I've been playing around with other options regarding Initiative, trying to spice things up a bit... one house-rule that has become absolute is the adding of a character's (or creature's) BAB to their Initiative. That's worked out great.
Now I'm thinking about taking that a step further and granting a 'partial' action on a character or creature's Initiative -20 in the same combat round. I can't quite decide how best to implement it though. A few words about actions in our home game:
* A 5' step is a swift action, and can be taken in conjunction with a Move action, but may not be taken as part of a another action (such as a full attack); the 5' is actually based on your size, i.e. a Large creature can take a 10' step, a Huge creature can take a 15' step and so on.
* Every character gets a swift and a potential immediate action during their turn, not one or the other.
* An action can always be reduced to a 'lesser' action, i.e. a standard can become a move and a move can become a swift if the character so desires.
* Quickened spells are cast as Move actions rather than Swift actions.
As far as the aforementioned experiment, what I'm trying to decide is whether or not to make the additional action a standard (which can of course be downgraded) or a move (also downgradable), and what potential pitfalls there might be. The thing that jumps out at me is being able to get another spell off in the same round, but is that justification for, say, not allowing an additional attack for martials, or should I simply throw in a caveat that says 'this bonus action can not be used to cast a spell'... or maybe 'this bonus action can not be used to cast a spell beyond the range of Personal'...
I'd really like to give this a try, but I want to see as many of the potential ramifications to it as possible beforehand, and I'd keep the rule change - as with all rules changes - as simple as possible, otherwise it just becomes a headache.
Have you play tested any of these modifications yet? I'm seeing a lot of potentially game breaking changes.
First off, your existing house rule shoots 1/2 BAB classes in the foot for initiative, and 3/4ths to a lesser degree. At higher levels, a wizard is all but guaranteed to go last, even with improved initiative.
5 Foot Step Being bigger doesn't necessarily mean being able to adjust one's position easier. If a troll were to shift ten feet in one motion, it would be an awkwardly wide shuffle traversing a distance almost as wide as the creature is tall. There's no way that sort of action wouldn't leave the monster open to some attacks. Additionally, This rule would allow larger creatures to move respectable distances and still get full attack actions, whereas the heroes are still stuck to their 5' or a single attack.
Additionally, this would open the martial PCs up to more attacks of opportunity and rob them of their own full attack actions. For example: The party is fighting a troll. The troll takes a full attack against the party fighter, then uses its free move to back up 10 feet. The fighter must now expend a move action to close back into melee, which gives the troll an attack of opportunity and the fighter only has a standard action left, so she can only make one attack.
Swift & Immediate I'm pretty sure you can do both in RAW. Can you share where it states that both cannot be performed?
Action exchange You can already exchange a standard action for a move action. What are the benefits for allowing up to three swift actions in a round?
Quickened Spells I'm noticing a theme that casters should be slow. If you make this change, does the spell level cost of Quickened Spell decrease, as its usefulness has? Why do you want to make this change in the first place?
The -20 action Pathfinder combat can be very slow, especially at higher levels. This change makes combat even slower while not granting any particular advantage. If every hero, villain and monster is granted this, no one gains a particular edge. Also, what happens if a creature's initiative is lower than 20? Do they miss out on that bonus action? If so, there's another hit to casters who won't be able to consistently get that 21+ initiative.
I stand corrected! Thanks, Khudzlin!
Have you play tested any of these modifications yet? I'm seeing a lot of potentially game breaking changes.
First off, your existing house rule shoots 1/2 BAB classes in the foot for initiative, and 3/4ths to a lesser degree. At higher levels, a wizard is all but guaranteed to go last, even with improved initiative.
That aspect is by design, though it hardly 'shoots 1/2 BAB classes in the back... what it does is give a mild boost to martials and even partial casters that grows gradually as the character advances, following the same curve (though not as dramatically) as the disparity between casters and martials. Its a minor tweak that works very well when it comes to closing the gap somewhat without wrecking anything at all.
5 Foot Step Being bigger doesn't necessarily mean being able to adjust one's position easier. If a troll were to shift ten feet in one motion, it would be an awkwardly wide shuffle traversing a distance almost as wide as the creature is tall. There's no way that sort of action wouldn't leave the monster open to some attacks. Additionally, This rule would allow larger creatures to move respectable distances and still get full attack actions, whereas the heroes are still stuck to their 5' or a single attack.
