|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 10:18AM
#1
|
|
|
How do you think it should work?
Simple?
This would be the group initiative rules that were standard from 1974 to 1999.
Complex?
This would be the optional individual initiative rules in 1e, and the cyclical rules in 3 and 4.
Really Complicated?
This would be the weapon-speed modified optional individual iniatitive rules from 2e.
---
My vote would be for the group rule. One person rolls initiative, and that's it. Each side takes a turn. A single combat round is 2 turns (Players, Monsters) instead of 10 turns (5 Players, 5 Monsters), and thus immediately takes a fraction of the time.
The insatiable drive to make it more 'realistic' is the only reason individual initiative took off. It takes more rolling, more recordkeeping, people forget when their turn is, people have to WAIT for their turn, so they get bored and lose track of what's going on. Look up 'Initiative Tracker' in Google - there's a mini-industry around trying to make this task slightly less unpleasant.
If you have a cottage industry designing ways to make a part of your game less annoying, it might be a good idea to take a long look at just getting rid of that part.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 10:24AM
#2
|
|
|
There was group initiative in 2nd? I remember weapon speed, but I thought everyone rolled there own inish. Please referesh my memory.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 10:36AM
#3
|
|
|
Pages 93-94 in the 2nd ed. PHB.
"Initiative is normally determined with a single roll for each side in a conflict. This tells whether all the members of the group get to act before or after those of the other side(s).
There are also two optional methods that can be used to determine initiative. Each of these optional methods breaks the group action down into more individual initiatives."
They absolutely knew that breaking the group action down into a ton of individual actions drastically slows down the game. That's why it's an option, instead of core.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 10:50AM
#4
|
|
|
we must have always used the option, I honestly don't remember group initiative, though I kinda remember harrassing a player who had to make a die roll for all of us so maybe that was it.
I'm completely okay with group initiatives. Great for Warlords to help buff. It would also eliminate those few times you miss someone.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 11:07AM
#5
|
|
|
Most people I know who used the individual initiative rules in AD&D and 2E never tried the group rules. They looked at them and said "It's not realistic".
When, in fact, the opposite is true.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 11:23AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
4E initiative mostly boils down to group initiative in my experience. +1 to this.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 11:24AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2001
|
In both 1st and 2nd editions of AD&D, all of the groups I played in or ran did initiative the same way:
1. One player (and we alternated each round) would roll the initiative die for the group. That was the base initiative.
2. Each player modified his or her own initiative based upon (a) the initiative modifier from dexterity and (b) the weapon speed or the weapon he or she was using or the casting time of the spell he or she was casting.
It worked very well for us, and really was pretty easy. I thought taking those various speeds into account was really pretty good. It wasn't, and isn't, everyone's cup of tea, but it was sort of a hybrid system in that, overall, all initiative for the group started in the same place, but when you took an action depended on what you chose to do or use.
I'd be okay with that, or the current system, in the new edition. I could live with group initiative but I think it's a little too homogenous for my taste.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 11:27AM
#8
|
|
|
Older editions were all move or shoot though, right? So a whole team losing initiative wasn't as devistating as it could be in later editions where people could run up and drop nonsense on you.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 11:33AM
#9
|
|
|
Arilon: That's the Group Initiative with Modifiers option from page 94. Here's the description of it: Some people believe that using a single initiative roll for everyone on the same side is too unrealistic. It is, admittedly, a simplification, a way to keep down the number of die rolls required in a single round, allowing for much faster combat. However, the actions of different characters, the types of weapons they use, and the situation can all be factors in determining initiative.
Using this optional method, one initiative die roll is still made for each side in the fight. However, more modifiers are applied to this roll, according to the actions of individual characters. These modifiers are listed on Table 56.
It's still much slower than true group initiative, though. And more complicated, because you have to use the entirely optional weapon speed rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 25, 2012 - 11:37AM
#10
|
|
|
Older editions were all move or shoot though, right? So a whole team losing initiative wasn't as devistating as it could be in later editions where people could run up and drop nonsense on you.
Actually, nope. They could move, shoot, charge, cast spells, whatever.
But if they cast spells, then any attacks made on the casters went off on the caster's initiative, not the attackers. You could lose initiative and still disrupt the casters. Casting in combat wasn't very smart, really. It was a check on caster power they decided it was a good idea to get rid of. We all know how that turned out.
|
|
|
