| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you prefer group initiative rolls over individual initiative rolls, or vice versa? Why?
The way I see it, there are pros and cons to both styles of play. Running group initiatives is generally quick and easy, but may give the GM a little too much leeway that he maybe shouldn't have; doing things like having all the warriors surround a PC to all get flanking bonuses, whereas PCs would have to use readied actions to do the same.
Running individual initiatives is closer to what the rules actually intend, but then the fight takes twice as long, the PCs are certain to never go first in large battles, and this setup often gives far more spotlight to the GM than the sum of his players!
In my experience, most everyone uses group initiative, even though it's technically against the rules. Many such people, I've observed, don't even realize that that the rules don't support that style of play. It's just so intuitive, it just kind of comes to them naturally, incidentally.
What do you think? What's your preference and why? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem with Group Initiative can be made less pronounced if you simply do it by fractions, so for your example, roll 2 or 3 initiatives for the orcs, have two on one of them, two on another and two on a third. And don't necessarily make them be the ones next to each other that act together.
I had a GM run individual initiative staunchly and having him role initiative for 12 individual zombies and 4 gallows trees in one fight was just annoying. Especially when 8 of the zombies died to a fireball before any of them acted.
I think there is actually something to be said for a case by case approach now I think about it.
I tend to go by groups, but break larger groups up into multiple "squads." i will also lower the initiative bonus for a squad by one or two sometimes, bit of a least common denominator.
If I didn't have Hero Lab for tracking encounters I'd probably prefer group initiative, but I feel individual initiative is more fair to the players. I agree with you RD, If all the baddies go at the same time, there is a good opportunity for a player character to get swamped.
I've almost always used individual initiative (its what the rules specify after all!) and have almost never had any problems with it. I do tend to limit the number of enemies in encounters to approx. the number of players though. Neither my players nor I have complained that the PCs don't have enough of a spotlight.
Also, we use Roll20 to manage initiative, which I think is a big boon for speed of play.
In the few times when we've had large scale encounters, especially if the enemies are distracted by non-PC actions, I've had the enemy horde act on initiative count 0. But encounters like these are already breaking or ignoring so many pathfinder combat rules for the sake of fun that initiative is just one of many.
Also I don't think it really slows down things that much.
Doesn't really slow things down? How do you figure?
Not even considering the additional rolls it adds to initiative determination, there is a big difference between the GM saying
VS
It's several turns vs one slightly-longer-than-normal single turn.
Individual. Every time. For the reasons you specified.
Plus, it's the rules!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How I do it:
Anything that has the same stats (and thus the same initiative modifier) goes on the same initiative count. Things with different stats get different initiative counts (even if by coincidence they do happen to have the same initiative modifier).
So if I have 6 orc warriors, 2 orc casters, and one orc commander, they'll have three spots on the initiative count total, with the warriors going at the same time, the casters going at the same time, and the commander going on their own.
It's actually never occurred to me to do it any other way, so it's interesting to see how others do it.
(As for the players getting swamped, I've seen the opposite happen more often than not. Woe be the baddie who rolls low on initiative.)
Yeah, but you're not accounting for things like getting distracted, losing focus during all the back and forth, having to repeatedoy state the same or similar actions, etc.
Sure, managing it all will be easier for some than others, but in general it's indisputable that managing large groups of people individually is more difficult and more time consuming than handling them in organized groups.
If all the baddies go at once, then that means all the players go at once too. The "terrible" thing that you predict happening when the enemies go also happens when the players go.
Over my 25 years of gaming, most GM's tend to either swarm the front line, or evenly distribute the enemies when they outnumber players. PC's with low AC tend to take a few more hits in the first round or two, but once the enemies start to get thinned out, the wizard/sorcerer type tends to get their threats removed first.
Pretty common scenario: 5 orcs vs 4 pc's. GM has one orc charge each player, then rolls a die to randomly choose the target for the last orc.
This is anecdotal evidence, but I've had about 20 different people GM for me just in the past 10-15 years and this behavior is surprisingly consistent regardless of age, experience, game system and play style.
I and most of my group use a sort of semi-individual Initiative. We generally roll every creature's initiative separately, but then whenever you have an area that is a mass of allied creature turns (like PCs A, B, C, and then Enemies 1, 2, and 3, and then PCs D and E, then Enemy 4) you have "block turns." Basically it doesn't matter what order they go in, as long as they all go. So, for instance, PC C (a Barbarian) could move in, giving PC A (a Rogue) somewhere to flank, and then if they haven't killed it PC B (an archer) will be willing to burn ammunition resources to contribute too. That said, I expressly forbid splitting turns without explicitly using Readied Actions, so once PC C has moved, even if it's just a 5' step, they either attack, ready, or give up their chance to attack for that round before PC A gets the chance to do anything.
As a note though, my group plays PbP, so the block turns is mainly to support that system, as if it's PC A's turn but PC A's player is offline and PC C's player is online, PC C can go ahead and do their thing if they want to.
We do group initiatives, but to make it a bit easier on the players we allow any non-PC companions (cohorts, animal companions, etc) to act on their own or their associated PC's initiative. A I occasionally do individual for the bad guys, but only if there are 3-4 total. Our groups also frequently use delayed initiatives to disrupt enemies and coordinate offenses, so its not too hard on us.
I personally do it on a case-by-case basis. I have a total of 6 "enemy" slots on my initiative tracker that I carry around. If there are that many or less enemies, everyone has their own initiative.
If there are more enemies than that, I start grouping. I do, however, let my players know I'm doing this. I have and will continue to explain to them that it will keep "my turns" shorter and less time consuming so they have more time deciding what they would like to do on their turns.
How I do it:
Anything that has the same stats (and thus the same initiative modifier) goes on the same initiative count. Things with different stats get different initiative counts (even if by coincidence they do happen to have the same initiative modifier).
So if I have 6 orc warriors, 2 orc casters, and one orc commander, they'll have three spots on the initiative count total, with the warriors going at the same time, the casters going at the same time, and the commander going on their own.
It's actually never occurred to me to do it any other way, so it's interesting to see how others do it.
(As for the players getting swamped, I've seen the opposite happen more often than not. Woe be the baddie who rolls low on initiative.)
Yep that's how I handle it most of the time.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If all the baddies go at once, then that means all the players go at once too. The "terrible" thing that you predict happening when the enemies go also happens when the players go.
Allowing all the baddies to go at once makes things more swingy and has the potential for a TPK if they all act first on as single natural 20, (or might make the encounter a walkover if the baddies all act last on a single natural 1). So it's not really a neutral ruling, it's one that makes the game more dangerous and unpredictable.
One point that the GM should keep in mind is that the combatants all have separate turns even if they are acting as a group. A careless GM could give the monsters an undue advantage if he forgets this.
For example, he might have 4 orcs who are not yet adjacent to any PCs move next to a PC who is ahead of the rest of the group and all attack with flanking. Not so fast -- generally, only 2 of the 4 (at best) should get flanking bonuses if they each move up to the PC and attack.
Conceivably, they could coordinate their attacks with readied actions, but if this is the 1st turn of combat, they may not know how long they would need to wait to get a flanking buddy or whether they would have one before the targeted PC goes.
Group initiative creates an "all-or-nothing" roll. If the roll comes in low then all the NPC's will act late in the turn, but if the roll comes in high then all the NPC's will act early. The level of coordination described by Ragingdork is already possible with individual initiative, but means that the group acts on the lowest initiative count. By rolling group initiative it is significantly more likely that this coordinated group will act earlier in the initiative order than if they'd all rolled individually then delayed.
One approach I've experimented in the past is applying a penalty to group initiative rolls, but I've never been particularly happy with any given method.
We have been using group initiative, but rolling every round.
The effect is very swingy in that sometimes one side gets 2 sets of turns in between the other group's turns. So, the battle can definitely have a tidal effect.
We either use an unmodified d12 for each side's initiative or use the average bonus of each side.
the PCs are certain to never go first in large battles
Presumably, only the mooks are getting group initiative, right? They should almost never beat all the players unless your mooks have Imp Init, +5 Dex bonuses, and a trait or familiar or something giving them yet another initiative bonus. We have a guy with a +11 bonus! He, really wanted to go first forever.
