Author Topic: Initiative  (Read 981 times)

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Initiative
« on: September 02, 2017, 05:27:06 PM »
I read mike mearls' new initiative suggestion and a whole lot of comments regarding it (honestly surprised nothing came up in this forum). Nytemare3701 also had a thread which I read. But I'm still not sold on the item presented.

How's this:

Combat start - all characters roll d20 - that is your place.
Goes from lowest to highest.
Character chooses an action. Actions are grouped to 'weights', like 5, 10 or 20.
Action start at your initiative and resolves at initiative + weight. New initiative is initiative + weight.
=If all characters have initiative > 20 then reduce everyone's initiative by 20.

Your thoughts?

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7259
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2017, 08:50:01 AM »
That sounds unnecessarily complex. What is the gain supposed to be for all that added complexity? That certain actions go faster? How does spellcasting compare to using weapons?

I remember 2E Combat & Tactics had something where initiative would be handled in speed categories. It gave an odd incentive toward using lighter weapons and being small.
My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline Maat Mons

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1203
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2017, 04:00:05 PM »
Okay, so, the purpose of this seems to be that the time between a person's previous term and his next turn is <i>not</i> one round.  That seems to complicate the timing of effects that last a certain number of rounds.  Normally, you could just time those relative to turn of the effect's originator.  Bit with a system like this, that would mean an effect might last more or less time depending on what the originator was doing.  Alternately, you could give the effect its own place in the initiative, but that's even <i>more</i> complexity. 

I'm not sure if you've considered this, but even with the provision for subtracting 20 from all initiative counts, you're still going to hit some very high numbers.  Suppose one guy keeps doing initiative+5 actions, and another keep doing initiative+20 actions.  After five rounds of that, one's up to 25, and the other's up to 100.  Subtract 20, and you've got 5 and 80.  Four more rounds, and you're up to 25 and 160.  Subtract 20 again, and you're down to "only" 5 and 140. 

Bear in mind, whether the initiatives are 5 & 20, 5 & 80, or 5 & 140, nothing is actually different,  Guy A goes, then guy B goes.  In <i>every</i> case.  There's honestly no reason to keep adding onto those initiative figures unless, eventually, someone gets knocked into the next round.  Time works like a clock.  (<- one of the dumber phrases I've ever written)  If it's 11 pm, and you start something that takes 2 hours, you'll be done at 1 am.  We don't need a "13 pm." 

Also, I have a feeling that any system like this will devolve into a nightmare of "My 5-foot step resolved before your attack resolved.  Now when your attack resolves, it will be targeting an empty square."-style interactions. 

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2017, 05:07:39 PM »
That sounds unnecessarily complex. What is the gain supposed to be for all that added complexity? That certain actions go faster? How does spellcasting compare to using weapons?

Well, I'm hoping to (in no particular order):
 - reduce strategizing during combat to a minimum. Hopefully, make combat more reactive.
 - help combat become more fast-paced, instead of grinding to a halt when entering combat mode.
 - simplify combat as much as possible (like grapple rules?), less bookeeping, without excessive math.
 - turn action placement to not be deterministic from round one.
 - give options of counterspelling, parrying, and other actions that are more reactive in nature.

I'm not sure every bullet can be accomplished. But this is a rough target to start aiming at.


Okay, so, the purpose of this seems to be that the time between a person's previous term and his next turn is <i>not</i> one round.  That seems to complicate the timing of effects that last a certain number of rounds.  Normally, you could just time those relative to turn of the effect's originator.  Bit with a system like this, that would mean an effect might last more or less time depending on what the originator was doing.  Alternately, you could give the effect its own place in the initiative, but that's even <i>more</i> complexity.
True. If in the old system, an effect would last a full round, then in this it would count for 20 ticks. I know it's extra item on the initiative list. I'm open for suggestions.

I'm not sure if you've considered this, but even with the provision for subtracting 20 from all initiative counts, you're still going to hit some very high numbers.  Suppose one guy keeps doing initiative+5 actions, and another keep doing initiative+20 actions.  After five rounds of that, one's up to 25, and the other's up to 100.  Subtract 20, and you've got 5 and 80.  Four more rounds, and you're up to 25 and 160.  Subtract 20 again, and you're down to "only" 5 and 140.

