|
I want to know peoples opinions in regards to rolling one die to put all creatures or a group of creatures initiative together in pathfinder society. It is indeed very convenient for a GM, and does shave off time as well, but the rules clearly say you roll each individual initiative for each creature. Also, I would like to know how people feel about if someone did roll each initiative and then delayed all of the creatures into the same initiative in terms of it being believable for every creature in the game to actually preform that tactic.
I'm pretty sure we can go on endlessly about hypotheticals for pros and cons of this, but should it be allowed to ignore the rules for your personal convenience? Should a GM be allowed to determine that literally every creature is able to delay to synchronize their attacks perfectly in the game? Should a compromise be even allowed at all to roll each initiative, and allow every creature the ability to synchronize their attacks by delaying into the same initiative order?
I feel there is a huge misunderstanding of the rules in regards to initiative order, and I would like to shed light on it with this thread, and see what the community on the boards has to say about it. Things have devolved into an extreme at some tables I've attended with the creatures literally taking their turns at the EXACT same time by literally moving/attacking at once, and you cannot delay to get anywhere between the consecutive creatures, but only until their turn is over. I was asked personally if this should even be considered a regional issue to make sure things are ran properly at PFS events, or if I was just wasting my time bringing it up, because doing this apparently falls under a GM's authority to use table variation rules.
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
|
The vast majority of the time, it makes very little difference whether the mooks go separately or all at once. In such circumstances, the time saving is worth it in my opinion, and it greatly simplifies combat for both sides.
If the party is going to find themselves in a situation where having the mooks go all at once is unmanageable or would easily cause player deaths, then the GM needs to roll initiative separately or at least group up the mooks on different initiatives. The GM should be able to determine this in advance.
Having the enemies go on the same initiative is a practice that should only be used to save time, and where it will not have an adverse effect on combat. It should never be used in a situation where it would make it more difficult for the players.
|
I want to know peoples opinions in regards to rolling one die to put all creatures or a group of creatures initiative together in pathfinder society. It is indeed very convenient for a GM, and does shave off time as well, but the rules clearly say you roll each individual initiative for each creature.
Its such a common practice there's really no point in swimming against the tide. I don't see the harm in it so i don't see why not.
Should a GM be allowed to determine that literally every creature is able to delay to synchronize their attacks perfectly in the game?
Yes. Untrained 0 bab peasants can all delay to the same time. For some creatures its probably a bit out of character. For others not so much.
Also, I would like to know how people feel about if someone did roll each initiative and then delayed all of the creatures into the same initiative in terms of it being believable for every creature in the game to actually preform that tactic.
This would be specifically allowed by many creatures, who are told to attempt to flank and sneak attack as often as possible, and this is the best way to do it.
Rogue A moves and delays
Rogue B moves and Attacks for the sneak
Rogue A attacks for the sneak
|
|
BNW, when I write "every creature" I'm talking about EVERY CREATURE. I acknowledge that certain creatures would absolutely be learned in making readied tactical attacks in tandem, just like two rogues.
EDIT:What I had written was does it make sense for literally every creature that would have a chance to immediately act while others were too slow on the gun all just wait until they're all prepared to go together by delaying? I feel it hurts the integrity of running the creatures properly to apply it all the time in this method.
EDIT 2: I believe you meant to write Rogue A delays, then B moves and readies, then A goes off delay, moves and attacks, and B preforms their ready so they both attack while flanking.
|
|
It may not make sense, but does it really matter? The vast majority of the time short of RP I guess it's inconsequential. And even then I'm not convinced that this is a suspension of belief issue either.
I guess if it's not a problem other than going against some policy, then why complain about it?
There's a pretty clear benefit to the practice. Do you have a negative experience to share or do you just not like it because it's technically against the rules?
EDIT: Frankly, the initiative system is weird by itself when you try to imagine it in the real world.
|
|
I did mention a negative consequence in my first post, and thats a situation where having all the enemies go at one time would too easily overwhelm the party. EDIT: For instance, when you run into a large group of casters who all cast fireball.
However, no, in my experience it has never been a problem even in high level play, and it has almost always sped up the table.
