| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking about this alternative initiative system for years now, and the other thread convinced me to make a post about it and let the discussion start.
My idea is handling combat time as a continuum instead of splitting it into rounds.
So, let me introduce you to 'time units', each 0.3 seconds long (so that a round equals 20 time units).
During combat there is a time count, starting at zero (or -10, or something like that in case of surprise). Everyone rolls initiative, and writes down theirs. Low is good!
Time starts flowing: the time count goes up until it matches the lowest current initiative; that player - or monster - plays his turn, then he increases his initiative by a number that depends on the actions he took; rinse and repeat.
What doesn't change from PF standard initiative system:
- Combatants can still take a full round worth of actions altogether, and choose their actions when their turn is up.
- Tracking the durations of spells and other effects - actually, I think it's easier and more accurate: expiration is set at current time count + (rounds * 20).
Pros (mostly added options):
- Combatants have the option to split their actions, taking only a standard or a move... or a swift. This should cost more time than taking a full turn, but it gives a chance to implement different tactics, and removes sillinesses like 'no sorry, you can't use a standard actions in place of a swift'.
- The move + full attack option many people seem to like may become an option: you can do it, but you also spend more time doing that (unless you can Pounce).
- If you want to add some randomness, you can add a die roll to the initiative count each time you act, on top of the normal action time cost.
- One could develop a system where the time it takes to swing a weapon depens on the kind of weapon used.
Cons:
- A little more bookkeeping, but I believe it's not really much when you get used to the system.
- Initiative bonuses may have to be reworked a bit: you could just subtract them from the initial roll, but I think some problems may arise. On the other hand, one could decide to consider those bonuses (or part of them) every time a combatant takes its turn, making swift characters act more often, instead of just going first when the combat starts.
Questions? Ideas? Critiques?
I use a system very similar to this I designed. It works really, really well, and we've found we greatly prefer it.
My "round" counts are 60 counts, so 10 counts per second. At the beginning of combat everyone rolls 1d20, low is better, and adds their "base" Init score. This is determined by size category (medium is 40 counts, small is 35, etc.), minus your DexMod, minus your Reflex base (rogues progress to be naturally quicker over time).
When you act on your initiative count, you reroll according to the action. For example, at Initiative count 80, Valeros attacks the goblin with his Longsword. After determining success or failure, he rolls initiative: 1d20+his base Init (let's say 37)+his weapon initiative and/or action cost. His longswords initiative cost in my system is 4+1d8 (martial weapon is 2, 1-handed weapon is 2, plus damage). If he rolled a 10 on his d20, and a 5 on his damage dice, his new initiative would be 80+37+10+4+5=136. So he next acts on count 136 (or 5.6 seconds later). Valeros is affected by his ACP every turn as well, and his heavier armor slows his response time down more than an unarmored monk, say. It's a trade off. Movement speed, initiative quickness...traded for higher Defense and higher DR. Bigger weapons move slower...so a dagger is 1d4+2 on the initiative cost, while a two-handed sword is much higher, and conversely, slower.
I have it built so that at lower levels you act a little SLOWER than once per round, so that as you get higher and higher levels, you get more actions quicker. And the number doesn't really matter, really. When Count 23 goes, and the next Count ready is 2000, you just do next...it doesn't slow things down at all. And it allows for combat to shift back and forth, a lucky initiative roll each round can make you go twice before someone else. Not often, but it happens.
Movement is separate, which allows for active situations like tackling an enemy WHILE their charging across the room. You interrupt and intercept their movement, which is way more visceral and responsive. You can move at ANY time, but you still have to wait out until your next "turn". So Valeros could immediately move 20 ft. After the attack. His movement speed of 20 ft. (Which in my system is 10 counts/5 ft. At that speed) would add 40 to his score. So at 80 count he attacks, then moves 4 squares at 10 counts each, arriving at 120, and THEN adds the 56, getting 176 as when he can next do an action; attacking, etc. He just delays his next action while he moves.
Good side-effects of this system:
It's active and responsive, and feels fluid and more realistic.
Heavily armored people respond and fight slower.
High Dex high reflex and smaller characters respond and fight quicker.
Players can't zone out till their turn comes back because you can potentially act NOW in a lot of situations. They pay attention and strategize more.
Because EVERYONE is affected by it and calculated the same, there are slower monsters, and NPC's that are quick quick now. So balance remains.
Now, before anyone says "but it's stupid", or "but it's too complex", or, "but it wouldn't work, because reasons" - I'm glad you think it's stupid, I don't care. We prefer it, it works for us. This is a hyper not explained in detail post that likely leaves more questions than answers. :) Yes, its complex. We pre-calculate everything (just like you don't calculate your AC every round, you had all the bonuses up and list it as +8 and your done), so it's not that complex in play. And it DOES work well for our style of play. It may not for yours. My rule system is a heavily changed up system that sometimes barely resembles d20, but it tends to work, and I'm okay with that. :D
So I'm impressed, Megistone, that you came up with a similar functioning system. Well done.
I don't see how it adds much to the game.
Mostly by creating a system that allows more customization (one could go as far as assigning a time cost to any action, instead of linking them to a swift, move or standard), and opening options to take partial rounds.
Do you want to make half a move and wait to see how the situation evolves? You can. Do you want to make a vital strike build? You can make single attacks without wasting your entire round. The Paladin wants to heal himself more? He can spend his time taking swift actions, forgoing his attacks but using more than one Lay on Hands before the enemy strikes again.
If you aren't going to use any of these option, the system becomes just a different way to track combat time: nothing added, indeed.
A system -sort of- like this was in place in 1st edition. Weapons had a weapons speed and spells had a casting time measured in... segments I think. Attacking with a dagger was faster than attacking with a halberd. Some spells had lighter effects but could be cast more quickly. Even when I played that edition we ignored this system because taking turns was much simpler.
You can accomplish most of that with readied actions without adding a ton of unnecessary book keeping. I think a system like this would work pretty well in a tactical tabletop game with peripherals to help actions and timing. But for Pathfinder, it's little more than a gimmick.
Readied actions can do something, but not as much.
About bookkeeping, the basic version of this variant (no customization, no random roll added, just the option to take partial turns) doesn't require much of that: you just have to add a number - usually 20, another number if you take a partial turn, but it would be easy to remember the few cases we have - to the initiative count when you end your turn.
The order may change, but it's not different from when you delay, or take a redied action.
Anything that complicates initiative is a no-no in my book.