| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your result is tied with a foe’s result, the adversary goes first.
I'm a new player and I already hate it. Is there an optional rule the GM can use to settle ties differently, or must an entire house rule be introduced?
I always think of the variant rules and alternative rules in the rule books to be pretty much the same as a houserule - just one that was created by the game devs instead of the player groups themselves.
What specifically do you not like about the rules for ties in Initative?
PF2 doesn't have nearly as much rocket tag as previous editions, so going second isn't as much of a penalty as it used to be.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are special feat options for players to "beat the system." If you want to always win ties to initiative you can consider being an Elf and taking Elven Instincts at level 5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always think of the variant rules and alternative rules in the rule books to be pretty much the same as a houserule - just one that was created by the game devs instead of the player groups themselves.
What specifically do you not like about the rules for ties in Initative?
PF2 doesn't have nearly as much rocket tag as previous editions, so going second isn't as much of a penalty as it used to be.
It just seems mean and arbitrary. It's as if the rules of the universe have decided to bend in favor of the monsters in an already brutal game. I mean, I know logically that the enemies will be less likely to go first, since most enemies fought will be lower level. But I mean, come on! It just straight up tells you "the adversary goes first" with no exceptions. If I hadn't read this before joining my first game and learned about this in-game, I would not believe the GM. It's just unbelievably mean.
Though frankly, I wouldn't like the reverse, either. If I automatically win ties just as a core rule rather than an earned feat, it feels like I'm getting a handout. It doesn't even save a lot of time to pick one side and say they win. One coin toss and the order would be decided in seconds. Basically, I would much rather ties of this nature be handled impartially, otherwise it doesn't feel fair.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the rule as is. Unless the party plans to do any buffing, then having the enemy go first usually means the enemy is spending actions moving instead of the PCs. This allows the PCs to spend their actions attacking or whatever instead of moving closer to their targets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the rule as is. Unless the party plans to do any buffing, then having the enemy go first usually means the enemy is spending actions moving instead of the PCs. This allows the PCs to spend their actions attacking or whatever instead of moving closer to their targets.
If the PCs really want to make the enemies come to them, can't they just use ranged weapons or the Delay free action?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just seems mean and arbitrary.
Well, what do you do in other game systems?
And there are many options for alternatives to resolve ties in initiative order. The only people you need to convince are the people that you play with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like it personally.
Both as a GM and a player.
Plus as others have said, there are feats that can change this is you the PC goes first.
|
I always think of the variant rules and alternative rules in the rule books to be pretty much the same as a houserule - just one that was created by the game devs instead of the player groups themselves.
What specifically do you not like about the rules for ties in Initative?
PF2 doesn't have nearly as much rocket tag as previous editions, so going second isn't as much of a penalty as it used to be.
It just seems mean and arbitrary. It's as if the rules of the universe have decided to bend in favor of the monsters in an already brutal game. I mean, I know logically that the enemies will be less likely to go first, since most enemies fought will be lower level. But I mean, come on! It just straight up tells you "the adversary goes first" with no exceptions. If I hadn't read this before joining my first game and learned about this in-game, I would not believe the GM. It's just unbelievably mean.
Though frankly, I wouldn't like the reverse, either. If I automatically win ties just as a core rule rather than an earned feat, it feels like I'm getting a handout. It doesn't even save a lot of time to pick one side and say they win. One coin toss and the order would be decided in seconds. Basically, I would much rather ties of this nature be handled impartially, otherwise it doesn't feel fair.
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Ties happen at most 5% of the time (per player/monster combination). Because for each number you roll on initiative, there can be only one number the enemy rolls where they get exactly the same end result and therefore tie with you.
The odds of it happening are often actually lower than 5%, because you probably don't have the same initiative modifier as the monster. If you have a +5 initiative and the monster has a +7, then if you roll a 1 or 2 the monster can't tie with you. So there's only a 90% * 5% = 4.5% chance of a tie.
The current rule is pretty practical; the GM can just quickly tally results and you don't have to do any roll-offs to break ties.