Even players with crazy high initiatives can roll a 1 while mooks can roll a 20. I see it happen all the time.
In any case, the more creatures and characters you have rolling initiative the more likely one or more of them is going to land that nat 20.
the PCs are certain to never go first in large battlesPresumably, only the mooks are getting group initiative, right? They should almost never beat all the players unless your mooks have Imp Init, +5 Dex bonuses, and a trait or familiar or something giving them yet another initiative bonus. We have a guy with a +11 bonus! He, really wanted to go first forever.
My group running Carrion Crown right now has one person with +10 Init at level 2. They frequently roll low and go at best middle of the pack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a relatively new DM, but in general I just Take 10 on enemy initiative and let their different bonuses separate them into groups.
However, if there's a "Boss" or leader type in the encounter, I'll roll their initiative.
|
If I'm using the excellent Combat Manager program, then I go individual initiative, because it does it that way for me.
If I'm not using a program, then I'll create groups of creatures, because I'm lazy. However, each individual creature needs to take its full compliment of actions even if they are acting on the same number in initiative. It means that if there's six orcs, the first one might charge up. A second might try and go in for a flank (provoking for doing so), a third won't be able to get the flank because he doesn't have a flank buddy yet, the 4th will get the flank etc.
If there are so many creatures as to make that unmanageable, then I turn that group of creatures into a Troop, and use those rules for adjudicating their actions.
One point that the GM should keep in mind is that the combatants all have separate turns even if they are acting as a group. A careless GM could give the monsters an undue advantage if he forgets this.
For example, he might have 4 orcs who are not yet adjacent to any PCs move next to a PC who is ahead of the rest of the group and all attack with flanking. Not so fast -- generally, only 2 of the 4 (at best) should get flanking bonuses if they each move up to the PC and attack.
Conceivably, they could coordinate their attacks with readied actions, but if this is the 1st turn of combat, they may not know how long they would need to wait to get a flanking buddy or whether they would have one before the targeted PC goes.
That's only a problem if you move everyone at once. I don't, though I do use group initiative.
In the past, if I didn't use group initiative, instead of 1 hour per round, it would have taken 2. Yeah, we were that slow. With my new and improved GM abilities, and a few attitude adjustment sessions, I have managed to get our combat streamlined in such a way that I may be able to reconsider this. Hell's Rebels may be the test case.
Also I don't think it really slows down things that much.Doesn't really slow things down? How do you figure?
Not even considering the additional rolls it adds to initiative determination, there is a big difference between the GM saying
VS
It's several turns vs one slightly-longer-than-normal single turn.
There is a slow down with the initial rolling of multiple initiatives and then ordering them. The real slow down comes from all of the extra checking of the initiative tracker; matching initiative number with the appropriate model multiple time times per round. You also have to analyze the situation multiple times per round as things will have changed due to player actions since the last NPC action. All told this will increase the time spent by the GM 10-25%. So the slow down may be minor, but it is real.
If all the baddies go at once, then that means all the players go at once too. The "terrible" thing that you predict happening when the enemies go also happens when the players go.Allowing all the baddies to go at once makes things more swingy and has the potential for a TPK if they all act first on as single natural 20, (or might make the encounter a walkover if the baddies all act last on a single natural 1). So it's not really a neutral ruling, it's one that makes the game more dangerous and unpredictable.
Do ambushes exist as a thing in this game? Because it's no worse than an encounter that is an ambush.
Here's the thing, the GM has the power to design any encounter in such a way that the players have no hope of winning. Part of being an experienced GM is knowing how powerful an encounter you are actually designing, especially considering certain types of tactics. A good GM can take believable actions with enemies that aren't overwhelming if the GM knows they're in position to completely destroy the players.
