Initiative crits

[Anarakius]

Hey,
Any unforeseen consequences if when rolling for initiative:

Nat 20: One extra action for the first turn
Nat 01: One fewer action for the first turn

Seems generic enough so it doesn't step in any of the classes abilities and it uses part of the already existing crit subsystem.

[thenobledrake]

No "unforeseen" consequences, but plenty of consequences that are foreseen, like it meaning that a caster can cast almost any combination of 2 spells, many characters will no longer have to choose between two attractive action options - basically, to sum up the list, anyone rolling a natural 20 will be gaining a massive bonus (there's a reason most ways of adding an extra action have limits on what that action can be and are restricted to higher levels and/or resource costs).

And anyone rolling a natural 1 is going to go last, which already feels bad, and then also not have their full allotment of actions, and that can result in a player feeling like they shouldn't even bother to participate. Add to that anything happening to the character which further eats up actions like getting stunned or slowed or needing to escape something - or even just needing to move more than one Stride to get in position to do useful things - and you've got "you rolled low on initiative, so you effectively sit out for the first round" as a result of the rule.

Plus, unlike the rolls which the game actually does have critical/failure results assigned to, Initiative is not a thing which every participant is rolling frequently enough for the good rolls and the bad rolls to balance themselves out - one initiative roll applies for the entire combat, which makes any added on results of that roll feel far more potent than if it were just a normal roll.

Would exit table if GM insisted on using this house rule.

[Anarakius]

thenobledrake wrote:

(...) Would exit table if GM insisted on using this house rule.

Thanks for the reply I guess, but you are being overly dramatic. I get that you don't like it, but saying generic things like "MASSIVE" bonus without giving examples sounds hyperbolic and alarmist.

thenobledrake wrote:

And anyone rolling a natural 1 is going to go last, which already feels bad, and then also not have their full allotment of actions, and that can result in a player feeling like they shouldn't even bother to participate

If you are playing with children/teens, maybe I guess? Feeling good/gaining an advantage when you roll a nat 20 and feeling "bad"/taking punishment when you roll a 1 is the whole point of a crit system IMO.

I mean, yeah, rolling a 1 sure would feel bad, but is throwing a tantrum and going "whats the point in participating anymore" really appropriated for a healthy person/adult just because it's taking 2 actions instead of 3 for ONE turn maybe once or twice in a campaign? I don't know, kinda dramatic.

What are you giving up or gaining really? One attack at -10? A step once in a blue moon? Sure, it could have impact, but so is taking double damage, and that's the point of rolling dice.

Now, if you were to say something like "casting these or these 2-action spells in a row would be too much of a killer combo, even it were to happen very very rarely", then sure! yeah, lemme revise it so now you can only perform the extra action after you performed your 3 actions, or maybe it only happens after everybody get their turn, or maybe its a reaction, or so and so.

thenobledrake wrote:

Plus, unlike the rolls which the game actually does have critical/failure results assigned to (...)

This sounds like an unnecessary nab when you realize this is the homebrew/house rules section where people discuss things that the game doesn't actually have. Again, thanks for the effort, I just hoped it could be helpful.

[thenobledrake]

I literally gave you examples, but way to try and dismiss my opinion with insults and buzz-words.

Anarakius wrote:

What are you giving up or gaining really?

If your 3 actions for the turn would be Stride, Raise a Shield, and Strike and you only get 2 actions because you rolled a 1 - you're giving up the Strike, or Raising a shield, since giving up that Stride would likely prevent both the other actions from happening. Alternatively, you could roll a 20 and gain either a Strike at -5 or the ability to use a 2-action attack when normally you would have to choose between Raising your Shield and using that action.

And the odds of someone rolling a 1 or a 20 on initiative is not actually "once in a blue moon" - it's a 10% chance per d20 rolled that one of those two results comes up, and while that doesn't sound like a huge chance, the reality is that it'll be happening multiple times throughout a typical session.

Let's use an example to illustrate: If there's 4 party members, and they face 2 monsters in an encounter, that means there's a 46.86% chance that at least one of those 6 participants is affected by this house rule. So it's actually within the realm of statistical expectations that you not see an encounter that doesn't have someone gaining or losing an action to this house rule.

Anarakius wrote:

Sure, it could have impact, but so is taking double damage, and that's the point of rolling dice.

I'm not trying to stop the dice from having an impact - I'm trying to clue you in to giving the dice too much impact. A Strike getting double damage is a much smaller impact than a combatant getting a change of how many actions they can use in the first round of combat.