But if you want a standard rule to change it: just use the Scouting exploration tactic. Any roll that without scouting would have been a tie that you lost, you now have +1 over the monster so there's no tie and you just win. Any new ties that happen now and that you'd lose, without scouting you'd have lost that one anyway.
So you're not getting a "handout" and you're not using house rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rule of tie you loose the initiative IMO is basically a tax to sell feats like Pilgrim's Token and Elven Instincts. But if you don't like this you can convince your GM to use other untie rules like re-rolls between tied chars or use who had the best bonus or the best roll. This isn't a thing that will break the balance of the game or something like that just may turn Pilgrim's Token useless but it isn't a great problem.
I like the rule as is. Unless the party plans to do any buffing, then having the enemy go first usually means the enemy is spending actions moving instead of the PCs. This allows the PCs to spend their actions attacking or whatever instead of moving closer to their targets.If the PCs really want to make the enemies come to them, can't they just use ranged weapons or the Delay free action?
The two ideas are not exclusive. I am just noting that having the enemies use up actions to move is usually what happens when they go first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, what do you do in other game systems?
D&D 5e leaves player-monster ties up to the dungeon master. My DM settles ties with Dexterity scores or, failing that, a d20 roll. He does not just say, "Well, my monster goes first just for not being you."
So no, they're not really less arbitrary. But they are at least impartial. If both rolls are equivalent, why should one be treated as intrinsically worth more?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do attackers win ties against DCs for success results but not for critical failure results?
Some things are just the nature of dice games and the less a GM is trying to come up with some arbitrary rule to decide a result that is really meaningful at most 1 time in the whole encounter is really not a good use of everyone's game time. If players always win ties, then there really is no where else to go with that for players. If monsters default to winning ties, then players for whom winning initiative is a really big deal (like maybe full casters and possibly rogues, although I see that ending badly for them as often as being useful) can meaningfully invest in getting that very slight additional edge.
GMs don't build NPCs to defeat the player characters so any ability that could grant monsters that ability would just feel mean and spiteful to give to a monster that can really benefit from going first.
Overall, I think the rules as given is the fastest and most sensible decision to make to have an easy fast rule to follow that requires looking nothing up, but players who really want to change it can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do attackers win ties against DCs for success results but not for critical failure results?
That is not the same thing. Players and monsters can both play either role in an attack: attacker or receiver. Both play the same role when initiative is rolled.
Some things are just the nature of dice games and the less a GM is trying to come up with some arbitrary rule to decide a result that is really meaningful at most 1 time in the whole encounter is really not a good use of everyone's game time.
Why does everyone keep saying that I shouldn't care how initiative ties are resolved just because of how rare they are? When it happens, it matters for the entire encounter. Initiative isn't rerolled every round. If my GM runs a high-level dragon and I tie the dragon in initiative, it would sting a lot less if the dragon went first due to a impartial coin toss rather than "because he's your adversary." What kind of reason is that? I'm the dragon's adversary!
If players always win ties, then there really is no where else to go with that for players. If monsters default to winning ties, then players for whom winning initiative is a really big deal (like maybe full casters and possibly rogues, although I see that ending badly for them as often as being useful) can meaningfully invest in getting that very slight additional edge.
I don't understand. Isn't boosting initiative good regardless of how ties are handled? This isn't really a reason for or against the enemies always winning the ties.
GMs don't build NPCs to defeat the player characters so any ability that could grant monsters that ability would just feel mean and spiteful to give to a monster that can really benefit from going first.
Wait, now you're saying monsters shouldn't have the ability to invest in their initiative because it would be mean and spiteful? How is that more mean and spiteful than just automatically winning ties? I need a feat to automatically win ties, but all monsters just get that for free?
Overall, I think the rules as given is the fastest and most sensible decision to make to have an easy fast rule to follow that requires looking nothing up, but players who really want to change it can.
How does handing enemies a win card prevent the need to look up the rule? If the rule instead asked for a coin toss, it would take the same amount of time to look up, and not a lot of time to implement. In the rare event of multiple ties happening at once, you could even just settle them all with the same coin toss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate this rule. And I'm a rules lawyer, so I always strive to stick to the rules. So I hate that I hate this rule. But wow, I really hate this rule.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule of tie you loose the initiative IMO is basically a tax to sell feats like Pilgrim's Token and Elven Instincts.
It's not, and misusing terms like feat tax just waters them down.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the rule. It's one less rule I have to worry about.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are overthinking it.
In PF2 fights are very rarely determined by the 1st round of the first character to act. Having one consistent “X wins ties” means that there is no additional steps to determining initiative than everyone rolling the dice and then making a list of the numbers. No time is wasted with coin flips or roll offs. Players who want to maximize their chances of going first have a couple of options for improving those odds.
Most of the time, for most characters, it won’t mater that much, and so the rule as is probably helps newer players avoid making the common mistake of spending a round moving into a horrible position for retaliation. Taking more table time to randomly determine who goes first in the case of a tie only slows the game down for very little significance to the outcome of the encounter.
Saw some math earlier and got interested. Unless I'm misunderstanding something about the probability, assuming one party doesn't have a modifier that is 20 higher than the other, there's actually only a 1 in 400 chance of rolling a tie when you compare one PC to one monster.
In the adventuring career of a PC, you will probably meet very many monster, often more than one per fight, so your odds do increase, but it is entirely possible to fight 400 monsters and it never happen once. Or it could happen on your first fight.
On the other hand, if you prefer "The GM just chooses", why not just do that? The rules are in your hands. I like enemies automatically go first because it keeps it automatic and simple. Players can decide amongst themselves to coordinate.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, my first thought when coming across the rule was "that'll make things easier", and that's all. I can't say that it ever crossed my mind that it was unfair or spiteful. I mean, somebody has to go first.
*shrug*
This clearly bothers you. I'm sorry to say, I can't relate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combats rarely last longer than 3 or 4 rounds in pf2e; having another opportunity for the slaughter house chattel I pilot to cling to life just a *little* bit longer in combat so that I can do fun stuff is always appreciated. Never forget that your DM is playing a game too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use dex modifiers for ties on initiative as a house rule. But, I do like a lot of the suggestions in this thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't going to be convinced.
Imo your just mad that players lose ties because you want there to be a chance.
Just house rule it, but don't expect it to change
I honestly at this point feel it's a waste of time to try to convince someone whose already made up there mind.
Happy gaming op
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just seems mean and arbitrary.
It's not arbitrary, it's because Hero Points are a burden and as such slightly reduce the PCs reaction time.
Maybe your house rule can be that any player can give up getting hero points, since it is pretty unfair that monsters never get those, and in exchange that player can roll off for initiative in the case of a tie.
However, this is a pretty massive power decrease, so I’d be careful about making it mandatory.
|
The rule of tie you loose the initiative IMO is basically a tax to sell feats like Pilgrim's Token and Elven Instincts. But if you don't like this you can convince your GM to use other untie rules like re-rolls between tied chars or use who had the best bonus or the best roll. This isn't a thing that will break the balance of the game or something like that just may turn Pilgrim's Token useless but it isn't a great problem.
Not a tax : agency in the players' hands. The other way around would need some NPCs to have a special ability to act first in case of the tie. Based just on GM-fiat.
Much better design the way it is handled now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone else made the point earlier but it bears repeating, any player in the party can take the scouting action, and the basic equivalent result is that players win ties by default. So instead of the GM arbitrarily deciding who wins ties, it is sort of up to the players to just decide as a team if it matters to them or not.
|
|
Saw some math earlier and got interested. Unless I'm misunderstanding something about the probability, assuming one party doesn't have a modifier that is 20 higher than the other, there's actually only a 1 in 400 chance of rolling a tie when you compare one PC to one monster.
Yeah Pronate11 gave the math explanation already, that's what I was getting at too.
Of course the chance that any PC will tie with any enemy in a 5 on 5 fight is a lot higher than 1/20th.
