[3.5]Reworking Intiative (HALP!)

[finalepic]

So, GitP. I have this great new idea for working intiative that should, I hope, give a reason to use some of the smaller weapons that I never see used. The trouble is, I have no idea how to word this. The basics are as follows:


Everyone rolls initiative like normal. All bonuses apply.
The combatant with the highest initiative acts first.
All actions have a Quickness value. This value is subtracted from a creature's initiative.
The combatant with the highest initiative after Quickness is subtracted now acts.
When a combatant reaches 0 initiative or less, his initiative is added to 30. He may not act again until all other combatants have reached 0 initiative.
Using this system, initiative should probably be rolled on a smaller die size. My knee-jerk reaction is a d10.
Immediate actions could be taken any time. They still have a quickness value, however, delaying the combatant's next turn.


Current Issues


BOOK KEEPING. By god, book keeping.
Spells that grant extra actions
Dexterity, improved initiative, and other initiative buffs
???

Any ideas on how this would work out? Concerns?

[Temotei]

Concern: Bookkeeping, plain and simple. This is harder to keep track of than "roll d20, add modifiers, go."

[finalepic]

Is it really? I think it would boil down to keeping a single number and subtracting Quickness as you go. Like hit points, only you don't die when they run out.

[Temotei]

Is it really? I think it would boil down to keeping a single number and subtracting Quickness as you go. Like hit points, only you don't die when they run out.

Exactly. It's not a ton more, but it is more. Every little bit is more work for everyone.

[finalepic]

Exactly. It's not a ton more, but it is more. Every little bit is more work for everyone.

I don't know. That's a price I'm willing to pay to see if it makes the game feel more reactive. The issue I'm seeing is someone loading up on initiative bonuses and attacking 16 times before anyone else can. Also, spells like haste, snake's swiftness, and time stop.

[Roderick_BR]

2nd problem: How do you manage how fast each action is, and the order? In AD&D, all actions where chosen in the beggining of the round, not "on the go" as 3.x does. So, if you attack with a dagger, and the other guy casts a spell, you act first. If, whoever, the guy you was going to get was killed first/walked too far/whatever, and you wanted to change your action, you'd just add the new action's speed to your initiative (the bigger, the slower), meaning that you can't attack with a dagger, and then switch to an axe or spell to gain speed.
Unfortunatelly, that can be a bit frustrating after a while.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It sounds basically like AD&D initiative with the exception that you act as you go, possibly multiple times, instead of declaring actions at the beginning of the round and then progressing based on that modified initiative.

As long as you only allow one action per round, I don't see any problem with it; then again, if you do that there's really no point to a modified initiative system, is there?

[finalepic]

2nd problem: How do you manage how fast each action is, and the order? In AD&D, all actions where chosen in the beggining of the round, not "on the go" as 3.x does. So, if you attack with a dagger, and the other guy casts a spell, you act first. If, whoever, the guy you was going to get was killed first/walked too far/whatever, and you wanted to change your action, you'd just add the new action's speed to your initiative (the bigger, the slower), meaning that you can't attack with a dagger, and then switch to an axe or spell to gain speed.
Unfortunatelly, that can be a bit frustrating after a while.

No, not like that at all. Turns continue one at a time, like normal; the main differences are you take one action at a time rather than a full turn, and faster actions cause your next turn to crop up faster.


It sounds basically like AD&D initiative with the exception that you act as you go, possibly multiple times, instead of declaring actions at the beginning of the round and then progressing based on that modified initiative.

I'm not familiar with AD&D, but, in essence, yes.


As long as you only allow one action per round, I don't see any problem with it; then again, if you do that there's really no point to a modified initiative system, is there?

Precisely.

[Agi Hammerthief]

could you not just add a flat bonus to the initiative for small weapons?

or a negative for every x pound of weight of the weapon
Unarmed and natural weapons are considered 0 pound

if you win initiative (a draw with the enemy wizard, but you have better dex) while unarmed and draw a longsword (4lb) you delay your initiative by 1 (or more) points (dropping you after the wizard - your attack has to wait till the wiz has cast)

better draw the dagger and stab him for less damage right away

not so much book keeping

[Temotei]

could you not just add a flat bonus to the initiative for small weapons?

or a negative for every x pound of weight of the weapon
Unarmed and natural weapons are considered 0 pound

if you win initiative (a draw with the enemy wizard, but you have better dex) while unarmed and draw a longsword (4lb) you delay your initiative by 1 (or more) points (dropping you after the wizard - your attack has to wait till the wiz has cast)

better draw the dagger and stab him for less damage right away

not so much book keeping

This also encourages secondary and even tertiary weapons. I kind of like this.

The problem is with casters. Casters are already the alpowerful classes. Having them be more likely to go first is kind of...mean.

[Agi Hammerthief]

This also encourages secondary and even tertiary weapons. I kind of like this.
plus it gives more use to Improved Unarmed Strike


The problem is with casters. Casters are already the alpowerful classes. Having them be more likely to go first is kind of...mean.
the penalties are for melee weapons not ranged: they don't need to be swung for momentum, just aimed.
plus bowman (should) have good Dex to begin with.