And like most rules that reward a random high roll, this favors the opposition more so than it does the PCs - since NPCs are assumed to feature in one encounter and then die, losing an action is a smaller issue despite it impacting survival rate. And since NPCs tend to hit quite hard to make up for their assumed brief lives, getting an extra action is of greater benefit.

Hopefully GM practices other than this house-rule would prevent it, but woe be the party so unlucky as to start an encounter grouped up within reach of a dragon that roll a natural 20 on initiative and got to use it's breath weapon and Draconic Frenzy in the same turn.

Anarakius wrote:

I just hoped it could be helpful.

One of the most useful things you can do for a house-ruling GM is point out that it could be viewed as a negative addition to the game from the perspective of a player.

[Anarakius]

You gave the general notion of alarm and a few subjective what-ifs. I also simply extended the treatment you gave me, if it was more than you meant then it was not my intention. BUT I'm really willing for us to dial it back, specially since your second post is a HUGE improvement over the first.

thenobledrake wrote:

If your 3 actions for the turn would be Stride, Raise a Shield, and Strike and you only get 2 actions because you rolled a 1 - you're giving up the Strike, or Raising a shield, since giving up that Stride would likely prevent both the other actions from happening. Alternatively, you could roll a 20 and gain either a Strike at -5 or the ability to use a 2-action attack when normally you would have to choose between Raising your Shield and using that action.

Well, yes. That's the point, isn't? The issue is that you think taking or not taking one of those is MASSIVE. Sure it might be more impactful than I notice, but I don't think MASSIVE is really true. Not in a game with random rolls where things are always changing drastically already. A less random game, sure, it would probably be the case.

thenobledrake wrote:

Initiative is not a thing which every participant is rolling frequently enough for the good rolls and the bad rolls to balance themselves out - one initiative roll applies for the entire combat, which makes any added on results of that roll feel far more potent than if it were just a normal roll.

thenobledrake wrote:

And the odds of someone rolling a 1 or a 20 on initiative is not actually "once in a blue moon"

Seems a bit contradictory, or at least a blurry line. Seems more like an opinion than something inexorable.

thenobledrake wrote:

And like most rules that reward a random high roll, this favors the opposition more so than it does the PCs - since NPCs are assumed to feature in one encounter and then die, losing an action is a smaller issue despite it impacting survival rate. And since NPCs tend to hit quite hard to make up for their assumed brief lives, getting an extra action is of greater benefit.

That's the most important question raised so far: is rolling a 1 and taking 2 actions more or less impactful than acting 4? Which would be more powerful? Even if your answer seems anecdotal it's a good question that'll give some thought.

thenobledrake wrote:

ut woe be the party so unlucky as to start an encounter grouped up within reach of a dragon that roll a natural 20 on initiative and got to use it's breath weapon and Draconic Frenzy in the same turn.

How many dragons are you encountering?? o_O

Still, I think this conversation established that taking two 2-actions is probably bad.

thenobledrake wrote:

One of the most useful things you can do for a house-ruling GM is point out that it could be viewed as a negative addition to the game from the perspective of a player.

Sure, and that's why I'm here. One just has to remember that a brew you dislike isn't the same as a brew that is badly designed. There are hundreds of rulings that were a thing in systems past, or could be a thing now but didn't make the cut because of a current trend in the play testing community, and that people wouldn't even blink about here because it's so different from what they expect for their tastes.

Cheers

[thenobledrake]

Anarakius wrote:

Seems a bit contradictory, or at least a blurry line.

Only because you are confusing two things as being the same, or even similar.

The first statement - initiative rolls do not happen frequently enough for their effects to be so drastic - is me talking about how you roll intiative once per encounter so the impact of that roll is over the entirety of an encounter, which is very different from a Strike or the like which the game does give critical success/failure results to as those kind of rolls are made multiple times per turn throughout an encounter. So the turn-around is quicker, and the impact of the roll is over a turn rather than the entirety of a combat.

And the second statement - that someone rolling a 1 or a 20 on intiative and thus having this house-rule apply - is me talking about statistics in practice. People often, as you did, treat a 5% chance or a 10% chance as an inherently unlikely outcome and do not adjust their assessment of the liklihood that they see that outcome to match how frequently they are checking - so they say things like "once in a blue moon" as their estimate of how frequently something will happen, but in practice it comes up numerous times in a typical play session.

Anarakius wrote:

One just has to remember that a brew you dislike isn't the same as a brew that is badly designed.