You kind of lose me with this argument - there's no way a 12' tall creature could move 10' without opening themselves up to attacks of opportunity, but its perfectly reasonable to think that a 6' tall creature could move 5' without a problem? Come on. Nor does it bother me that creatures with longer reach get to take advantage of their, ah... longer reach.
Additionally, this would open the martial PCs up to more attacks of opportunity and rob them of their own full attack actions. For example: The party is fighting a troll. The troll takes a full attack against the party fighter, then uses its free move to back up 10 feet. The fighter must now expend a move action to close back into melee, which gives the troll an attack of opportunity and the fighter only has a standard action left, so she can only make one attack.
Now mechanically speaking, this is a much more legitimate concern and a good metagame reason not to allow the change.
Another concern you voiced was Quicken Spell being switched to a Move action - well, the main purpose of Quicken Spell is to get two spells cast in a single round and that change still allows for that... however, when you ask why anyone would want 3 swift actions, you answer your own question - with three swift actions and Quicken Spell performing as written, that would allow three spells to be cast in a single round and that would definitely be 'game-breaking'...
The -20 action Pathfinder combat can be very slow, especially at higher levels. This change makes combat even slower while not granting any particular advantage. If every hero, villain and monster is granted this, no one gains a particular edge. Also, what happens if a creature's initiative is lower than 20? Do they miss out on that bonus action? If so, there's another hit to casters who won't be able to consistently get that 21+ initiative.
I'm really sure what all of this means... combat won't be any slower, (some) characters will be getting more actions and combat moves at the speed of actions, not time. And yes, there will be a benefit of sorts - it will potentially give Bosses who are at an action disadvantage a bit more survivability and give martials a little bit more versatility.
At 10th level, a Fighter with a Dex of 14, the Reactionary Trait and the Improved Initiative will have an Initiative modifier of +18, whereas a 10th level Wizard with the same choices will have an Initiative modifier of +13... meaning the martial will get that extra partial action perhaps one third of the time more often than the caster. That's hardly game-breaking.
Now, the way it would slow combat down would be if Initiative were to be re-rolled every round, which I'm not advocating... and looking at it as either you get the action or you don't for the entire combat, I can see it being unbalanced - not from character to character but rather from combat to combat - and that discourages me a little.
Again, this is just discussion about possibilities and potential pitfalls. The BAB to Initiative thing is one of the best house rules I've ever introduced, the rest is simply speculative at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am always skeptical of major action economy overhauls that have not been thoroughly playtested.
Especially when the goal of the overhaul is not totally clear.
|
Though I agree that adding BAB is a good chip away at MCD (and would consider adopting this house rule), I also agree that introducing the gaming of initiative bonus as a way to get an extra 'round' (or portion) is a dangerous path to tread.
The action-exchange looks good to me - if you really have 3 swift actions and want to spend the whole round using them, I say go for it. I might un-officially adopt this house rule. I also support the Quicken Spell change. Two spells per round, even at the faster expense of resources, is significantly powerful in this game, by any yardstick.
But, in response to your 5+ foot step, characters are already incentivized to game reach mechanics by various means including size increases - do they need further incentive? Even if your players don't go this route, this may exacerbate the problems you have identified (powering up martials), rather than solve them, as Rawhead pointed out.
Finally, what is the thinking behind the "only one immediate/swift" per round? Are you simply (and understandably) averse to the "borrow from the future" concept?
Cheers!
The only thing I dislike about the initiative thing is I think rogues and monks should be on par with or better than full bab martials in that regard. Maybe make it half bab to initiative instead so there's less disparity.
You might consider another approach to caster:martial scaling/action economy:
Since a Full Caster gains 2 Spell Levels in same time Martial gain an Iterative,
they should have similar action economy for the "maximally level scaled actions" i.e. Full Attack or Max Level Spell.
SO, Full Casters' top 2 spell levels should use Full Round Action to Cast, akin to Full Attack acttion.
(this is not 1 round casting time, although those spells still exist, it is more like Sorceror Metamagic casting)
There is exemption for 0th and 1st level spells,
which makes sense because (non-2WF) martials don't need full attacks until BAB+5 either.
3/4 Casters like Bards apply Full Round Action casting to single top spell level, 1/2 Casters don't change anything.
Swift Spells are not affected, 1-round and Full Round (Sorceror Metamagic) spells just also use your 5' step for the round.