Let's not go into a slippery slope of "what other rules to you break" because that's kind of getting close to a personal attack and not pertinent to the conversation. I will however tell you that this is a very common practice as far as I have seen.
Rather, I'm more adopting the standpoint of "who really cares?" because I've only seen one situation where it would have been a problem, and it was not done for that reason.
|
|
@Acedio, I usually have trouble relating names without avatars together, so I apologize for the mixup.
I quite often see mainly at low level tables people getting completely swarmed and dropping that turn. Obviously where you're from and who you play with will greatly change in the experiences you have and I have, but regardless you should consider this across the board rather than your subjective experience. I take notice of flat-footed ac, sneak attacks, people who take improved initiative (other similar feats) taking advantage of flanks, healing, attempting to withdraw away and having to take multiple AoO's, trying to drink a potion and taking multiple AoO's, etc.
I'm sorry you see me asking that question seems like a personal insult, but when you write "who really cares" then I look at how this is against the rules, and want to know what else is relevant for you to not care about.
In terms of believing things, I'm not talking about reality, but in terms of running the creatures with integrity for how they are intended to be ran in the scenario whether it be for how the game says they should be ran, or for what the creature actually is. I'm well aware of how game mechanics won't reflect realism, and I'm okay with that, but what I have a problem with is when people mess with the game mechanics to make it into their subjective version of what is considered real.
|
|
I'm well aware of how game mechanics won't reflect realism, and I'm okay with that, but what I have a problem with is when people mess with the game mechanics to make it into their subjective version of what is considered real.
My answer to you is that this is an inherent problem with organized play. Everybody does things differently.
You have a problem with creatures going on the same initiative. Your point makes sense to me. But many others don't mind.
Creature tactics are a good way to help mitigate GM style differences. If a creatures tactic suggests they attack in a group, then this is an appropriate practice. Conversely, if tactics say they attack aggressively then this might not be a good thing to do. I don't think I've seen a scenario where they've gone into that much granularity on the tactics to specify turn order (other than a creature readying an action or delaying). So generally, it's not a big deal and doesn't deviate from documented creature behavior. Which leads to my conclusion that if it helps fit the scenario into a reasonable time slot and doesn't negatively impact the party or combat, then whatever.
My advice to you is that if your GM is either abusing grouped initiative to make things harder for players, or is perhaps not aware that the practice has made it more difficult for people, then you privately get in touch with him/her and tell them that it is becoming a problem. If that fails, contact Mike Brock.
To reiterate what I said initially, this should absolutely not be done if it puts players in a position where they get overwhelmed.
|
|
Let the dice fall where they may.
Rolling one initiative for all the bad guys is just wrong. I've been on the receiving end of this bad practice several times and seen a PC death in part, because of it. That said ...
Last week when I played, all the PCs rolled poorly, sub 10, and we all went after the bad guys. OK.
When I GM and there is a large number of mooks, I generally pair like mooks up. Thus cutting 6 initiatives into 3. Also, to save time I have pre-rolled initiatives for the bad guys, also saving time. I do tell my players I have pre-rolled initiatives.
|
|
"You have a problem with creatures going on the same initiative. Many others don't care."
It's more like, it's not allowed by the rules, and others are breaking the rules. If the creatures attack in a group, this doesn't reflect in the least that it's okay to roll their initiative to be the exact same thing with one roll. It's against the rules.
Pointing out that it can sometimes be an issue is a pretty great reason to never do it, because if you never did it, then it would never be a problem.
|
|
"You have a problem with creatures going on the same initiative. Many others don't care."
It's more like, it's not allowed by the rules, and others are breaking the rules. If the creatures attack in a group, this doesn't reflect in the least that it's okay to roll their initiative to be the exact same thing with one roll. It's against the rules.
Pointing out that it can sometimes be an issue is a pretty great reason to never do it, because if you never did it, then it would never be a problem.
Ok. Ask your GM to not do it if you feel they are unable to do it responsibly.
|
|
Let the dice fall where they may.