But still, to keep things in perspective: the "mean" thing isn't that enemies win ties. The mean thing is that enemies generally have fairly high modifiers for their level.
Ah, I get where I went wrong. Thank you for the explanations! Thought it seemed unusually low.
I like the rule since it's very easy to apply. "The player always goes first in case of a tie" would also be very easy to apply, so if people really cared I might switch to that but I like to avoid things like roll-offs or comparing stats when the alternative is "not doing those."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I'll give the rule a chance. Maybe I'll warm up to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is a good attitude. See if it gets under your skin and consider scouting as an exploration activity to give the whole team an edge if going first feels valuable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to justify the rule, I'd point out that the game is generally more interesting if creatures get a chance to do whatever their unique THING is before they get wasted by the party. Winning ties just slightly buffs their chances of getting to do that.
The rule of tie you loose the initiative IMO is basically a tax to sell feats like Pilgrim's Token and Elven Instincts.It's not, and misusing terms like feat tax just waters them down.
The rule of tie you loose the initiative IMO is basically a tax to sell feats like Pilgrim's Token and Elven Instincts. But if you don't like this you can convince your GM to use other untie rules like re-rolls between tied chars or use who had the best bonus or the best roll. This isn't a thing that will break the balance of the game or something like that just may turn Pilgrim's Token useless but it isn't a great problem.Not a tax : agency in the players' hands. The other way around would need some NPCs to have a special ability to act first in case of the tie. Based just on GM-fiat.
Much better design the way it is handled now.
I admit that tax isn't the better word but you understand the context. It was a rule that was put in there to be able to sell a feat workaround for it. The designer could be easily made other untie options like re-rolls or used a bonus our dice number has untie but they choose to give the "advantage" to the NPCs/Monsters and then put feat to allow players to invert it.
Alright, I'll give the rule a chance. Maybe I'll warm up to it.
Give the rule a chance because it's hardly will make any significant effect in practice.
Going after the monster isn't always bad. Sure, if you can take it down before it gets to act then it never hurts anybody but that's very rare in this edition. But if you go right after the monster and inflict "Dazzled" on it, for example, the entire party will get a chance to hide from the monster (getting the straight up 50% failure to target the character on top of the 20% miss chance from concealement) whereas if you went before the monster then it's just the 20% chance from concealment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule of tie you loose the initiative IMO is basically a tax to sell feats like Pilgrim's Token and Elven Instincts.It's not, and misusing terms like feat tax just waters them down.The rule of tie you loose the initiative IMO is basically a tax to sell feats like Pilgrim's Token and Elven Instincts. But if you don't like this you can convince your GM to use other untie rules like re-rolls between tied chars or use who had the best bonus or the best roll. This isn't a thing that will break the balance of the game or something like that just may turn Pilgrim's Token useless but it isn't a great problem.Not a tax : agency in the players' hands. The other way around would need some NPCs to have a special ability to act first in case of the tie. Based just on GM-fiat.
Much better design the way it is handled now.
I admit that tax isn't the better word but you understand the context. It was a rule that was put in there to be able to sell a feat workaround for it. The designer could be easily made other untie options like re-rolls or used a bonus our dice number has untie but they choose to give the "advantage" to the NPCs/Monsters and then put feat to allow players to invert it.
Alright, I'll give the rule a chance. Maybe I'll warm up to it.Give the rule a chance because it's hardly will make any significant effect in practice.
As mentioned by Unicore above, even 1 PC taking the Scout action is enough of a "workaround", no feats needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I....really can't relate to you at all, sorry. But if it bothers you and you are a rules lawyers, as per your own words, have one of the PCs use the Scouting exploration activity (it's a good habit regardless). It will make you win every tie that could happen (but it could make new ties that you lose, but those you would have lost anyway).
As per the effect that has on the game, I legit think as a new player, it's cool that you're reading and worrying ahead, but I don't think you have the capacity to judge how impactful that is or isn't in the game. Combats are not decided on initiative in this system, most of the time, and on occasions where you HATE your position, the Delay action lets the entire table shuffle around and move to better spots on the initiative.