It's not a super dramatic change, but there is no longer a disparity between Melee Martials not getting to scale because they need to Move, while Casters are using Moves like candy to escape range of Melee opponents as well as other "utility" usages like drawing items. With casters less able to move freely (if they want to use best spells), Melee martials shouldn't NEED to move as much either.
This makes Move Actions just as valuable to Casters as Martials, and impels them to make the most of lower level spells... Which may even impact spell choice, since fast lower level spells (even with lower DCs) are now more desirable in combat, vs. dedicating to out of combat buffs. Martials may still be Move+Standard Attacking, but Casters will end up Move+Standard Casting lower level spells than they would otherwise. (particularly noticeable for NPC Casters who have full slots prepped and are free to Nova)
While I applaud the idea behind the BAB to initiative change, it would be a real problem for Rogues and Ninjas in particular as their primary class feature triggers on acting first in combat. While core Monks don't have a sneak attack like mechanic, it still seems quite harsh that they're falling behind on Initiative without having the advantage of spells to make up for it.
Thanks for taking time to address some of my concerns.
Another concern you voiced was Quicken Spell being switched to a Move action - well, the main purpose of Quicken Spell is to get two spells cast in a single round and that change still allows for that... however, when you ask why anyone would want 3 swift actions, you answer your own question - with three swift actions and Quicken Spell performing as written, that would allow three spells to be cast in a single round and that would definitely be 'game-breaking'...
That's a good point, though it would be a very expensive way to run a caster. I was looking at these changes as a package, so I was considering the benefits without Quicken Spell being a swift action. Do you think there are other situations that would benefit a character to exchange both their move and standard actions for swift actions? I'm not seeing this as a problem, I'm just curious.
The -20 action Pathfinder combat can be very slow, especially at higher levels. This change makes combat even slower while not granting any particular advantage. If every hero, villain and monster is granted this, no one gains a particular edge. Also, what happens if a creature's initiative is lower than 20? Do they miss out on that bonus action? If so, there's another hit to casters who won't be able to consistently get that 21+ initiative.I'm really sure what all of this means... combat won't be any slower, (some) characters will be getting more actions and combat moves at the speed of actions, not time.
If I wasn't clear that I was speaking of playing time rather than in-game time, I apologize. That being said, actions takes playing time. So adding additional actions each round will increase the time every combat takes.
What is the actual end goal of these changes?
While I applaud the idea behind the BAB to initiative change, it would be a real problem for Rogues and Ninjas in particular as their primary class feature triggers on acting first in combat. While core Monks don't have a sneak attack like mechanic, it still seems quite harsh that they're falling behind on Initiative without having the advantage of spells to make up for it.
Two points on this:
1) Additional house rules of mine grant both Monks and Rogues full BAB. Obviously, that's a choice everyone needs to make for themselves. I also give Rogues Improved evasion at 11th level.
2) Since Rogues and Ninja tend to have very high Dexterities, much higher than most other martials, that tends to make up for the discrepancy.
Also, I feel like we have to parse words a bit - there's a difference to them 'falling behind' and 'not gaining as much of an advantage as someone else'. Monks and Rogues would still see a greater benefit than full casters from this change.
Thanks for taking time to address some of my concerns.
Another concern you voiced was Quicken Spell being switched to a Move action - well, the main purpose of Quicken Spell is to get two spells cast in a single round and that change still allows for that... however, when you ask why anyone would want 3 swift actions, you answer your own question - with three swift actions and Quicken Spell performing as written, that would allow three spells to be cast in a single round and that would definitely be 'game-breaking'...That's a good point, though it would be a very expensive way to run a caster. I was looking at these changes as a package, so I was considering the benefits without Quicken Spell being a swift action. Do you think there are other situations that would benefit a character to exchange both their move and standard actions for swift actions? I'm not seeing this as a problem, I'm just curious.
There are an abundance of Swift actions out there, though admittedly some classes see them a lot more often than others. Let's say that a Paladin wants to Smite a target, make an attack and self-heal using Lay on Hands in the same round... that's Swift-Standard-Swift. Perhaps a Magus wants to use Arcane Strike and use his Arcane Pool to enhance his weapon before attacking... that's Swift-Swift-Standard. Just a couple of examples.
And yeah, these changes are all independent ideas, some perhaps influenced by others, but not necessarily intended as a package.