Bear in mind, whether the initiatives are 5 & 20, 5 & 80, or 5 & 140, nothing is actually different,  Guy A goes, then guy B goes.  In <i>every</i> case.  There's honestly no reason to keep adding onto those initiative figures unless, eventually, someone gets knocked into the next round.  Time works like a clock.  (<- one of the dumber phrases I've ever written)  If it's 11 pm, and you start something that takes 2 hours, you'll be done at 1 am.  We don't need a "13 pm."

Not exactly. If guy A uses an action that costs 5, and guy B uses an action that costs 20, then A would act 4 times in the same time B would act only once - assuming they both start at the same number.
When we reach a number higher then 20 we can reduce everything by 20 so math would be easier. But it's not a must.

Also, I have a feeling that any system like this will devolve into a nightmare of "My 5-foot step resolved before your attack resolved.  Now when your attack resolves, it will be targeting an empty square."-style interactions.

How so?

Offline Maat Mons

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1203
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2017, 07:50:25 PM »
Not exactly. If guy A uses an action that costs 5, and guy B uses an action that costs 20, then A would act 4 times in the same time B would act only once - assuming they both start at the same number.

Okay, I see.  You forgot to mention that you're getting rid of rounds and the limitation of only acting once per round. 

Anyway, the suggestion I was making still holds, but the "instead of" in my phrasing needs to be updated. 

Instead of letting tick counts go above 20, and then subtracting from them later, why not use rounds of 20 ticks each?  So, instead of, for example, tick 20 being followed by tick 21, it would be round 1, tick 20, followed by round 2, tick 1. 

That accomplishes the same thing, but it's a far less confusing nomenclature. 



How so?

Well, you declare what you're doing, then other stuff happens, then what you declared actually takes place.  What happens is that "other stuff" has made the action you're now supposed to take impossible?  Which details of your action do you have to decide when you declare it, and which can you decide when it resolves?  If the situation changes between when you declare an action and when it resolves, can you abort the action partway through?  All those are non-trivial scenarios you'll have to account for. 

More specifically though, you'll have to look at the interaction between attack range and movement.  So, you move into range, then you declare your attack.  What if your intended target moves out of range before the attack resolves?  This is especially important if there are attacks that take more ticks than the smallest form of movement. 

Imagine I'm trying to land a big attack, one that takes 20 ticks.  Now imagine my target can move his speed as a 10-tick action.  So, after I declare my attack, my target will move out of range, and I will have wasted my time.  He'd be stupid to stay put and take my super-powerful attack.  And he has plenty of time to get out of the way. 

So, it only makes sense for me to declare a long action if my target has first locked himself into an action so long that he won't have been able to react until after I've already finished.  But why will he declare a long action?  He's in the same situation as I am.  I doesn't make any sense for him to declare a long action until I've already locked myself into a long action.  The first long attack won't be declared until after the first long attack has been declared.  A paradox. 

So, everyone only ever uses the fastest attack, because anything else can be easily countered.  If the long attacks are never used, why are they even there? 

And let's imagine if a 5-foot step only takes 3 ticks.  That makes sense, that lets you move 30 feet in 21 ticks, a little slower than 30 feet per round.  But let's say the fastest melee attack takes 5 ticks.  That also makes sense, that's 4 attacks per round.  How does a melee character hit a target who's 5 feet out of attack range? 

Okay, I declare a 5-foot step.  Now I'm close enough, so I declare my melee attack.  % ticks later I hit.  Except, no I don't.  Because in the 7 ticks it's take for me to get into range and hit him, he's had plenty of time to take his own 5-foot step.  That means he's not in range to attack. 

How does a melee character get any attacks in if his enemy isn't polite enough to stand still and allow himself to be hit? 



Combat start - all characters roll d20 - that is your place.

Okay, but shouldn't a character with high dexterity and such tend to go before a character with low dex and such?  How about, instead, you roll initiative as normal.  Whoever rolled highest is assignes to tick 1.  Everyone else is assigned a later tick based on how much he beat them by.  You rolled 6 lower than the guy who goes first?  You go 6 ticks after he does. 

You're also going to need some method for determining the order in which people act when they both land on the same tick. 

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2017, 09:37:34 AM »
Okay, I see.  You forgot to mention that you're getting rid of rounds and the limitation of only acting once per round. 

Anyway, the suggestion I was making still holds, but the "instead of" in my phrasing needs to be updated. 

Instead of letting tick counts go above 20, and then subtracting from them later, why not use rounds of 20 ticks each?  So, instead of, for example, tick 20 being followed by tick 21, it would be round 1, tick 20, followed by round 2, tick 1. 

That accomplishes the same thing, but it's a far less confusing nomenclature.

I guess that's the same thing. Only thing different is the way you track things. Whether it'd be round 3 tick 7 or tick number 67. If your wording is less confusing then mine then sure - let's use that. Keep in mind that the traditional initiative rules are more strict and won't allow you to act between rounds. e.g. slashing from tick 18 to tick 23.


Well, you declare what you're doing, then other stuff happens, then what you declared actually takes place.  What happens is that "other stuff" has made the action you're now supposed to take impossible?  Which details of your action do you have to decide when you declare it, and which can you decide when it resolves?  If the situation changes between when you declare an action and when it resolves, can you abort the action partway through?  All those are non-trivial scenarios you'll have to account for. 

More specifically though, you'll have to look at the interaction between attack range and movement.  So, you move into range, then you declare your attack.  What if your intended target moves out of range before the attack resolves?  This is especially important if there are attacks that take more ticks than the smallest form of movement. 

Imagine I'm trying to land a big attack, one that takes 20 ticks.  Now imagine my target can move his speed as a 10-tick action.  So, after I declare my attack, my target will move out of range, and I will have wasted my time.  He'd be stupid to stay put and take my super-powerful attack.  And he has plenty of time to get out of the way. 

So, it only makes sense for me to declare a long action if my target has first locked himself into an action so long that he won't have been able to react until after I've already finished.  But why will he declare a long action?  He's in the same situation as I am.  I doesn't make any sense for him to declare a long action until I've already locked myself into a long action.  The first long attack won't be declared until after the first long attack has been declared.  A paradox. 

So, everyone only ever uses the fastest attack, because anything else can be easily countered.  If the long attacks are never used, why are they even there? 

And let's imagine if a 5-foot step only takes 3 ticks.  That makes sense, that lets you move 30 feet in 21 ticks, a little slower than 30 feet per round.  But let's say the fastest melee attack takes 5 ticks.  That also makes sense, that's 4 attacks per round.  How does a melee character hit a target who's 5 feet out of attack range? 

Okay, I declare a 5-foot step.  Now I'm close enough, so I declare my melee attack.  % ticks later I hit.  Except, no I don't.  Because in the 7 ticks it's take for me to get into range and hit him, he's had plenty of time to take his own 5-foot step.  That means he's not in range to attack. 

How does a melee character get any attacks in if his enemy isn't polite enough to stand still and allow himself to be hit?

Well, that was indeed a point that came up in the comments for Mearl's original article. And it does seems to be a major problem (at least in my eyes). Mearl's writing states that if your action is no longer valid then you may choose a different (must be shorter) action then you declared before hand. Another option is forsaking this turns action and receiving an initiative bonus next declaring phase.
You describe two items:
1. When situation changes between declaring an action and starting to act.
2. When situation changes between action commencing and action resolving.
In regards to first point - my idea, in contrast to Mearl's original, is that there is no 'declaring' phase. When it's your moment to act you decide your action as well as starting to act in such way.
For the second item, instead of it being a problem to fix, this could be an opportunity for innovation:
When a character can act quicker and move away - it would be 'dodge'. If a character can act faster and break or disarm the other's weapon, it could be considered 'parry'. These will bring a layer of tactic to the battle that is missing in standard d&d battle (I hope).
Only thing now is to find an elegant implementation.
I'm not sure how to go about it. I'm open to ideas.


Okay, but shouldn't a character with high dexterity and such tend to go before a character with low dex and such?  How about, instead, you roll initiative as normal.  Whoever rolled highest is assignes to tick 1.  Everyone else is assigned a later tick based on how much he beat them by.  You rolled 6 lower than the guy who goes first?  You go 6 ticks after he does. 

You're also going to need some method for determining the order in which people act when they both land on the same tick.
All of this doesn't really affect anything. It's just how you prefer doing things. If it's easier to roll highest instead of lowest then do it. Pick the way you want to play. Mathematically, it doesn't really matter.
The one thing that does change is the dexterity bonus. Honestly? I'm on two minds about it. On the one hand I like it when dexterous characters act first. It's usually one of their shtick. On the other hand - dexterity doesn't really mean faster reaction. Faster hand movements? sure. Acting before anyone else? Intelligent characters sometimes act faster.
It came up in other thread as well. Then again, dexterity is also very beneficial for characters. What with deflection and ranged attack bonus and else. So maybe this one can go away without harming balance?
Not sure.