[Temotei]

plus it gives more use to Improved Unarmed Strike


the penalties are for melee weapons not ranged: they don't need to be swung for momentum, just aimed.
plus bowman (should) have good Dex to begin with.

Indeed, unarmed characters get a decent boost this way.

I'm not sure how bowmen are relevant to the caster argument, but your point makes sense...I guess. :smallamused:

[Zexion]

This seems like a good idea. However, it WILL unbalance Dexterity as a stat, and Improved Initiative as a feat.

[Agi Hammerthief]

I'm not sure how bowmen are relevant to the caster argument, but your point makes sense...I guess. :smallamused:
the caster dosn't get to go first: the bowman does


This seems like a good idea. However, it WILL unbalance Dexterity as a stat, and Improved Initiative as a feat.
how so?

[finalepic]

could you not just add a flat bonus to the initiative for small weapons?

or a negative for every x pound of weight of the weapon
Unarmed and natural weapons are considered 0 pound

if you win initiative (a draw with the enemy wizard, but you have better dex) while unarmed and draw a longsword (4lb) you delay your initiative by 1 (or more) points (dropping you after the wizard - your attack has to wait till the wiz has cast)

better draw the dagger and stab him for less damage right away

not so much book keeping

The problem with this is that I don't like penalizing strong things-I like to try to buff up the weaker things up to their level.


the penalties are for melee weapons not ranged: they don't need to be swung for momentum, just aimed.
plus bowman (should) have good Dex to begin with.

The bonuses or penalties need to go for ranged weapons, too. Otherwise who would ever use a shortbow over a longbow? Or am I missing something there?


This seems like a good idea. However, it WILL unbalance Dexterity as a stat, and Improved Initiative as a feat.

Yes, I see your point. I suppose that should go on the list of things to rework.

[Agi Hammerthief]

The bonuses or penalties need to go for ranged weapons, too. Otherwise who would ever use a shortbow over a longbow? Or am I missing something there?
only that I was thinking about an increment at every 3-4 pond and the difference between short and long bow is just 1 pound

also you are missing weapons proficiency: Some classes have short bow and need to spend a feat on longbow.
whereas Martial WP has all weapons in the range of 2lb to 6lb (one handed)

if you place the increment at every 2lb you'll cover bows as well
and are looking at a max of -4 for "Waraxe, dwarven"
and -3 for "Axe, orc double" if you take 1/2 penalty for double weapons (each hand seperately, and round down) that can just be compensated with Improved Ini.


The problem with this is that I don't like penalizing strong things-I like to try to buff up the weaker things up to their level.
bah,
during the pathfider playtest there where huge discussions on how a bonus for one thing is essentially a penalty for all other things.
so if you take the heaviest PHB weapon "Axe, orc double" as the 0 and work your way down the weight as you increase the bonus to Initiative - just what is the difference?

just look at how armor works already: the heavier the more penalties on max Dex bonus, speed, ACP, Arcane failiure
same difference

[finalepic]

bah,
during the pathfider playtest there where huge discussions on how a bonus for one thing is essentially a penalty for all other things.
so if you take the heaviest PHB weapon "Axe, orc double" as the 0 and work your way down the weight as you increase the bonus to Initiative - just what is the difference?

just look at how armor works already: the heavier the more penalties on max Dex bonus, speed, ACP, Arcane failiure
same difference

The main difference is how it looks on a character sheet. I would be much more likely to enjoy taking a bonus because I'm using a weak weapon than a penalty for a strong one. Wouldn't you?

[Agi Hammerthief]

The main difference is how it looks on a character sheet. I would be much more likely to enjoy taking a bonus because I'm using a weak weapon than a penalty for a strong one. Wouldn't you?
I actually prefer the honsty of penalties.

yes, you can use the 8lb heavy dwarven Waraxe for 1d10 damage;
but since it is friggin heavy it will slow you down in combat for 4 points initiative.

It's in line with how the whole system works so far and bending over backwards to give a bonus for lighter stuff will get you in trouble as soon as someone picks up a weapon that is heavier than where you set your 0.

see also my next point down there:
if you put 0 penalty on 0lb and work your way up it's clear what is going on for anyone who might want to tweak it later.

----

re: unbalancing Dex and Wizard has an advantage
you could let the Strength modifier compensate the penalty for weight (1lb per Str Mod point?)
so someone with strengh 20 can wield a Great Axe [(12lb/2hands - 5StrMod)/2lb increment] without a penalty to Initiative.
on the other hand: A wimp with Str 6 trying to swing the same Great Axe will be looking at [12/2 - (-2)] /2 = -4 to Initiative

if you want to add only positive Str. Modifiers, I'd go for 1lb increments which would make it -1 for the tough guy and -6 for the wimp on the Great Axe.

----

since weapons for small characters weigh 1/2 the normal weight they get a boost too :smallbiggrin: