|
This is a double edged sword. I used to roll all bay buys in groups but stopped when I realized the players have advantages on bad guys with spell like abilities if all the bad guys go after all the players. The players run up and get in their face to them making them cast defensively or kill them before they get anything off, or take ready actions to shoot someone who starts casting a spell thus disrupting the spell.
So from my view rolling the bad guys on 1 initiative favors the players far more often than the bad guys.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I played under a newbie GM this past weekend, and he just defaulted to individual initiatives for each combatant without a second thought. One of the more experienced local players/GMs at the table told him he needed to be doing group initiative. Thinking of this thread, it was hard to stifle a laugh. :)
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the take home from this thread is that all situations are different and the only universal thing is that GMs need to keep combat from stagnating.
Ultimately, this can be achieved a lot of different ways, but managing combat efficiently is a big part of having things move forward. However you get that done, while still maintaining a fair and engaging table is the "right way" to do it for you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try to avoid clumped initiatives whenever possible. Yes, technically, they are not illegal, but they can make for very unfair circumstances for both the PCs and NPCs. I really, really don't like grouped initiatives. I don't allow it for eidolons or animal companions, either.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been using same-statblock grouped initiative, but after reading skimming this thread and playing under a separate-initiative GM for the first time, I think I'm going to try out running a game with (pre-rolled) separate initiative and see what happens.
|
|
If you are pre-rolling, and tactics for the mooks leads to a grouping anyway, then in the first round, they could all delay to go when the slowest one does. This lets them use any tactics they have for groups, and also prevents them all from going at an unrealistically fast initiative count.
Of course, allow for the other side to delay or ready to interrupt the middle of the group.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the table size allows, I have them roll separately. I have been known to rule that animal companions will attack something that attacks them first without a pet command. It is to that pet's advantage to have a high init, even higher than the PC. Plus, the pet does have their own init stat block for a reason.
|
If the table size allows, I have them roll separately. I have been known to rule that animal companions will attack something that attacks them first without a pet command. It is to that pet's advantage to have a high init, even higher than the PC. Plus, the pet does have their own init stat block for a reason.
I like that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always suggest that we try individual init at every table. Obviously, if it is a 7 player table or a table with lots of pets, this won't work, but in general, grouped init sucks imo.
I think a lot of people are confusing the term "clumped initiative" with saying "all badguys go on the same initiative count".
In my experience, the clumped initiative is only for creatures with the same stat block.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the table size allows, I have them roll separately. I have been known to rule that animal companions will attack something that attacks them first without a pet command. It is to that pet's advantage to have a high init, even higher than the PC. Plus, the pet does have their own init stat block for a reason.I like that.
I do the same. I always ask at the beginning of the game what the pet's default command is. It is typically heel or guard.
But animals will defend themselves, typically, in spite of what their default command is. If their owner is being attacked, they will also likely defend the owner even if the command is only heel.
I let the player make the decision on whether the animal will act without command after I've given them the option to do so.
|
|
Yeah the thing is, group initiative especially for the GM does make things faster, the GM get´s less talking and ends his "turn" faster, so the players have to wait less and feel like the can do more.
Strange, I don't see how that would work. If there are 12 combatants, Player A still has to wait for 11 other characters to go before getting a turn, regardless of how many of those combatants are NPCs. And like I said earlier, when I've played with GMs who clump initiative, the first player to go after a clump takes so much longer because the battlefield has changed drastically. The more a GM clumps, the harder it is for the player after the GM to be ready their following turn.
|
|
If the table size allows, I have them roll separately. I have been known to rule that animal companions will attack something that attacks them first without a pet command. It is to that pet's advantage to have a high init, even higher than the PC. Plus, the pet does have their own init stat block for a reason.I like that.I do the same. I always ask at the beginning of the game what the pet's default command is. It is typically heel or guard.
But animals will defend themselves, typically, in spite of what their default command is. If their owner is being attacked, they will also likely defend the owner even if the command is only heel.
I let the player make the decision on whether the animal will act without command after I've given them the option to do so.
In my group we rule the same way. And my recently acquired animal companion that know only the Attack and Attack all creatures tricks sometime is a pain.
- The unfriendly guard that is escorting our group to see the local governor see a wolf and fire his crossbow at it, the wolf attack him. A fight start in the middle of the village instead of along the trail.- some enemy try to surrender and we want to take them prisoners, but they have attacked the wolf, me, or I have ordered it to attack? Good luck giving that Down order when you need to beat a DC of 25 and you are a 4th level druid with a charisma of 8. Usually it require several tries.
|
|
Yeah the thing is, group initiative especially for the GM does make things faster, the GM get´s less talking and ends his "turn" faster, so the players have to wait less and feel like the can do more.Strange, I don't see how that would work. If there are 12 combatants, Player A still has to wait for 11 other characters to go before getting a turn, regardless of how many of those combatants are NPCs. And like I said earlier, when I've played with GMs who clump initiative, the first player to go after a clump takes so much longer because the battlefield has changed drastically. The more a GM clumps, the harder it is for the player after the GM to be ready their following turn.
That´s my experience here, i didn´t have 12 foes often yet though. And if so, they most always were cleaved or AoOéd by a twohander quite fast.
I guess this heavily depends on the attention spam of the players and their tactical experience too.I have two very different groups here. One is filled with experienced gamers who often play tactical and strategy games. Those love the battlemap and never have any problem there.
Some others are more into the fantasy as in imagination thing and don´t want to play with a battle map, where battles are only described. Some of this group are rather unexperienced and outsource quite a lot to the GM.
That means more work for the GM and more talking, but once you are used to it, it´s ok. Also the roleplay is heavier there.
SOme time ago i bought that 3PP book about better GMing, and found that i can really speed up "my GM" turns that way. I think the difference is 3-10 minutes sometimes less time for me. That way it´s ok if some players need 3-5 minutes.
I have to add, that in either case, i´m letting players delay or ready attacks that are then resolved when i call them out, what works pretty well.
|
|
That´s my experience here, i didn´t have 12 foes often yet though. And if so, they most always were cleaved or AoOéd by a twohander quite fast.
12 foes, no, but I was talking about total combatants. Assuming 6 PCs with at least 1 animal companion, that means you only need 5 NPCs for the combat to reach 12 combatants.
The different ways we've been communicating this actually provides insight into why you might prefer your style and why I prefer mine. If I may, you've been talking like there are two parts to every turn: 1. GM; 2. PC. I see combat as every character for itself. So in the case I was making, with 7 PCs (including an animal companion) and 5 NPCs, I don't see how any one player is waiting any longer for their turn if all 5 NPCs go together or they're mixed erratically amongst the 12 combatants.
|
|
the following question came up...
PC on a mount. The PC rolls one Init, the mount another...
When the PC get's the high one, and he trys to move... does he need to wait (delay) till the mounts Init before he can move?
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a mount, regardless of its stat block, acts on your initiative, even if its an animal companion, while a "normal" (unmounted) animal companion acts on its own initiative. Interesting ?!?
Don't even get me started on the +25 initiative wizard shrinking down and riding on the +0 initiative paladin's back. Since the trade-offs of moving are so important to the system (hence Quickrunner's Shirt ban), a lot of idiosyncrasies of using mounts need a deeper explanation at some point.