This is a game of dice, so that natural swing is always going to exist. In the link you provided there is the story of 13 vampires with 13 fireballs. For one, if those are say 8th level sorcerers (sake of convenience, it's the stat block available), that is a CR 16 encounter. Setting up this encounter to have the vampires all fireball on round 1 is just bad GMing. Even if the players go first, if you want to pick off a player, 10-12 of them will still be able to all fireball one or two characters. If the party arcane caster doesn't have resistance/immunity to fire, if you REALLY want to kill them you can. I mean, the vampires could also just all cast magic missile at one target and dish out ~180 points of damage. No save, no resistance, no attack roll, just 52d4+52. It wouldn't matter if they did it all at once or not if they just all picked one target to focus on during the round.
An 11th level Cleric with an 18 Constitution on average will have 97 hp. An 18th level Cleric with an 18 Constitution will have 157 hp on average.
A GM has to know what an encounter is capable of and either adjust it, or use tactics that keep it dangerous but not overwhelming.
Do ambushes exist as a thing in this game? Because it's no worse than an encounter that is an ambush.
Ambushes are dangerous too, but there's more you can do to avoid an ambush than you can do to prevent the enemies rolling high initiative.
And they're not mutually exclusive, so it adds the possibility of making an ambush twice as bad. "The invisible vampires all get a surprise round and all throw fireballs at you. Now it's the first round. The vampires all get natural twenties on their initiative rolls. They all throw fireballs at you. You all take 893 damage. Reflex save for half. OK, now it's your turn."
|
I generally do group initiative for this reason: Time management. I have played in games where the GM insists on rolling individual initiative for every single last combatant, and things slow to an absolute crawl, adding at least a half hour to an hour to our combats. Now I realize that this isn't the sole factor in causing combats to come to a crawl, and some GMs are better than others at planning out and executing their battle strategies (or reacting quickly to changes), while others take a bit more time to plan or look things up. The same goes for players as well. But I feel that individual initiative rolls for groups of statistically-identical NPC adversaries do slow things down. The same goes for players as well.
When I run, my groups tend to have a good number of players (5-6 on average) and I often put in several adversaries to up the challenge level for them. Because of this, when I have them fighting, say, a group of eight elite hobgoblin warriors plus their commander and supporting battle cleric, I will roll separate initiative for the commander, separate for the cleric, and group the eight elite warriors together (or perhaps two groups of 4-member squads, one ranged, one melee or something similar). My combats tend to go rather swiftly, and my players do not have to wait 15 to 30 minutes for their turn tapping the table impatiently or playing Candy Crush, and I think that rolling group initiatives helps to achieve this.
Do ambushes exist as a thing in this game? Because it's no worse than an encounter that is an ambush.Ambushes are dangerous too, but there's more you can do to avoid an ambush than you can do to prevent the enemies rolling high initiative.
And they're not mutually exclusive, so it adds the possibility of making an ambush twice as bad. "The invisible vampires all get a surprise round and all throw fireballs at you. Now it's the first round. The vampires all get natural twenties on their initiative rolls. They all throw fireballs at you. You all take 893 damage. Reflex save for half. OK, now it's your turn."
If the GM is intent on fireballing the one player who has no special defenses and cannot prevent the fireballs from happening, how does spread out initiative help? He only takes 24 fireballs instead of 26, because the party managed to kill 2 vampires before they got their second fireball off.
The problem in this scenario isn't initiative, it's the GM and their encounter design strategy.
Well, in the link I gave earlier:
I've been burned by GMs that grouped difficult creatures into one initiative. The best example is the 13 vampire sorcerers that won initiative and hit us with 13 simultaneous fireballs before we could act. We explained to the GM that now everyone in the party was dead, which was pretty unfair, so we asked the GM to split up their initiative for us. He agreed that it was pretty lame, rewound the combat and rolled up more initiatives.
So according to this one anecdote, it matters. (Though not very often.) After all, in a high level game, in a non-ambush situation it could make the difference between "everyone without fire resistance 30 is dead" and "the party takes two fireballs and then the wizard casts a spell that blocks fireballs / teleports everyone to safety".
Again, I'm saying the problem is in the GM encounter design, putting in a situation where the party has to absorb 13 fireballs. As GM, you should know what kind of threat that is to the party. If you aren't aware, you aren't doing your job as GM.
