Last Seen Blogs
Text
Greyhawk Initiative
So this is my first Tumblr post and it is about Mike Mearls alternative Initiative for D&D. So check that out first:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/greyhawk-initiative
This is actually something I have thought about in the last few games I have played, the stagnate feel of initiative. I did my turn and unless a foe interacts with my character I know everyone is going in the same order and I can tune out a bit. As the field will change and I can do some overall planning but I can play some turns on my phone until closer to my turn again to see what I am actually going to do. So the idea of shifting initiative based on actual actions taken or planned is intriguing. I am not sure about the extra dice rolling and I am not sure I like the exact dice for any particular action and wonder how granular you want to get with actions. So yes I see this as needng playtest, being rough and needing an lot of tweaking and testing.
That said what I like about this article as it did get me thinking about initiative and opening up new ideas. So I thought I would run through my thoughts after reading the article, and some ideas about initiative, others about the philosophy of combat.
Before getting into initiative rules specifically, a few thoughts on how combat works from a play viewpoint. Combat is considered to be 6 seconds of time during which a flurry of things happen pretty much at the same time. One of the points of the article is to use this new Initiative to promote more strategic discussion and planning on the part of the players. This idea really is its own discussion about how much communication during combat is really possible. If you just want to promote more planning, at the beginning of round let the players discuss what they would like to have happen in the following round. That does not require an kind of new Initiative to create. And the discussion could could cause initiative to change as players are more likely to ready, or delay if you put it back, based on what others are doing. But as combat is only a few seconds, it also makes sense to say that other than general plans or shouted orders there is little chance once combat has started to actually coordinate anything unless characters actually take a round to duck behind cover and discuss. I have been in games where you did not even get a long period to consider your actions on your turn, you pretty much had to go to keep the feel of frenzied combat. This was nice in that it was best to watch and consider what to do as combat unfolded as you couldn’t drop your phone when your init came up and take a look at the board and take time to consider options.
So the idea of how much strategy and player discussion do you want in your game? You can go the way of this is a tactical game and players discuss as they want, with the idea of the characters are veterans that have fought enough that they know what each is planning and a simple shout or hand wave gives all the information this trained combat unit needs. You can also go with characters have seconds to decide, so everything said is in character and actions must be taken without hesitation when init comes up, or something in between.
I don’t see this Init system as needed for this approach to combat.
This system to me reminds me of systems where actions are declared before the round is played out, conflict decided, and finally resolved. I am thinking of a structure like init rolled, lowest declares actions first up to the highest and then the actions are resolved from highest to lowest. So a low roll means you do not get the benefit of seeing what others are doing when you decide and allows those going later to possibly move or act to foil earlier moves. Another layer could be that the results of actions are not applied until the end of round, simulating that things happen all together. Now whether the DM shows what the monsters are declaring, or rolls every round so different combatants has a chance to have advantage is all points that could be discussed. This again is something that could be added to D&D as well without much change. For late round combatants that have to change, there may be penalties to change declared action, such as disadvantage on rolls, or whatever.
So one aspect of this idea that is interesting is when are actions declared? Should they be decided at beginning of round and then cannot be changed base on changes in combat? Certainly options.
In the Greyhawk Init idea of rolling dice for actions, if you don’t roll the die, you can’t do it. So if you don’t declare the possible option of moving and roll the die you can’t do it. This would be one area that would need consideration. It is fine to go with the idea if someone does something unexpected you may not be able to adjust your planned tactics. You may not think a troll will run so you may indeed be watching its backside as it runs away and you are dumbfounded. But it seems counter-intuitive and lacks verisimilitude that you can’t run after, Maybe you do get to roll the movement die, but you get a penalty, say +2 or +3 as you pause taking in what is going on and are delayed even further in acting. So that is one area I think would need testing. And again this is more a question of what do you want out of this initiative rule? Is it to add choices and risk management, then denying the use of an action not rolled works, but if it is to give more variability in combat, then being able to change tactics may be a good choice.
Now focusing more on the crunch and actual rules for this system. I have a few places that I have some concerns. I am not sure I like the breakdown of actions to die size. This idea is either really complex or not that bad based on how you break down types of actions. Personally I would go with the weapon speed as it is something Players have written down, and it gives potential benefits to smaller weapons verses larger ones at least in how fast attacks can be made. It also goes back to the weapon speed optional rules of Editions Past (tm).
I question that missile attacks somehow are faster. On the battlefield I can see missile weapons come first as they are at range, but that doesn’t mean they are actually faster, they have the advantage of range. An archer is done when a foes closes the distance and is within striking distance. The process of shooting is not actually fast. Now would a loaded crossbow be fast? Yes it would, without aiming, but you would not get this advantage in this system as unless you plan not to reload, you need to roll dice for the reload and that will move the attack later in the round anyway. This is where the flow of a battle is not really the same as small close quarters combat like most D&D combat is, and in combat you may move earlier, foes act, then attack later, but D&D’s turn based system mean is you move and attack at one time. So again archers in a full out war would be able to fire several arrows as attackers take double moves or try to move and defend from volleys until close. But I don’t see why missile weapons would get the bump in speed over the troops running forward. Personally I would make the same as weapon speed, a short bow is faster than a long bow. And movement I would put low, like a d4.
Now talking if weapon speed should be based on damage, you could instead go finesse weapons are 1d4, one handed 1d6 and two handed 1d8. The exact die is a matter of balance but using the weapon attributes rather then pure damage may be a way to go that mimics the speed of weapons better.
One place I don’t feel is broken down enough is spell casting, especially if there is a difference in weapon types. At least there should be a difference between cantrips and regular spells. Cantrips are supposed to be so well known they are done with rote efficiency and speed. For spells you may even use the spell slots as the die, so a cantrip is 1d4, Slots 1 and 2 are 1d6, 3 and 4 are 1d8 and so forth. You could even go a die size for each slot. So the big slots take big penalties for speed, so it suddenly makes both lower level spells have a benefit, but also is strategic if you want to use a higher slot for a spell for more damage, or do you want to do it faster, take out the wounded foe before they can attack?
Bonus actions are another place I think there is a problem with this execution. I run various characters that use the bonus action, and I see it as important in other characters in my group as well. A bonus action to me often signals something that is just a part of another action, an extension of it, or something that takes only a moment, not a full action, and so is extremely fast. A few examples. Dual wielding would be hugely penalized as you would need to roll for both weapons. But really the secondary attack is more an extension of the primary attack, so I don’t see it as something that should be the full weapon die for the second attack. Barbarian raging, this is a momentary focus, not a long process that should need a roll to use. Rogue use of dash as a bonus action, so the rogue is making two moves and so needs to roll dice and be slower? Warlock and Hex, this is a quick spell that should only take a moment to augment other spells or attacks, that is the reason it is a bonus action, it takes just a bit of focus to start and the Warlock can attack in the same round. Expeditious retreat is a bonus action, so you are slowed by something that is supposed to give you greater speed? Personally I would not have the bonus action roll much of a die, and possibly just give a +1 or +2 to the initiative score, regardless of the action it allows. This article already says a Fighter with an Action Surge should not have to roll weapons twice, because Action Surge does not need an action, although it does grant an action. I don’t see there being more of a balance issue with bonus actions. They are just that, bonus.
I was wondering if there really needs to be extra dice rolling instead that actions have different modifiers to Initiative. A couple ideas would be to roll normally, then say you want to move and attack, so say you roll a 12 for Init. Then Moving is -4 and attacking is -6, so you have a 2. Negatives are fine, although you could use it to say you don’t go this round but next round but I am not seeing any way that I like to take into account you are going really early next round. Instead of rolling at all you start with your Dex score, not modifier, and then you subtract from it based on your actions. Again you could keep cycling in that if you go negative you actually go the following round, either actually adding the negative to your init score or resetting and subtract to go a little faster. So if you have a 12 Dex score and do -14 in actions, you go on -2, you do not go this round, but next round you go on 10 as you only had 2 points left to cover. There are lot of variations on this, everyone starts at 20, subtract your actions but add your Dex modifier is one thought. Or for a Str attack you subtract the action cost but add your Str mod to go faster, if you add movement it is move penalty but add Dex, so modifiers have meaning in you go faster with good stats.
0 notes