I was going through my old D&D books for inspiration the other day when I read through how initiative functions on 2e. It got me thinking.
In short it works like this:
This adds a tangible bit of chaos to the combat encounter since the players cannot predict the exact order their actions will take place in until their dice are rolled.
I'm super curious to try this out with Pathfinder! I've played 3.x since launch in 2000 and so I enjoy changing things up once in a while to see how they play out. Sometimes combat in Pathfinder can get a bit robotic and so I've been considering trying this out in an upcoming game. I would keep the roll as a d20, acting from highest to lowest instead of porting the d10 with actions from lowest to highest, and I would probably handwave the optional rules of modifiers based on weapon size to keep things simple.
What do you think the consequences would be? Do you see any pitfalls that I might be missing? Does this sound cool to anyone else but me?
1, do you add your init bonus?
2, it brings in swinginess, some character that goes last and then next round goes first gets 2 turns in without anyone able to react.
3, Also it kinda really messes with readied and delayed actions.
It just occurred to me that the d20 rolled each round would be much more 'swingy' than the d10, which is likely why 2e used the smaller of the two for round-by-round initiative. If I do try this experiment, I think I might change to a d10.
But then that inflates the value of static initiative bonuses such as Improved Initiative, essentially doubling their value per roll...
Yes, there's a pitfall right there.
I don't like changing fundamental rules because of domino effects like this, but the idea of a more chaotic combat is intriguing enough that I still might give it a go.
1, do you add your init bonus?
2, it brings in swinginess, some character that goes last and then next round goes first gets 2 turns in without anyone able to react.
3, Also it kinda really messes with readied and delayed actions.
1) I would say yes, but see my previous post for commentary.
2) True. However that might be part of the fun and a predictable result of the more chaotic rolling system.3) Indeed it does... I'll have to think on that! Good catch.
That seems like a fun thing to try, no clue if it'd be fun enough to keep using until after a playtest
I think an action that's suddenly useless is wasted - chaos of battle and what not. For more fun have spellcasters target their AOE spells before rolling the round's initiative.
Also, use a d12 for that init, just so non-barbarians get to use it too.
Other question: How does the GM figure in? They should have all the NPC actions planned before the PCs reveal theirs. Probably should have everyone on separate Init rolls, since going in a predictable order, even with regard to each other, is a big advantage.
I have played with a GM who insisted we all declare our actions in advance of a round -- and that my archer wasted an arrow shooting at the place an NPC used to be before they moved behind cover. Conveniently enough, the NPCs were able to react to the PCs' pre-stated actions by, say, moving to get a clear shot, etc. :P To make it fair, the GM ought to have publicly to predeclare the NPCs' actions.
I did enjoy a lot of things about 2e initiative, with the new roll every round, weapon speeds, and casting times ... but even then, the DM bent the rules by allowing us to make our decisions about what to do when our initiative came up rather than declare them in advance.
honestly, I started with 2E and remember it quite well. Pathfinder's version is SOOOO much better. it's always on a very short list of things I am glad died with 2E.
1) I HATED weapons speeds... there's just something frustrating with ALWAYS going last in a round regardless of all other considerations. Now someone with a +14 to INitiative and player with a +0 inititave MAY take turns going first if the +14 rolled bad for a change. There's a consistencey that rewards focusing on that aspect, but it's not perfect and a slower character may still have a good day. Fun for everyone!!!
2) Rolling every single round... takes FOREVER. I'm not sure what your combats look like now... but if you add in a whole new initative rolling every single round, feel free to at least double your combat time. In our groups, we only get about 4 hours to play a week right now... so we would never bring back that kind of iniative. Personally, I'm a huge fan of 'roll once for the combat...' and then 'Hold/ready an action for a different slot if you want...'
Going back to that could be opening up a massive can of worms that really adds very little to the encounters.
I grant rolling every round is slow, though probably not twice as long. There are advantages though. I like the unpredictability of it.
Weapon speeds made an interesting counterbalance to using big weapons for more damage. Also, casting times did a similar thing to encourage the quicker, lower level spells over the more potent high-level ones.
Oh, I'm sure there were reasons for the system... I just don't see the advantages as... advantageous enough to even consider going back. In games like this you always have to find that balance between realism and fun... and if you've got 4-6 players... and the DM has 5-6 enemies... rolling them separately will be like pulling teeth or nails on the chalkboard by round 7 or 8... Heaven forbid someone has animal companions, leadership or summoned anything...
Last couple nights we've had some epic battles actually take us to rounds 17-20 It took HOURS just as it was... I'm extremely confident adding that intitative round, then deciding what you would do based on what everyone else was doing that round... would have added at least another hour.
Much easier to just know you go after the evil necromancer and before your druid and just run with it.
The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG does it that way. Declare your actions lowest initiative to highest, and then carry out actions highest to lowest. GM has to declare too. And if your action gets invalidated... too bad, too slow. :). But it's a much more narrative, cinematic game.
West End Games Star Wars in similar fashion as well. A little slower than 2E D&D, but the declaration order was actually very useful.
I didn't find 2E or 1E initiative slow - quite the opposite, but then the following was how I saw it ran (in different gaming groups in different continents):
- 1) Declare action. The GM just went around the table (alternating starting-on-his-right and starting-on-his-left) and asked people to declare their action.
2) If you couldn't answer (or at least start to) within 1-3 seconds, he skipped you and came back to you once everyone else was done.
3) If you couldn't declare even then, you didn't act that round.
4) GM declared creature/NPC actions
5) Roll initiative.
It was messy, chaotic and frequently saw a lot of missed actions to those who were indecisive... but kinda fun
I would try a staged experiment.
First session: roll for initiative each round without changing anything else (no declaring actions, no weapon speed mods, etc). See how the players react and if this adds the desired level of chaos.
Second session: If everyone's up for more, then fiddle with spell and item speeds, declarations and other elements.
I predict magic daggers will see a rise in popularity when dealing with casters (since in 2E magic bonuses also reduced weapon speeds and daggers were among the fastest weapons). Of course, *any* damage automatically disrupted spells back then so maybe not (casting defensively and all that).
Definitely interested in reading about how this works out.
In a system like this, my instinct would be to 'declare my action' by saying something like, "If there's an opponent within five-foot step of me I'll full-attack, attacking the most injured enemy first and then moving on to the next target. If no-one is close enough to full attack, I'll attack the most valuable target I can get to without provoking an attack of opportunity. The most valuable targets in order are, that guy who looks like a wizard, the archer over there, and after that any of the regular goons, focusing on the most injured. However, if I am below half hit points by the time it gets to my turn I will instead make a Withdraw action unless one of the other PCs looks likely to heal me immediately after my action."
The reason so much was changed from 2nd edition to 3rd edition was that the players were using many of the changes as houserules to begin with.
This was one of them. People simply didn't like the 'declare actions then resolve initiative' rule. It screwed players too often out of their actions.
But, it's your table, you can houserule things as you'd like but imo, this is better off left in the graveyard of rules along with Thac0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rolling initiative every round gives a high chance of enemies getting two attacks on you in a row without you being able to do anything. (Eg, you roll high in the first round and act first, then roll low in the second round and act last.)
As far as I can recall, this wasn't too bad in 2E, but Pathfinder combats are more 'rocket tag' and characters can go from healthy to dead in very little time.
This system seems horrible frankly.
Either you don't declare your actions in which case the players are screwed or you do and then what's to stop them moving out of the way of what you are gonna do?
Initiative bonuses being bigger is an easy fix, half them.