How I do it:
Anything that has the same stats (and thus the same initiative modifier) goes on the same initiative count. Things with different stats get different initiative counts (even if by coincidence they do happen to have the same initiative modifier).
So if I have 6 orc warriors, 2 orc casters, and one orc commander, they'll have three spots on the initiative count total, with the warriors going at the same time, the casters going at the same time, and the commander going on their own.
This is how I do it as well. I've never had the issues with the enemies swarming and flanking the PCs as mentioned (it happens, but I wouldn't call it a problem) as this also has the drawback of the enemies not being able to adequately respond to what the PCs do because their turns are clumped up. Say the orc mages act before the commander (using Meraki's example). The orc mages take their turn, then the witch PC puts the commander to sleep. Now they all have to wait until their next turn for one of them to go over and wake him up, whereas with individual initiatives there's a chance at least one of them still has a turn after this happens. Similar could be said for if the enemy commander needs healing from his minions needs but his clerics have all taken their turn already etc. So kinda six of one, half a dozen of the other for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Individual, always. For non random encounters when there are large groups of enemies involved I previously roll the dice before starting the session. Scrabble letters placed on enemy miniatures are pretty handy to rember who was who.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Group initiatives because it's faster and easier. I'm always careful to ensure readied actions are taken as required. Sometimes it gives the NPCs an advantage, sometimes it gives the PCs an advantage - it all balances out in the end.
I strongly prefer individual initiatives. It prevents a single lucky roll for Initiative on the NPC's part from dominating the combat.
I believe it is critical that this be done for spellcasters.
That said, when you move to PbP grouping initiatives really speeds things up. In order to keep things moving you need to group up the PC actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Group initiative. Even the example of play used it.
...may give the GM a little too much leeway that he maybe shouldn't have; doing things like having all the warriors surround a PC to all get flanking bonuses, whereas PCs would have to use readied actions to do the same.
Meh.
First of all, each round is happening simultaneously, so having a bunch of creatures "go at once" actually makes perfect sense. Second, the PCs don't have to use readied actions... they can delay, and retain their full action economy. Of course, that shows the true difference; PCs would "have to" all act on their worst initiative roll, where the warriors act on a single roll. Still, given that PCs usually have better overall stats, and will tend to pump initiative, you're often talking about one roll (whatever Joe McSlow gets) mattering, so it's all a wash.
Non-issue.
Group initiative. Easier on the GM and keeps events moving. Also feels a bit more cinematic to have waves of monsters charging or shooting you. It does raise the stakes sometimes (for reasons mentioned above) but it varies with the mob. Heck yes goblins and wolves will surround you; skeletons and zombies--not so much.
If they acting all at once, can I catch them all in a short range area attack as they close in on me? Or can I only catch the one that moves first as would normally happen with everyone moving individually?
This actually happened in our game tonight! Duppies were using flyby attack and lunge to continually harass the PCs from total cover.
Finally, the cleric readied an action to channel energy to hurt them once they all got close.
Now, normally, that would be fine, since we run group initiative in my games (per the play example in the Core Rulebook). However, one of my players specifically called me out on group initiative earlier in the game, saying it's fine to have them all act on the same initiative count, but that they must still take their actions one after another.
So when I later said that one Duppy would come out and attack, then disappear into the floor, then another would do the same after, the readied action could never trigger as stated, or at least could never hit more than one of the seven duppies in the encounter.
This upset the players somewhat (they were losing pretty hard for the first time in four years), but they couldn't refute the logic that they themselves had thrown at me earlier in the evening.
After 20 years of doing it a certain way, we're only now having discussions about how we want to run initiative moving forward.
As such, I'm even more interested in hearing what others have to say on this particular issue.
Why do people keep mentioning delay? You can't act simultaneously as another by using delay.
It just let's you put your turn before or after someone else's.
I assume he meant "clumped together" rather than actually simultaneously. PF doesn't have much in the way of simultaneous actions, which is hilarious if you want to, e.g., walk side by side with someone to keep them from leaving your aura. We just house rule a special delay for that purpose.