|
Bnw, I believe I've written multiple times that I expect games not to be ran 100%. What I did state as to what I wish to occur is that people run the games as honest as they can, by not knowingly ignoring the rules to make the game their "home game". Pfs allows people to have the expectation to sit down at any table and have all the same rules apply to them fairly.
You are setting your expectations far too strictly for rules of little import and completely in the wrong direction for RAW vs RAI.
|
Just looked at page 13, and it indeed says they roll once. I find it very absurd and sad anyone would use this to argue the clear RAW, but it's clearly existing here on this page to vaguely contradict RAW in this extremely poor form. I would hope that people would be reasonable to the fact mistakes have been made in this book, and not argue something like this, but it appears unless it's addressed that I must acknowledge it. Regardless, I firmly stand by my position, but I just can't have as much certainty from what's written there.
Not saying that this is defining RAW as the only way that is correct.
But I am arguing that it does mean with 100% certainty that it means clumping initiative is not illegal.
There have been plenty of mistakes and ambiguities in the various books. And typically you can't tell whether it was intended or not until errata or an FAQ modifies or clarifies.
|
|
Bnw, I believe I've written multiple times that I expect games not to be ran 100%. What I did state as to what I wish to occur is that people run the games as honest as they can, by not knowingly ignoring the rules to make the game their "home game". Pfs allows people to have the expectation to sit down at any table and have all the same rules apply to them fairly.You are setting your expectations far too strictly for rules of little import and completely in the wrong direction for RAW vs RAI.
Not to mention that the rules don't clearly say you can't clump initiative and the example shows the intent clearly is that a GM can choose to if they wish.
There are many rules within the game that legitimately have multiple interpretations. This is called table variation.
In this case the game expects each gm to make a choice and as such expects table variation.
Therefore, expect table variation.
|
|
Which is why I admit to backing down on my position to the extent of not having absolute certainty anymore. It's extremely absurd, but it does contradict.
I find it disappointing that people can't recognize how that can greatly hurt the game due to not having extreme lack of consideration for everyone at the table. Most people I feel don't mind where they are in the order, but I personally know people that will make or break their characters, and I completely sympathize.
I'm glad others on the boards see why it's important, and I only hope others will understand at some point too, and at least compromise more with their games. No reason not to roll the two enemy combatants separately, but in most cases I see people doing to anyways.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Bnw, I believe I've written multiple times that I expect games not to be ran 100%. What I did state as to what I wish to occur is that people run the games as honest as they can, by not knowingly ignoring the rules to make the game their "home game". Pfs allows people to have the expectation to sit down at any table and have all the same rules apply to them fairly.
The rule is applied fairly - it applies to everyone at the table (I'd be surprised if other players would want to roll init as a group and everyone be tied down to one low init.) But, I don't think "fairly" is the word you meant to use.
There is nothing "unfair" about this type of initiative rolling.
|
|
Which is why I admit to backing down on my position to the extent of not having absolute certainty anymore. It's extremely absurd, but it does contradict.
I find it disappointing that people can't recognize how that can greatly hurt the game due to not having extreme lack of consideration for everyone at the table. Most people I feel don't mind where they are in the order, but I personally know people that will make or break their characters, and I completely sympathize.
I'm glad others on the boards see why it's important, and I only hope others will understand at some point too, and at least compromise more with their games. No reason not to roll the two enemy combatants separately, but in most cases I see people doing to anyways.
Can you explain why it is not fair or absurd to clump initiatives of like enemies together?
I have yet to play a game in PFS as far as I'm aware that a gm did it differently than me. And I've played over 100 scenarios.
|
I find it disappointing that people can't recognize how that can greatly hurt the game due to not having extreme lack of consideration for everyone at the table. Most people I feel don't mind where they are in the order, but I personally know people that will make or break their characters, and I completely sympathize.
Again, if this is a big deal for someone, they should bring it up to the GM so the GM can accommodate for their needs. Otherwise nitpicking at how the GM handles initiative in situations where it makes absolutely no difference to anybody else at the table is being inconsiderate to the GM. Not to mention that getting into arguments about it when it makes no meaningful difference other than not following rules to a T is not a productive use of a 5 hour time slot.
I'm very skeptical that variance in how initiative is handled is an issue that would break a character concept. And if it indeed is a problem for that character, the player should settle the issue with the GM at the start of the table just to ensure there are no problems.
This whole "problem" can be solved at a case by case basis, and can be done between the players and the GM.
|
|
Mark, when I write fairly in that quote, I'm talking about all rules, for better or worse, and not init specifically. I'm also not concerned with just fairness to the players, but to the game as a whole.
Andrew, I find it absurd that someone would be convinced against the raw of init by reading the example of play. I've already wrote how I can rationalize group init many times in this thread.
Also, Andrew, I hope you can appreciate the other gm's in the thread that run pfs and run their tables with the init rules as written. I can appreciate your personal experiences on not having a game run differently than grouping, but that doesn't change the fact the crb says what it says in regards to the rules.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, RAW does not mean only one portion of the book you like, but rather all portions of the book and how they interact with one another.
In this case RAW is essentially either option.
Personally I couldn't care less which way a GM chooses to roll initiative as long as it doesn't slow down game play.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
For clarity, I'm unsure if people are intending to put words in my mouth, but I have never accused anyone of cheating in this thread, nor have I ever in my life with this topic. I've simply pointed out that grouping creatures is indeed illegal according to the rules, which I would expect if a player wishes to have the correct rules enforced should be more than enough reason to play in the correct way.
If you are going to insist that every single rule be followed to the letter, then you're never going to get a game. Were I to do that at my tables, then I'd have to ensure that every player had a current copy of the original resources list, every non-core rulebook their character required, an up-to-date character sheet and ITF, and all the chronicles.
I'm pretty sure that, were I to do that, almost all the other players at the table would end up playing pregens. After the first game or two, they're not going to change their behaviour and end up lugging around a heavy bag full of books - they're simply going to decline to play at a table where you are sitting.
If you're happy to let that rule go, then you're going to have to accept that there are some other rules that a GM can choose to not enforce, and trust the GM to only do this when, in his judgement, it will be result in a more enjoyable game for the majority at the table.
|
|
John, I don't ever pounce on anyone and I certainly don't insist anything. I politely mention in game that there is an issue, and a gm makes a ruling and we move on. After, if a gm is willing to talk, I try and point out correct rules, and persuade them to then learn to use the correct rules.
I'm no one's master, and if they choose not to follow the rules that they're now aware of, I can either hope they'll change their mind in the future and play anyways, play knowing they'll never change, or not play. I don't think that's unreasonable of me, and I don't think that will prevent me from ever playing a game of pfs.
|
|
It is not unreasonable to approach things as you have suggested.
It is also not unreasonable to see that one person is not always the infallible arbiter of the rules.
So I think what folks are saying, is that the fact you've admitted you may be wrong after having been shown further text that others could use to inform their decision, shows a certain level of humility, and we all hope that your interactions with GMs take on the same tone.
Rather than the appearance that your interpretation is the only correct one.
|
I also use these multi-colored bases from Dapper Devil to keep track of which NPC is which. When I write their names on the combat pad during prep, I'll use matching marker colors.Thanks for the link. The DD bases look awesome! I've never seen those before, but will certainly obtain some.
I was thinking the same! Have you used both medium and small, redward?do they fit most minis?
|
|
I find it disappointing that people can't recognize how that can greatly hurt the game due to not having extreme lack of consideration for everyone at the table.
Someone that wants to follow the example that the book gave and standard operating procedure older than disco rather than your interpretation of raw is not being dishonest, is not acting out of a lack of consideration, and is not out to ruin a character. They want to keep the game moving and increase how easy it is to track information about largely homogeneous groups.
Most people I feel don't mind where they are in the order, but I personally know people that will make or break their characters, and I completely sympathize.
How? And don't give an example of acting in the later or ask "don't you think initiative is important". Stay on the very specific and very narrow topic of grouping the mooks.
I'm glad others on the boards see why it's important, and I only hope others will understand at some point too, and at least compromise more with their games. No reason not to roll the two enemy combatants separately, but in most cases I see people doing to anyways.
And when its the 4, six, or 8 enemy combatants?
|
|
I was thinking the same! Have you used both medium and small, redward?do they fit most minis?I also use these multi-colored bases from Dapper Devil to keep track of which NPC is which. When I write their names on the combat pad during prep, I'll use matching marker colors.Thanks for the link. The DD bases look awesome! I've never seen those before, but will certainly obtain some.
I have both the small and medium, as well as a few large which they don't appear to sell anymore. The mediums fit the WizKid/Paizo minis and any other 25mm/1" round bases. The smalls fit the small Paizo minis.
|
Heh. ONline, using Roll20, I roll individually, usually, although I have seen good GMs grouping like mooks together.
Face-to-face, usually, if there are more than a few mooks, I tend to group several together. Unless they are swarms, vermin, or oozes, anything with any sort of intelligence is likely to act as a group, anyhow.
And, as mentioned, there are just some situations where not grouping several mooks together is going to run the poor GM, and likely the players, out of patience and temper.
"Okay, Mook 1 goes on 22.2, Mook 2 goes on 21.2, I need a roll-off between Kevin and Mook 3, both on 20.2..."
After a certain number, and sometimes (and I have had it happen) even two, some mooks wind up on the same initiative on the roll, anyhow.
And, to be honest, I have been fairly lucky on the PC side, as well. If you ever wind up with a party of all pet classes, and a bunch of mooks, my mind would just fry.
Kevin - 22.3
Kevin's AC - 18.4
John - 12.1
John's familiar - 16.2
ad inifinitum. Agh.
BTW, there is one rule I am more lenient on, which is the "Don't Be a Jerk." rule. I try to give room on that one, and warnings, and don't expel people if they have had a bad day.
Although I sometimes get a little het up when people seem to interpret a rule I see as obvious as being one way as being totally different. If I manage to catch myself, I try to take a step back, and take a deep breath, it is only a game.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I also use these multi-colored bases from Dapper Devil to keep track of which NPC is which. When I write their names on the combat pad during prep, I'll use matching marker colors.Thanks for the link. The DD bases look awesome! I've never seen those before, but will certainly obtain some.
Here's a cheap alternative that I use.
Find some broken 3.5" HDDs (standard size), and take them apart. Aside from the platters, there will also be these aluminium spacers. They are exactly 1" rings, and some of the older IDE drives end up having several-usually one per platter.
Just paint them up and you're good to go. Here's a picture that shows what I'm talking about. The part right under the spindle cover.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I also use these multi-colored bases from Dapper Devil to keep track of which NPC is which. When I write their names on the combat pad during prep, I'll use matching marker colors.Thanks for the link. The DD bases look awesome! I've never seen those before, but will certainly obtain some.Here's a cheap alternative that I use.
Find some broken 3.5" HDDs (standard size), and take them apart. Aside from the platters, there will also be these aluminium spacers. They are exactly 1" rings, and some of the older IDE drives end up having several-usually one per platter.
Just paint them up and you're good to go. Here's a picture that shows what I'm talking about. The part right under the spindle cover.
I just hit a hardware store and pick up a box of fender washers.
The ones exactly 1" in diameter with the smallest center hole I can get. I use them for everything, and being steel has real advantages. I use them as figure bases, white glued under the round figure bases to add weight and store them in a sheet magnet lined case so they don't shift in transport. I'll take printed pictures and glue them to them to make counters, or take a small "campfire" picture to make fire markers (burning squares in buildings etc.), or a host of other things. And in bulk they are really cheap.. less than a nickle each. I tend to buy them by the pound.
Similar to these, I have a few 2" pog-like flat tokens that I use to represent swarms, enlarged creatures, etc.
But the benefit to the HDD spacers or the DD bases is that they fit around the base of the miniatures. This allows you to distinguish between minis, and represent blinded/invisible/smited targets, etc.
EDIT: Although you can put the washers over minis, as you suggest. I should read more :)
|
|
I'm just confused as to how some come off to not see how it makes any difference in any aspect of the game, and also write that it's my "rule". It literally states each combatant, so please be reasonable with understanding my position and don't diminish it with saying I'm being too pedantic.
Initiative
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).
If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll to determine which one of them goes before the other.
I've already recognized on this thread multiple things, so I would appreciate it if people participated in the thread in general rather than continuously beating a dead horse by having their post directed at me.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how I have run initiative:
1) If there's only one bad guy of each type (one foe, or three foes with their own stat blocks, etc.) I assume that the bad guys roll 10.5 for their initiative.
1a) There's never a tie with a PC.
1b) If a player invests his resources in giving his character a high initiative, I'd like to reward that, as opposed to rolling high a couple of times and leaving him frustrated.
1c) High-initiative foes go before low-initiative foes.
2) If there are a couple of "named" villains, then I'll roll, before the game, 3 times for each additional villain, and take the middle-valued roll.
3) If there are a lot of mooks, I'll have a third of them roll 7.5, an third of them roll 10.5, and a third of them roll 13.5
--
but, please, people: don't roll all of the foes' initiatives in one clump, let them all take advantage of a very high initiative roll, and then act surprised or sympathetic when your bad guys pound the snot out of the flat-footed party.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've already recognized on this thread multiple things, so I would appreciate it if people participated in the thread in general rather than continuously beating a dead horse by having their post directed at me.
The reaction you're receiving to your argument is more or less caused by the tone of your responses. You're coming off pretty strong with "you are doing it wrong" which is (as you can clearly see) putting some people off. You may want this to be a discussion thread, but it's coming off as a lecture to people who do initiative with a way that you feel is wrong.
You may want to consider the wording of your posts.
|
|
I've already recognized on this thread multiple things, so I would appreciate it if people participated in the thread in general rather than continuously beating a dead horse by having their post directed at me.The reaction you're receiving to your argument is more or less caused by the tone of your responses. You're coming off pretty strong with "you are doing it wrong" which is (as you can clearly see) putting some people off. You may want this to be a discussion thread, but it's coming off as a lecture to people who do initiative with a way that you feel is wrong.
You may want to consider the wording of your posts.
In addition to that, you did start the thread and seem to be the sole person who finds anything wrong with lumping initiatives at all, so most of the responses are likely best suited to be directed to you, not anyone else.
|
|
Glad this thread is turning into something a bit more productive, as GMs post good ideas for streamlining game play with multiple foes.
Aside: in home games I switched to a d12 for initiative rolls, which tends to give less variability and more reward to those who have high initiative mods. I like Chris' method as well, although I think it may offer a bit too much certainty for those high-init PCs... many fights are already over before the monsters can act, so I like the off-chance that a monster might roll high and be able to interfere with the players' surety of success.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've already recognized on this thread multiple things, so I would appreciate it if people participated in the thread in general rather than continuously beating a dead horse by having their post directed at me.The reaction you're receiving to your argument is more or less caused by the tone of your responses. You're coming off pretty strong with "you are doing it wrong" which is (as you can clearly see) putting some people off. You may want this to be a discussion thread, but it's coming off as a lecture to people who do initiative with a way that you feel is wrong.
You may want to consider the wording of your posts.
In addition to that, you did start the thread and seem to be the sole person who finds anything wrong with lumping initiatives at all, so most of the responses are likely best suited to be directed to you, not anyone else.
While I do think the OP should have been more diplomatic, I do vastly prefer, as both a GM and as a player, if the initiative is rolled individually (if there's over 20 of them, like in that one scenario mentioned above, I give each multiple of 20 all possible initiative rolls from 1 to 20, then roll the rest, though if there's like 19, I'll just roll which initiative count doesn't have a foe).
In addition to other points made in this thread, it can be very difficult for a defensive support character to get a move in edgewise if all the enemies go at once (support characters who support offense never mind going first). While I'm mostly the type to let it go and play along after I explain once what the rule is, and that's exactly what I did in this instance, I was still particularly frustrated when an extremely high star GM once not only rolled a batch initiative, he also forced my support character, who delayed specifically to break up the batch, to wait until the batch finished to come out of delay (in effect making me skip my entire first turn entirely). I played with that GM again, but I never delayed again. Now, the GM applied this "atomic inseparable batch" completely fairly in both directions--if you readied against the last enemy in the batch, you did get to go before the entire batch next turn, so readied actions were the way to go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most GMs in home games will have groups of mooks go on the same initiative, and I see nothing wrong with the practice -- but from this thread I have learned that it is a good idea to "take 10" on the initiative rolls of anyone so grouped, since otherwise the effects of really high or really low initiative rolls are magnified. The one thing mooks are not supposed to do is stand out in any way.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, the guide is fairly sparse regarding the idea of rolling "group initiative" for NPCs.
Using multiple monsters also lets you set up special abilities like sneak attack that are difficult to implement with a single monster, and means you can distribute the monsters’ actions throughout the round (whether by rolling separate initiatives or using the delay or ready actions) and react more than once per round to what the PCs do.
To me, this quote seems to suggest that the option of not rolling separate initiatives exists for groups of monsters. That may be a bit of a stretch for some folks, which is fine too.
To those people, I would still suggest having a group initiative of some sort for multiple similar NPCs. To do this legally, I would tell them to roll a d20 for each NPC in a group when doing initiative and take the lowest out of the bunch. This would represent a group of NPCs working together and acting on the same order, without being unfair to the PCs. We just assume that the NPCs that went higher in initiative simply delayed until their comrades could go, so they could work as a team.
Personally, I tend toward the rule of 3 when it comes to NPC initiative. If there are 3 or more NPCs with identical statblocks, they will go on the same initiative. If there are fewer (like two golems, two wolves, etc), they each get their own initiative. I run combats fairly quickly, so with two or three NPC initiative "pools" I'm able to keep things active and challenging, without bogging combat down.
In the end, I've never had a player complain with this method of running combat. I believe there was text that allowed for GMs to group NPC initiative in 3.X, but it may not have made the transition to Pathfinder. It would be interesting to get a developer or designer standpoint on this, but that would be a discussion for another messageboard.