While it is true that bad design is not the only reason to dislike a rule, I think you're missing the point of me mentioning that I, as a player, would not play with this rule in the game.

That point is that you should make sure the the goal of any changes you are making is to enhance the enjoyment of all the people at your table, not just yourself. And I bring it up in concrete terms because there are a lot of GMs out there that mistake players not being as hard-case as I am, and players not actively complaining, for their players actually prefering whatever their house-rules happen to be - when the reality is that many players will deliberately endure rules they can't stand, and keep silent about it, because of reasons like not wanting to have a confrontation with their GM if the GM is upset that they don't like their pet house-rule or because they don't want to put in the effort to find another GM.

So I always encourage a GM to ask them self "is this rule actually improving something for everyone at the table?" and if the answer isn't a definitive "yes" to skip the rule because it's a waste of time and effort and may actually do more harm than anything else.

[Grankless]

I don't really have anything extra to add that nobledrake hasn't already said, but I have to agree basically completely with them.

This is either going to get a PC killed or make them feel really bad.

[Henro]

I give people who crit initiative the benefit of other creatures being flat-footed against them until those creatures act.

This seems like a really swingy houserule that probably leads to a lot of feel-bad (not only did you have to wait for your turn since you went last, you are also losing an action). Getting to go first, and also cast 2 spells in a turn is also massive, if a boss crits initiative with these rules it might cripple the PCs to the point where it's now a massive uphill struggle from the get-go. This last bit doesn't only apply to dragons, many monsters disproportionately benefit from extra actions.

[Anarakius]

Cool, I heard and I've decided to drop it for now, at least until I get a better grip of the system at later levels.

Nevertheless, I can't help but think the whole "feel bad" argument is pure negativity bias, forgetting the whole "feel good" side of it. Statistically it's party neutral, you get as many bad as you get good, and shouldn't give any more of a bad-feel than missing 3 attacks in a row, or taking double damage and getting fatigued.
.:shrugs:.

thenobledrake wrote:

Only because you are confusing two things as being the same, or even similar.

Hmm, no, I think I quite get it. I'm not disputing the statistics, which isn't an issue for me, nor your opinion on the intensity of the repercussions of that ruling over a combat - which, again, is your opinion not fact. I'm disputing your alleged authority over what constitutes a 'proper' frequency for this ruling to be considered, which for you is conveniently both too rare to be balanced and too recurring...for your tastes?

Like I said, the actual frequency is not my main concern, and even with you misreading my 'a step once in a blue moon' like I meant for the whole thing, or even if I was as inept you paint me to be, it would still be besides the point.

Moot point though, as I won't be adding it anyway. Maybe not for the reasons brought by you or the others, but for reasons risen through the dialogue.

Henro wrote:

I give people who crit initiative the benefit of other creatures being flat-footed against them until those creatures act.

Giving the flat-footed condition crossed my mind as well, but it's such a specific condition that may interact with other rules and abilities in way more unforeseen ways than generic actions. For example, it kinda steps a bit into the rogue's surprise attack ability.

I don't know if you realize how much more impacting is giving a negative condition to multiple creatures simply because one individual rolled a critical on the other side. Being on the bad end of that critical is definitely more 'feels-bad' than one action. It also raises questions like what if more than one person or side crit?

Unless you mean that only your PCs benefits from this rule, which is a big buff and a different thing to discuss.

[Henro]

Anarakius wrote:

I don't know if you realize how much more impacting is giving a negative condition to multiple creatures simply because one individual rolled a critical on the other side. Being on the bad end of that critical is definitely more 'feels-bad' than one action.

In practice, it's been a fairly minor but nice boost. Since you only benefit from it for 1 round, you can't really leverage the fact that the penalty is applied to multiple creatures.

Anarakius wrote:

It also raises questions like what if more than one person or side crit?

That's covered; "I give people who crit initiative the benefit of other creatures being flat-footed against them until those creatures act.". If two creatures crit on initiative, the one who goes first will have everyone be flat-footed to them, while the one who goes second will have everyone except the other creature who crit be flat-footed to them.

This really isn't a disruptive change, and it's one I've played with for quite a while now. I should note that I only apply it to nat20s, since the roll 10 higher doesn't really apply very well here.

[Anarakius]

Henro wrote:

In practice, it's been a fairly minor but nice boost. Since you only benefit from it for 1 round, you can't really leverage the fact that the penalty is applied to multiple creatures...

Yes I believe it's true, which Is what I expected the -1/+1 action to work if I were to use it. Like you said, it's only for 1 round and you can't really leverage its implications devoid of context.