Rolling one initiative for all the bad guys is just wrong. I've been on the receiving end of this bad practice several times and seen a PC death in part, because of it. That said ...
Last week when I played, all the PCs rolled poorly, sub 10, and we all went after the bad guys. OK.
When I GM and there is a large number of mooks, I generally pair like mooks up. Thus cutting 6 initiatives into 3. Also, to save time I have pre-rolled initiatives for the bad guys, also saving time. I do tell my players I have pre-rolled initiatives.
Personally I accept certain compromises, but it's still illegal by the rules at the end of the day to not roll separately. I personally would like some transparency with the GM if this is ever going to happen, and have people unanimously agree to alter the rules for the sake of time so no one feels alienated. Another compromise would be to roll separately (or roll beforehand separately) and then if it seems within the integrity of the game to have the creatures actually delay to the same initiative, to let them all suffer the consequences to delay their turns.
|
|
Ok. Ask your GM to not do it if you feel they are unable to do it responsibly."You have a problem with creatures going on the same initiative. Many others don't care."
It's more like, it's not allowed by the rules, and others are breaking the rules. If the creatures attack in a group, this doesn't reflect in the least that it's okay to roll their initiative to be the exact same thing with one roll. It's against the rules.
Pointing out that it can sometimes be an issue is a pretty great reason to never do it, because if you never did it, then it would never be a problem.
This isn't an advice thread, but a discussion about the topic, and doing it responsibly is still illegal regardless. Are you saying that you feel it's okay to ignore this rule? I honestly want to know if you have other exceptions to rules to ignore in PFS, and it is not to be taken as a personal insult.
|
|
Yes, if I'm at a table where the GM rolls all the enemies onto the same initiative, I really don't care unless I know upfront that the party will be overwhelmed. I understand that it makes things easier for the GM who is volunteering their time to run the scenario for us, sometimes unprepared in advance.
To your other inquiry, again, it is completely irrelevant and its going to do nothing but derail the topic. And that you're asking that question suggests you're making a lot of poor assumptions about how I run my tables. Most people are not comfortable answering questions deliberately designed to paint them in a poor light and demean their credibility. I'm sure that's not your intention but that is the nature if your inquiry.
|
|
A lot of people drive 5 miles over the speed limit."Hey officer, everyone does it. What's the harm? Not like anyone ever died or anything by driving too fast, right? So... I'll be on my way now with my great logical excuse!"
Actually, 5mph over the speed limit is generally the range where courts will ignore tickets as being within the range of human error. Enforcement of that speeding violation is largely a waste of time. There's usually a "bigger fish to fry" as they say.
(Not to be crappy, but that's also a good analogy to describe how I feel about this issue).
|
|
Yes, if I'm at a table where the GM rolls all the enemies onto the same initiative, I really don't care unless I know upfront that the party will be overwhelmed. I understand that it makes things easier for the GM who is volunteering their time to run the scenario for us, sometimes unprepared in advance.
To your other inquiry, again, it is completely irrelevant and its going to do nothing but derail the topic. And that you're asking that question suggests you're making a lot of poor assumptions about how I run my tables. Most people are not comfortable answering questions deliberately designed to paint them in a poor light and demean their credibility. I'm sure that's not your intention but that is the nature if your inquiry.
Absolutely no assumption made on my part, but rather I simply asked if you ignore any other rules at all, so please don't confuse things.
That's okay if you're personally okay with what's going on when the rules are broken, but that doesn't mean everyone is okay with that. But I did ask for peoples opinions on the matter so don't feel like I don't appreciate yours. I just would like you to blatantly admit that it's against the rules, and that you feel it's reasonable to ignore the rules.
If people feel like it's reasonable to break the rules for this, why hasn't anyone petitioned for a rules change as a whole or just for PFS?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I roll initiative for all of my NPCs separately. Usually I will pre-roll initiative for each of them while I am prepping the scenario. I'll also write them out ahead of time on my combat pad along with their initiatives, so for most combats all I need to do is ask the players to roll and put everyone in the proper order. 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.
At the beginning of the session, I will ask the players if they are comfortable with me using the pre-rolled initiatives or if they'd prefer I roll them as they come up. So far I have had no objections.
This takes practically no time at all during prep and saves a ton of time in-game. It's faster than rolling the NPCs on one die or in groups and allows combat to flow more organically.
I decided to roll initiatives separately after a few too many scary encounters when groups of NPCs got to blast my parties before we could react. Erinyes dropping Unholy Blights, Rogues getting Sneak Attack damage and attacking against Flat-footed AC, Swarms moving in and nauseating the entire party, etc. These kinds of situations can be nearly impossible for some groups to bounce back from and as a GM, I really don't like to fudge dice or make other behind-the-scenes "fixes" to undo that damage.
|
Did you not notice the example of play early in the book versus skeleton on a horse and several stNdard skeleton mentions the Gm rolls one for the big bad and once for hid minions? Kind of hard to blame GMs for following the example.of play.
I do however believe in rolling separate for each opponent, but have no problem adjusting from there with stuff like ready or delay.
The thing is there are rules and there are rules. WHen humans engage socially things change all the time. For those who have read my other posts I talk about paradigm a lot and they are a big part of the gsme.
The practice of rolling the bbeg and his m
Leutenants seperately and clumping the minions has been the norm since I started playing in the 80s.
It speeds game play and really after the first round doesn't matter.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you not notice the example of play early in the book versus skeleton on a horse and several stNdard skeleton mentions the Gm rolls one for the big bad and once for hid minions? Kind of hard to blame GMs for following the example.of play
That is CRB p13
And for argument's sake
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 on page 202).
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.
For the record, I have been using individual initiatives more and more lately. However, even when I do not, I am very picky about keeping the actions separate. I will have NPCs ready for their partners actions, when it makes sense, but, only if there are large groups will I bunch them up now, and only groups that make logical sense.and that is only for practical reasons (only so much space on the init chart)
|
Actually, I never knew there was a rule about it.
I will group them when it seems unlikely to make any difference OR when it is in-game logical for them to do so.
A 5th level party vs. 4 normal badgers. They aren't going to be noticeably inconvenienced, so I do them all at once.
A 1st level party vs 4 normal badgers. One of them could conceivably be taken out by 4 simultaneous attacks. (Every thing is potentially lethal to 1st level PC's.) So they will all be separately rolled.
Archers hiding behind pillars, I might have them all delay until the lowest roll and all pop out to shoot at the same time.
Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The practice of even rolling INIT wasn't often even done... after all you would "roll surprise" when you encountered someone! and you did that with a d6! (and rangers were surprised only on a 1, everyone else on a 1 or 2... I mean, after there were rangers in the game and all, which there weren't originally).
Man I remember that.
On Initiative, I've seen and done it many ways. Like Mojorat I've been DMing GMing for years and was trained by people who have been gaming since the '70s. I didn't know that I was doing it wrong by rolling the boss as one initiative and all his meatshields (if there is more then one) in a combined second initative.
Sometimes it isn't as feasible to roll an initiative for every monster. At one time in
Edit: I've also played at a table where a GM said "The monsters have an initiative of 10, everyone faster go and let me know when you are done." In that game (there were 3 GMs playing at the table) we started taking our own initiatives.
|
|
Actually, I never knew there was a rule about it.
I will group them when it seems unlikely to make any difference OR when it is in-game logical for them to do so.
A 5th level party vs. 4 normal badgers. They aren't going to be noticeably inconvenienced, so I do them all at once.
A 1st level party vs 4 normal badgers. One of them could conceivably be taken out by 4 simultaneous attacks. (Every thing is potentially lethal to 1st level PC's.) So they will all be separately rolled.
Archers hiding behind pillars, I might have them all delay until the lowest roll and all pop out to shoot at the same time.
Concerning your last example...
What are the PCs doing while the Archers in hiding (who I would guess have made their perception checks to detect the PCs, and their stealth checks not to be detected) are delaying?
The PC's are doing whatever they want to on their initiative counts. If I recall correctly, only one of them had noticed just 1 of the archers. They were trying to peacefully talk to the single archer. (If their perception had been higher and they had noticed all of them they probably would not have done that.)