If I wasn't clear that I was speaking of playing time rather than in-game time, I apologize. That being said, actions takes playing time. So adding additional actions each round will increase the time every combat takes.The -20 action Pathfinder combat can be very slow, especially at higher levels. This change makes combat even slower while not granting any particular advantage. If every hero, villain and monster is granted this, no one gains a particular edge. Also, what happens if a creature's initiative is lower than 20? Do they miss out on that bonus action? If so, there's another hit to casters who won't be able to consistently get that 21+ initiative.I'm really sure what all of this means... combat won't be any slower, (some) characters will be getting more actions and combat moves at the speed of actions, not time.
I was talking about playing time as well. If it takes 10 attacks to kill a monster then it will take roughly the same amount of playing time if those attacks take place over 5 rounds or if they are take place over 7 rounds. The difference is really negligible. If anything, it would speed it up because more actions could theoretically be taken in the space of a buff's limited duration and thus those actions would be more effective and efficient.
What is the actual end goal of these changes?
A little more flexibility in play, a bit of narrowing the gap when it comes to MCD, a touch more survivability for the heavies in boss fights.
Though I agree that adding BAB is a good chip away at MCD (and would consider adopting this house rule), I also agree that introducing the gaming of initiative bonus as a way to get an extra 'round' (or portion) is a dangerous path to tread.
The action-exchange looks good to me - if you really have 3 swift actions and want to spend the whole round using them, I say go for it. I might un-officially adopt this house rule. I also support the Quicken Spell change. Two spells per round, even at the faster expense of resources, is significantly powerful in this game, by any yardstick.
But, in response to your 5+ foot step, characters are already incentivized to game reach mechanics by various means including size increases - do they need further incentive? Even if your players don't go this route, this may exacerbate the problems you have identified (powering up martials), rather than solve them, as Rawhead pointed out.
Finally, what is the thinking behind the "only one immediate/swift" per round? Are you simply (and understandably) averse to the "borrow from the future" concept?
I think the 5' step change has been properly debunked. I made the initial mistake of trying to apply reality over mechanical balance and that is often fraught with peril.
I found the immediate/swift mechanic awkward and unnecessary. Much easier to allow swift actions during player turns and have everyone know they are still able to get (but are limited to only) one immediate action, should the opportunity arise. I see no reason to keep them linked.
I immediately have to ask: Why?
What does this add to the game? When would this ever be the optimal move? Or rather, when would it not? Isn't Delay and Ready Action enough?Less rules are always preferable. Rules for rules sake is never good. What makes this worthy of keeping in mind? There's even lots of Paizo official material that isn't. If it's "just another option", then it's useless.
I also have to question; Why -20?
Why not -10? Why not just make someone go last? Do you have a mathematical background behind why -20 is the best suited number or is it just a number you pulled out?And won't the last guy in initiative order just keep taking -20 to get bonus actions?
I think that you're misunderstanding the concept. The idea is that everyone would act on their own initiative... and then, in the count down, anyone who had an initiative over 20 would get to act again that round, albeit it a lesser action, to grant a greater advantage to moving that much faster than everyone else over and above simply getting to go first and then falling right into a cycle where even those you are infinitely faster than get the same number of actions.
Me: Initiative roll with modifiers = 28
Monster: Initiative roll with modifiers = 16
You: Initiative roll with modifiers = 12
Action order:
27 - Me (full action)
16 - Monster (full action)
12 - You (full action)
7 - Me, at Initiative -20 (partial action)
0 - End of round
20 is the range of the random variable, so by using it as the break point you ensure that everyone who is going to act gets a chance to before you start back around again for those who are particularly quick. If you used a lower number as the breakpoint, actions would begin to get really cluttered over the course of a round.
Hmm. A CR 15 construct / magical beast / monstrous humanoid / outsider has 20 HD, hence BAB +20. If you add BAB to initiative, this creature will get a +5 advantage over a full BAB level 15 PC. Respective +9 and +13 over 3/4 and 1/2 BAB classes.
From my experience: Better start with a single small change, think thrice about the impact, then test it carefully and don't hesitate to undo it if necessary. Complete overhauls of a certain mechanics are going to cause trouble, because the rules are linked to so many other rules, resulting in enormous side effects...
I get the fascination of building a personal ruleset, but keep in mind you are not the only person at the table. Players usually just want to play the game.