If it works for you great, but I'm just mentioning because the basis of what you said to my ruling, the feel-bad symptom, can just as likely be applied to your ruling, if not worse.

"Damn, I rolled 19 but that creature rolled 20 and I still get to get flat-footed despite rolling high!" and etcetera

The flat-footed could be similar to a raise shield/ parry action, and I'm not sure, but I'd consider taking 3 attacks against a flat-footed target at +2/-3/-8 at least equivalent to 4 at 0/-5/-10/-10. The thing is that under your system you can be punished even if you don't roll bad, which I'd grade a step higher in the feels-bad department.

Not only that, but it HEAVILY interacts with the rogue class as at least these features interrelate with the flat-footed (FF) condition:

Ruffian gains a critical specialization against FF
Sneak Attack deals precision damage to FF targets
Surprise Attack - a slighty nerf, since it makes this ability a bit redundant if you crit
Deny Advantage - how it interacts?
Weapon Tricks - adds critical specialization
Debilitation Strike - debuffs with a free action
Master Strike - paralyzation with a free action
Magical Trickster Feat - sneak damage to spell
Twist the Knife Feat - deal persistent bleed damage
Leave an Opening Feat - creates AoO window
Feeling Shot Feat - grounds flying enemy
Dispeling Slice - counteracts active spells

This is a clear buff to the rogue over the other classes under your system, and this was a quick search, so there's possibly more ways this changes the balance between classes and/or other creatures.

Again, if you are happy with it great! But hopefully you and your group understands your method changes the balance of the game in an explicit, non-subjective way.

[glass]

Anarakius wrote:

If you are playing with children/teens, maybe I guess? Feeling good/gaining an advantage when you roll a nat 20 and feeling "bad"/taking punishment when you roll a 1 is the whole point of a crit system IMO.

I am not one of thenobledrake's players. I am however in my forties, and I am firmly of the opinion that "feeling bad" is a bad thing to be doing in my leisure time. And any rule designed to evoke that is a bad rule. This is not an opinion limited to teenagers.

EDIT: You cannot balance out feeling bad with feeling good. Feeling good is what should be happening all the time. It is the point of playing the game!

_
glass.

[Anarakius]

glass wrote:

I am not one of thenobledrake's players. I am however in my forties, and I am firmly of the opinion that "feeling bad" is a bad thing to be doing in my leisure time. And any rule designed to evoke that is a bad rule. This is not an opinion limited to teenagers.

[i]EDIT: You cannot balance out feeling bad with feeling good. Feeling good is what should be happening all the time. It is the point of playing the game!

Cool, but I was just using the concept and the words that were used as counter-arguments, as I don't actually believe them. Like I said, I don't really perceive it as a feels-bad any more than receiving double damage or rolling a 1 on your damage roll, etc.

I do agree, of course, that the whole point of playing the game is to have a net positive feeling(and frankly shouldn't even be implied I thought otherwise), my interpretation being that bad rolls/situations, or "downs", are there to make the "ups" more meaningful and create suspense. That is, "feels-bad" is not an argument. It's subjective, it's opinion without fact and we could draw different conclusions even if we believed the same thing.

Things like "feat x or y abuses this", "this class feature becomes redundant if this happens", "this nerfs the players and buffs npcs because of this or that", is what I'd find more useful when discussing rules.

--

All said, having given up the house ruling at hand for now, I don't mind going back and forth over past words, specially if the goal is to discuss new ways to make it possible instead of simply shutting down the idea. Otherwise It just feels like it's just battling my avatar's words for the sake of discussion, which while I don't personally mind, I fear it's counterproductive for this board.

[shroudb]

Giving a blank "+1 action" breaks the game imo. Not even level 20 features grant blank +1 Actions (for reasons like double spells, double activities, and etc. )

Basically, almost the entirety of +X actions in the game are STRICTLY "+ BASE action" for a reason.

You could limit it like "+1 Stride or Step" to give the one who crits better positioning but personally that would be as far as i would go with extra actions.

For the crit failure, a -1 action is imo too heavy of a penalty as well.

Maybe -10ft speed would be better. It would kinda serve like the counterpoint of the crit success: one allows you to maneuver better, the other limits how you maneuver the first round.

[Fumarole]

I'm in the flat-footed camp for my house rules.

my house rule:

Exceeding your opponent's initiative by ten means that opponent is flat-footed versus you until their first turn. Rolling a 20 means all opponents that act after you are flat-footed to you until their first turn and that you are not flat-footed to anyone else in this manner.