Same tick would mean acting at the same time. If you really have to differentiate between them then you could roll tie-breaker die, I guess, your pick.

Offline Maat Mons

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1203
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2017, 01:47:32 AM »
instead of it being a problem to fix, this could be an opportunity for innovation

If you do want to design a system where guessing wrong about future events makes you waste your time, I suggest you start by playing InuYasha: Demon Tournament.  It's the only game I can think of that works like that. 

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2017, 07:38:01 AM »
If you do want to design a system where guessing wrong about future events makes you waste your time, I suggest you start by playing InuYasha: Demon Tournament.  It's the only game I can think of that works like that.

Not exactly what I intended; I don't aim for any kind of guessing. You declare movement the moment you act. And any act isn't wasted. Maybe if you're enthralled. Otherwise that's a quite a let down for the player.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6821
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2017, 01:11:10 PM »
Have I popped in this thread and said AD&D used to do this? Also in combat FFX changed your turn order based on the speed of your action, something I think was semi-kept in the newer games.
Would you die if you jumped from my perceived ego to your IQ? - Is 15secs of confirmation bias a goal post worth arguing for? - Ever asked a "victim" what they did to deserve it? - Are the words teen, SJW, & liberal synonyms? - "Only Sith deals in absolutes" contains a misspelled word.

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2017, 08:01:33 AM »
Have I popped in this thread and said AD&D used to do this? Also in combat FFX changed your turn order based on the speed of your action, something I think was semi-kept in the newer games.

I don't think so, no. But wasn't the AD&D was opposite? Like, you had to go the lowest to be better or something? I think I played it 20 years ago or something.
Never played final fantasies, thou, so can't really use unless you elaborate. Are the rounds treated stand alone? This was talked about above, but I can rewrite it again:
Say one person acts quickly, jabbing a small knife. Another one smashed slowly with a massive 2hander hammer. If the rounds are treated separately then each will get 1 attack every round. Even thought the quicker one could act fast enough to strike one more time now and then.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6821
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2017, 11:44:25 AM »
But wasn't the AD&D was opposite? Like, you had to go the lowest to be better or something?
Yeah for the most part it was a roll low game, but smaller creatures got bonuses (sic reductions to roll low) which helped them attack first. And people with multiple attacks got to roll Initiative for each of them under one of the game's many variants.

Never played final fantasies, thou, so can't really use unless you elaborate. Are the rounds treated stand alone?
FFX's system in a simplified explanation is to say initiative count is infinite and everyone gets to go as many times as their number comes up. Their number is their base delay (based on speed) plus the delay of their chosen action. So say Bob has a base speed of four and chooses to attack each round which has a +2 modifier. His first turn is on 6, then 12, then 18, and so on. Tom has a base speed of four as well but he chooses to cast spells which has a modifier of +4. He'll get to go on turn 8 and then turn 16. By then, Bob would have already attacked three times through.

Modify the attack delay modifier by weapon and rescale some numbers and you've got what you're looking for. Like maybe base delay is 10, daggers are +2, massive hammers are +8, & casting is +10. Then you can introduce special modifiers on the system. Like in FFX Quick Attack consumes Magical Power but it's faster than a normal attack.  Just watch break points. FFX's Quick Attack is horrendously broken. You could cast a Spell that consumes a ton of MP to deal 99,999 damage before you opponent got to take his turn, or you could attack like eight times for a tenth of the cost for 799,992 damage before your opponent got to take his turn.
Would you die if you jumped from my perceived ego to your IQ? - Is 15secs of confirmation bias a goal post worth arguing for? - Ever asked a "victim" what they did to deserve it? - Are the words teen, SJW, & liberal synonyms? - "Only Sith deals in absolutes" contains a misspelled word.

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2017, 07:34:45 PM »
FFX's system in a simplified explanation is to say initiative count is infinite and everyone gets to go as many times as their number comes up. Their number is their base delay (based on speed) plus the delay of their chosen action. So say Bob has a base speed of four and chooses to attack each round which has a +2 modifier. His first turn is on 6, then 12, then 18, and so on. Tom has a base speed of four as well but he chooses to cast spells which has a modifier of +4. He'll get to go on turn 8 and then turn 16. By then, Bob would have already attacked three times through.

Modify the attack delay modifier by weapon and rescale some numbers and you've got what you're looking for. Like maybe base delay is 10, daggers are +2, massive hammers are +8, & casting is +10. Then you can introduce special modifiers on the system. Like in FFX Quick Attack consumes Magical Power but it's faster than a normal attack.  Just watch break points. FFX's Quick Attack is horrendously broken. You could cast a Spell that consumes a ton of MP to deal 99,999 damage before you opponent got to take his turn, or you could attack like eight times for a tenth of the cost for 799,992 damage before your opponent got to take his turn.

That seems workable.
What'd you reckon? personally? Would you try out something like this?
And if quick attack is a problem then what are the options to fix it? I guess that one way is abolishing it at all.

Offline Maat Mons

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1203
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2017, 09:28:19 PM »
… daggers are +2, massive hammers are +8, & casting is +10.

Hmm, daggers hitting 4x as often as hammers would work if hammers deal 4x as much damage as daggers.  (Well, actually they should deal better DPS than daggers to make up for the lost flexibility.)  But D&D adds strength to weapon damage rather than applying some sort of str-based % multiplier. 

So you'd be choosing between dealing str-mod points of damage 4 times, or 1.5*str-mod damage once, in the same time period.  Regardless of how much base damage each one deals, for a sufficiently high-strength character, 4x str is going to be better than 1.5x str. 

You could fix that by replacing the current hand-based str multipliers with something inherently connected to weapon speed.  All the fast weapons could add 0.5x str to damage.  All the average weapons could add 1.0x str to damage.  And all the slow weapons could add 1.5x str to damage.  Make it so fast weapons attack 2x as fast as average weapons and 3x as fast as slow weapons, and you've got DPS that has the same relationship to strength across all the weapon categories. 

Alternately, you could have the delay for each weapon vary based on your strength score.  So, if you're strong enough, the extra weight doesn't slow you down.  If you set it up right, it could work out such that low-str characters are best off with light-weight weapons, and high-str characters are best off with heavy weapons. 

As yet another option, you could redo how strength boosts damage.  For example, your strength score could give you +X% damage.  Using some sort of formula or lookup table to figure out what X is. 

I should probably also note that, if you're rewriting everything about how often characters get to attack, you should probably account for two-weapon fighting somehow.  In the current system, twf lets you attack twice as often.  If that's not going to be the case anymore, it will need something else.  Maybe one "attack" hits with both weapons, and the resultant delay is somehow based on the delay of the two weapons you're using. 

… base delay is 10 …

Oops, base delay.  Well, it changes some numbers, but I think the same basic considerations apply. 

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2017, 07:15:04 PM »
daggers hitting 4x as often as hammers would work if hammers deal 4x as much damage as daggers.
In essence, yes. However, I'm more interested in making the combat more versatile.
Redesigning the combat rules and ending with only damage difference to compare is (in my opinion) a waste of time. I want to bring something else, something new to the table.

Take, for example, a scenario where you are confronted by a mage. You are armed with a giant and heavy axe. The mage start casting. While you have the option of attacking him with your axe for a max' amount of damage, you decide that it would be better for you to strike fast with a small blade in order to fizzle his spell, as a swing with an axe might take too much time.

Other options for when addressing action times are (not a full list):
Concentrating on an action.
Embracing for a charge or a spellcast on you (including counterspell and parry).
Taking time to aim.


Using some sort of formula or lookup table to figure out what X is
I'd much rather ditch strength bonus then extending combat time with lookup tables or math more intricate then simple addition.


you should probably account for two-weapon fighting somehow.
My answer for twf (for now) is to not give it a special treatment. Meaning that the character is simply armed with two items and when it's her turn to act she can use either one the items as she chooses. No attacking with both at the same time. You can use succesive attackes with the same side or alternate between them as you see fit.

Offline Maat Mons

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1203
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2017, 04:16:51 AM »
I'd much rather ditch strength bonus then extending combat time with lookup tables or math more intricate then simple addition.

Well, how about this then.  Strength no longer gives bonus damage.  Instead, for each point of strength you have beyond 10, you treat all weapon delay modifiers as 1 point lower (to a minimum delay modifier of +2). 

If you're going with a base delay of 10, and giving daggers, short swords, longswords, bastard swords, and greatswords delay modifiers of +2, +4, +6, +8, and +10, respectively, then you're kind of treating +1 delay as being worth +0.5 damage.  Roughly speaking, +1 strength is also worth +0.5 damage, so that should work out reasonably well. 

Incidentally, those figures also mean that someone with average strength deals 50% better DPS with a greatsword than he would with a dagger, which is probably reasonable compensation for being almost twice as slow. 

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2017, 03:17:51 PM »
Well, how about this then.  Strength no longer gives bonus damage.  Instead, for each point of strength you have beyond 10, you treat all weapon delay modifiers as 1 point lower (to a minimum delay modifier of +2).

Wouldn't that be better suited to dexterity?
I thought of linking strength with pushing, pulling, gripping, maybe? not sure. Point being that I don't want damage to be the be-all-end-all. Combat could end if I trip and pin to the ground or if I knock someone unconscious.


I'm trying for something that is a bit unorthodox so maybe I'm not explaining myself as well as I should. Just ask me anything that comes to mind and also think of all the times you didn't enjoy in d&d's combat and lets address those.

Offline Maat Mons

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1203
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2017, 06:06:37 PM »
Wouldn't that be better suited to dexterity?

No, dexterity should not mitigate the penalties associated with extra weight. 

High dexterity could reduce the base delay.  But it shouldn't have any effect on the extra delay imposed by really heavy weapons/armor. 

The whole idea her is, light weapons and armor let you move faster.  Heavy weapons and armor slow you down, unless you're really strong, in which case you don't really feel all that extra metal you're lugging around. 

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2017, 10:06:13 AM »
I completely agree.
Notice that light armor and armament doesn't make you lighter, it just doesn't hinder you, allowing you to move up to maximum speed.
Still, in aiming to create a simple smooth ruling, I'd rather denote a 'heavy' descriptor for weapons and armors which will incur a unified penalty for all.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6821
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2017, 04:59:52 PM »
Hmm...
Delay = 10
Plus die average rounded down.
Plus a d4 for every semi-unique trait your weapon has (like +2 to disarm).
Plus you take your total equipment weight divided by ten, minus your strength modifier, and add that (minimum 0).
Plus a negative modifier equal to your dexterity modifier.
Plus your action modifier, swift is +0, attack action is +2, move is +4, standard is +8.
Plus your terrain modifier, level ground is +0, small gravel is +1, rock is +2, etc.
Plus your environment modifier, no wind +0, light wind +1, etc.
Plus your sight modifier, normal +0, concealment +2.5, 3/10ths cover +3, etc.
Plus your size modifier to attack rolls (smaller creatures are faster).
Plus your conditional modifiers like lightly winded +1, fatigued +2, etc.
Plus you apply half your base attack bonus as a negative modifier.
Plus a 3d13-13d3 for randomness.
Plus your conditional modifiers like slow's x1.5.

Nah, not complicated enough.
Would you die if you jumped from my perceived ego to your IQ? - Is 15secs of confirmation bias a goal post worth arguing for? - Ever asked a "victim" what they did to deserve it? - Are the words teen, SJW, & liberal synonyms? - "Only Sith deals in absolutes" contains a misspelled word.

Offline Bronzebeard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • HELP! I'm lost!
    • View Profile
Re: Initiative
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2017, 04:22:29 PM »
Jesus christ! What in the blue bells name are you... what... how...

Like, I think you jest. I hope you jest.


Quote
Delay = 10
Plus die average rounded down.
Plus a d4 for every semi-unique trait your weapon has (like +2 to disarm).
Plus you take your total equipment weight divided by ten, minus your strength modifier, and add that (minimum 0).
Plus a negative modifier equal to your dexterity modifier.
Plus your action modifier, swift is +0, attack action is +2, move is +4, standard is +8.
Plus your terrain modifier, level ground is +0, small gravel is +1, rock is +2, etc.
Plus your environment modifier, no wind +0, light wind +1, etc.
Plus your sight modifier, normal +0, concealment +2.5, 3/10ths cover +3, etc.
Plus your size modifier to attack rolls (smaller creatures are faster).
Plus your conditional modifiers like lightly winded +1, fatigued +2, etc.
Plus you apply half your base attack bonus as a negative modifier.
Plus a 3d13-13d3 for randomness.
Plus your conditional modifiers like slow's x1.5.
Nah, not complicated enough.

Counter starts at 0.
Player roles d20 for initiative.
Plus static modifier for heavy equipment - (Heavy Armor, Great or 2H Weapon).
Plus penalty if you are encumbered or suffer a debuff.
Plus action's relevant modifier. (swift, full-round, etc.)

and that's it.


and you wrote slow twice.