast and simple (simple bonuses/negs to a round-to-round rolling of initiative).

The biggest drawback is the time it takes per round - but a competent gaming crew should be able to handle that over time as they develop some system familiarity. Speed systems give players a greater degree of control on how the round may resolve and may make a difference on how the combat plays out. Weapon/action speeds even more so.

The perk of weapon speeds and reach considerations (if one wants to make the effort) is that it gives reach weapons a huge boon (if you can keep them at reach) or a major drawback if they get in close. Also close combat weapons in close combat are faster than a gigantic sword. So some of your less-used smaller weapons might actually develop a purpose again under a speed system and under the right circumstances (close combat).

Skinr wrote:
I actually came up with a solution while I was working on an AD&D 2e campaign: slow down spell progression. In Pathfinder, the way I would implement this is by limiting 1st-level characters to cantrips. At 3rd level, they would get access to 1st-level spells such as magic missile, they'd get 2nd-level spells at 5th level, and so on. It also postpones the point where their power starts to overshadow that of fighters.

Can't back you on that one - the last thing I would want to see is evo doing less damage. With the big spike in CON bonus hp to NPCs and monsters, evo kinda go the shaft in 3rd ed and what you are purposing wouldn't help (and is too specific to damage only spells).

.

If you are looking at scaling back wizards (vs. fighters) hit the casters where it hurts:

- Spells are a full round action

- They go slow (using your system)

- Any hit has an increased chance of spell disruption (just raise the DC to have a higher chance of failure than what is listed in the book)

- Give fighters an extra good save category (or good saves for all three)

Reducing Evocation damage when hit points have generally scaled up is not the solution (and hurts one type of caster). Many casters use non-damaging spells to shut down encounters, so improving saves/making casting more risky works against all caster types (including clerics, etc).

If you are looking for more mystery you can create a minor spell tweaking system: X spell has a slightly different area of effect at cost of range than listed in the book, spell may split damage over several rounds while spell effect moves with a target, etc. Spell may even manifest differently (a smaller blast fireball with short range that creates a stream of fire from caster to target, looks like a fiery dragon arm).As long as the outcome and output is balanced the whole thing is a wash.

These can be mutable effects or you can make them PC/NPC specific fixed effect for the specific type of spell learned from a specific source - Meridghats the Evoker learned a specific kind of Fireball (1.5 area, 1/2 range) and he also knows the textbook variety - when he loads up on the spell he has to chose which one from the two versions he knows.


Initiative is a system created for adults who still have that "me first" mentality. I never understood what the purpose was of going first within the team. And this feels like its going to slow combat down even further for no reason other than for one or two people to say i went before someone else.


Don DM wrote:
Initiative is a system created for adults who still have that "me first" mentality. I never understood what the purpose was of going first within the team. And this feels like its going to slow combat down even further for no reason other than for one or two people to say i went before someone else.

Huh?

Anyone wanting to go first on a surprise round or the first round of combat wants a high initiative. This is mainly sneak attackers (for flat footed) and casters (for using an area of effect spell before melee is joined).

Why should Fatty McBlob the 500 pound half-orc barbarian with 7 dex go at the same time as Nimble Nimbleboots the nimble gnome rogue with 22 dex?

It's just one mechanical effect of character choices (both roleplay choices and rollplay choices).

Taking your logic to its logical conclusion, why don't people just play the adventuring party as a team with each player exerting some control over all characters? Differentiating PCs is a system created for PCs who have an "I'm different" mentality.


Don DM wrote:
Initiative is a system created for adults who still have that "me first" mentality. I never understood what the purpose was of going first within the team. And this feels like its going to slow combat down even further for no reason other than for one or two people to say i went before someone else.

Okay wait what

You realize SOMEBODY has to go first, right? And that the Initiative system heads off all possible disagreements in advance?

Because if the same people go first every time, guess what: Some people will never get to participate because the combats could be over by the time they get to act.

Also what Whale said but mostly, there's a mechanically sound reason for it at a basic level.


Rynjin wrote:
Don DM wrote:
Initiative is a system created for adults who still have that "me first" mentality. I never understood what the purpose was of going first within the team. And this feels like its going to slow combat down even further for no reason other than for one or two people to say i went before someone else.

Okay wait what

You realize SOMEBODY has to go first, right? And that the Initiative system heads off all possible disagreements in advance?

Because if the same people go first every time, guess what: Some people will never get to participate because the combats could be over by the time they get to act.

Also what Whale said but mostly, there's a mechanically sound reason for it at a basic level.

Another mechanical reason is resolving the order of AoOs; this has made a difference in my games a few times.


I like arcana s initiative system. Just cant figure how to work it into pathfinder with out way to much work lol.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Don DM wrote:
I never understood what the purpose was of going first within the team.

Because there are mechanical advantages to going first or early in 3.5/PF.

-Skeld


Whale_Cancer wrote:
Don DM wrote:
Initiative is a system created for adults who still have that "me first" mentality. I never understood what the purpose was of going first within the team. And this feels like its going to slow combat down even further for no reason other than for one or two people to say i went before someone else.

Huh?

Anyone wanting to go first on a surprise round or the first round of combat wants a high initiative. This is mainly sneak attackers (for flat footed) and casters (for using an area of effect spell before melee is joined).

Why should Fatty McBlob the 500 pound half-orc barbarian with 7 dex go at the same time as Nimble Nimbleboots the nimble gnome rogue with 22 dex?

It's just one mechanical effect of character choices (both roleplay choices and rollplay choices).

Taking your logic to its logical conclusion, why don't people just play the adventuring party as a team with each player exerting some control over all characters? Differentiating PCs is a system created for PCs who have an "I'm different" mentality.

Unfortuantely the way the system works everyone is still going at the same time. Same 6 second window. My problem with initiative is, its a number that doesnt exist within the game. Why should the character having a higher reaction time result in the player going ahead of his own team members when in game, it is the same 6 second window. Yes, he would "start first" but .0002 seconds later the next person would start his turn too. Because the game is built the way it is, the high reaction guy completes his turn first, despite in the game the next guy would have been able to act near simultaneiously.

Our combats went by so much quicker once we went to the only thing that matters, do the enemies go first or do we. You want high dex people to go first, as a team u figure that out. Instead of competing on the same team you're working together like the game is designed to. In other words, just getting the out of game players to match up with the in game cohorts.

We add up the pcs initiative (so initiative raising mechanics don't get robbed and we add up the enemies imitiative and divide by the player. (rolling the enemies initiative again up to the number of players if need be). Then it goes pcs creatures or creatures pcs. No mechanics get robbed, everyone has a turn and the pcs cna figure out whats going to happen without fearing the metagame police.

Players decide the order they want to go in, if they decide to change they can but for the most part stick to that order per combat. There is more of a chance of a mechanical advantage to going before a monster, not before another player, and if there is you explain hay im going to go first okay that sounds good. This gets away from all the rediculous delaying and starting and not starting and moving in turn order. Again, things that really aren't happening in the game, it's a whole subsystem to get 6 people at table to agree on who goes first per round. Theo nly thing that matters is who ges next the monster or the pcs.


Don DM wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Don DM wrote:
Initiative is a system created for adults who still have that "me first" mentality. I never understood what the purpose was of going first within the team. And this feels like its going to slow combat down even further for no reason other than for one or two people to say i went before someone else.

Huh?

Anyone wanting to go first on a surprise round or the first round of combat wants a high initiative. This is mainly sneak attackers (for flat footed) and casters (for using an area of effect spell before melee is joined).

Why should Fatty McBlob the 500 pound half-orc barbarian with 7 dex go at the same time as Nimble Nimbleboots the nimble gnome rogue with 22 dex?

It's just one mechanical effect of character choices (both roleplay choices and rollplay choices).

Taking your logic to its logical conclusion, why don't people just play the adventuring party as a team with each player exerting some control over all characters? Differentiating PCs is a system created for PCs who have an "I'm different" mentality.

Unfortuantely the way the system works everyone is still going at the same time. Same 6 second window. My problem with initiative is, its a number that doesnt exist within the game. Why should the character having a higher reaction time result in the player going ahead of his own team members when in game, it is the same 6 second window. Yes, he would "start first" but .0002 seconds later the next person would start his turn too. Because the game is built the way it is, the high reaction guy completes his turn first, despite in the game the next guy would have been able to act near simultaneiously.

Our combats went by so much quicker once we went to the only thing that matters, do the enemies go first or do we. You want high dex people to go first, as a team u figure that out. Instead of competing on the same team you're working together like the game is designed to. In other words, just getting the out of game players to match... [/QUOTE

Here's the thing though:

The current initiative system does not require any changes to allow players to use the aforementioned Our Team vs. Their Team bit. It's stated in the rules that any character can willingly delay their turn via hold action, which allows for any team member ro move, attack, etc. before another.

But what happens when one player wants to do something that might go against another party member's desires? The entire party only moving as one removes the possibility for disagreement on anything. It may work for groups where every character and player is on the exact same page, but throw in one overly greedy rogue and then you have issues.


Don DM wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Don DM wrote:
Initiative is a system created for adults who still have that "me first" mentality. I never understood what the purpose was of going first within the team. And this feels like its going to slow combat down even further for no reason other than for one or two people to say i went before someone else.

Huh?

Anyone wanting to go first on a surprise round or the first round of combat wants a high initiative. This is mainly sneak attackers (for flat footed) and casters (for using an area of effect spell before melee is joined).

Why should Fatty McBlob the 500 pound half-orc barbarian with 7 dex go at the same time as Nimble Nimbleboots the nimble gnome rogue with 22 dex?

It's just one mechanical effect of character choices (both roleplay choices and rollplay choices).

Taking your logic to its logical conclusion, why don't people just play the adventuring party as a team with each player exerting some control over all characters? Differentiating PCs is a system created for PCs who have an "I'm different" mentality.

Unfortuantely the way the system works everyone is still going at the same time. Same 6 second window. My problem with initiative is, its a number that doesnt exist within the game. Why should the character having a higher reaction time result in the player going ahead of his own team members when in game, it is the same 6 second window. Yes, he would "start first" but .0002 seconds later the next person would start his turn too. Because the game is built the way it is, the high reaction guy completes his turn first, despite in the game the next guy would have been able to act near simultaneiously.

Our combats went by so much quicker once we went to the only thing that matters, do the enemies go first or do we. You want high dex people to go first, as a team u figure that out. Instead of competing on the same team you're working together like the game is designed to. In other words, just getting the out of game players to match...

None of the numbers 'exist' in game; they are abstractions. Initiative is an abstraction that simulates faster and slower characters acting in combat.

I'm glad it works for you, but my group handles initiative fairly easily and we (well, at least me, I haven't canvassed the group) enjoy the extra layer of complexity initiative adds.

I know when people have high initiative scores they like to compete with the other players in a very friendly way. It adds some fun to the game when players have friendly rivalries; this is a staple fantasy trope as well.


Wow, I honestly forgot about this soon after I posted it.

Whale_Cancer: Not sure what you mean by "5 minute-work day". Is this a misplaced hyphen, or...?

Auxmaulous: I am indeed deliberately reducing the damage done by spellcasters. My rationale is that, if someone could spend the first third of their lives (the equivalent of elementary to high school + medical school IRL) learning about magic, and then be able to do the kinds of things you normally see in D&D, there'd be little reason to train people to do "normal" combat. The world would be ruled by mages, with virtually no opposition save for the few "good" mages. (This, incidentally, is the plot of both the first Elminster book and the D&D movie from 2000.)

In my setting, mages are rare (not as rare as, say, LotR); for most mages, being able to turn invisible or launch two magic missiles is a major milestone. Heck, most of the 'masses' don't even know that spells such as Monster Summoning exist. Since the more common spells are fairly weak in combat, most low-level mages don't go adventuring.

The good thing about 3.5/PF is that cantrips still have some use in combat (unlike 2e, where 'cantrip' was a single spell that was expressly defined as being unable to do anything combat-wise). And since they aren't expended when cast in PF (though I think I might limit the bard's Summon Instrument to 1/encounter), they can be used over and over.

I do like your idea of having all spells take a full round to cast; I might do that for some of the more damaging spells.

Don DM: What you're describing is very similar to the "group initiative" rule from 2e, which we used during the 2e session I ran. I basically improvised the order based on the makeup of the party; the half-elf bard's action happened first because he was fast with a fast weapon, the halfling thief went second because he was slow but had a fast weapon (daggers), and the elf mage went last because he had the slowest weapon (quarterstaff). In PF, I'll probably use everyone's initiative bonuses to determine the order of action on a particular side.

While I would prefer more "realism", group initiative is a good compromise between being quick and being less static.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Modified initiative and my idea for a "middle magic" setting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules