PDA

View Full Version : "Point Buy" Initiative System (4e)



iDM
2010-08-09, 01:18 PM
In the traditional D&D initiative system, the characters and monsters in an encounter go in initiative order and each take a full turn before the next PC/monster takes its turn. However, this strikes me as extremely unrealistic- except for Attacks of Opportunity and specific Interrupt or Reaction actions, all of the other creatures in the encounter just stand idly by and watch. Would it be better to have some sort of point system, where every creature's initiative roll is the number of points they get each round, and each action type took up a certain number of those points? I've asked some of my PCs, and they seem open to the idea. I was wondering if anyone else had thought about this and could give suggestions as to whether this is a good idea.

Below is a sample idea of a rules set.

Standard Action
A standard action costs {5-8} points to activate.

Move Action
A move action costs {3-5} points to activate.

Minor Action
A minor action costs {1-2} points to activate.

The character with the highest initiative count still goes first, but instead of taking a turn, they activate an action using "initiative points". The point coat is subtracted from their initiative count. Then, the creature with the new highest initiative count (possibly the same character) uses some of their points to activate an action. The cost for activating the action is then subtracted from their initiative count. And so on.

I welcome critique, rules suggestion adjustments and rants about how this idea is stupid and can never work.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-09, 01:22 PM
I've seen such systems in action before...they work pretty well.

I can't say how well such a system would mesh with 4e, though, since I dislike that particular system. I theorize that it would probably result in a lot of standard action usage, though.

Leolo
2010-08-09, 01:28 PM
Imagine 2 creatures.

A: Initiative 15
B: Initiative 13

A wants to attack B. So A took his sword and moves to B. (New Initiative of A is 12)
B attacks A. (new Initiative of B is 8)
A attacks B (new Initiative of A is 7)
B shifts away from A.

Next round, same initiative. A again has to move to B. B will again attack A first.

So this system leads to more defensive combats. A has no reason to move to B because this would waste his action. Players "let come" opponents instead of move to them. Ranged characters are improved because it will always be easier to move away than to strike someone.

My thoughts so far.

iDM
2010-08-09, 01:29 PM
I've seen such systems in action before...they work pretty well.

I can't say how well such a system would mesh with 4e, though, since I dislike that particular system. I theorize that it would probably result in a lot of standard action usage, though.

Longer rounds as well, unless you put a limit on the number of actions per round (say, max 1 or 2 standard actions or something). It seems like it would take a little more work to be combat-ready...

nightwyrm
2010-08-09, 01:39 PM
If you allow multiple actions of the same type, initiative optimization would be quite powerful (improved initiative is essentially an extra move action and superior initiative is an extra standard action) and the number of things one can do in a round would be very swingy. Sometimes one might be able to perform 3 or 4 standard actions and sometimes one might only be able to perform a move. Compare someone who got an initiative of 23 vs someone who got an init of 5. The one with 23 init essentially gets two or three extra attacks compared to the one with 5.

You're also making dex based characters even more powerful than classes who dump dex since init is based on dex. A first level rogue with improved init can have an init bonus of +9 while say a paladin may have +0.

You also have a bunch more stuff to keep track of. A normal fight in 4e may consist of 5 PCs and 5 monsters. That's a lot of init rolling and accounting for the entire fight.

Morph Bark
2010-08-09, 01:42 PM
If it's the way Leolo describes... it would be pretty great to work so, but only with few characters involved, not a party.

Caphi
2010-08-09, 01:42 PM
Improved Initiative = extra actions.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-09, 01:44 PM
This'd make initiative optimization go from "pretty handy" to "dear god, you gotta have improved init, at least".

Morph Bark
2010-08-09, 01:46 PM
This'd make initiative optimization go from "pretty handy" to "dear god, you gotta have improved init, at least".

Yeah, especially considering in my group we've done random rolls for getting a trait and a flaw now, and one of them got a Flaw that gave him -6 to his initiative, so that would impede him pretty bad this way, especially if you'd get less actions if you had a really low initiative.

Kylarra
2010-08-09, 02:08 PM
White wolf's storyteller system uses a tick system that's pretty close to what you describe. Initiative is determined by join battle rolls with the highest number of successes going first, and each subsequent person gets their first action a number of ticks later equal to the difference between their roll and the greatest roll, capped at 6. Each action has a speed which delays your next action a certain number of ticks.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-09, 04:06 PM
Yeah, I suspect a tick-based type of system would probably work best for this kind of thing, with Standard Actions costing slightly more than Move and minor as the least. (Free and no-actions being irrelevant of course).

Could cause a lot of headaches trying to figure out how all the different things you used to be able to do interacts, though. For example, you can't make opportunity attacks on your own turn, and many powers kick in if creatures start or finish their round in certain places.

Eloel
2010-08-09, 04:08 PM
20 vs 1
1 vs 20

Battles are won or lost at initiative roll... (difference between casting 3 spells before enemy moves, or getting 3 spells cast at you before you get to move)

pasko77
2010-08-09, 04:16 PM
This is how Exalted 2nd works.
We tried it and found it needlessly complicated.
I mean, you ALREADY need to keep track of how many objects/effects/statuses/powers?
Do you really want to add a more detailed initiative counter?

Moreover, if moving you lose time, you will attack less... not good, you are punishing fast moving builds and rewarding archers.

Kylarra
2010-08-09, 04:44 PM
It's worth pointing out that moving doesn't actually cost you anything in Exalted's system. :smalltongue:

Guancyto
2010-08-09, 05:26 PM
It wouldn't be even a little bit balanced, but it'd probably be fun to try. Just be prepared for a dearth of wand wizards, wild mages and tempest fighters. And kobolds. Oh, so many kobolds.

A few more thoughts:

-DEX-dumpers aside, this is a big hit to classes that are based on using all of their actions every round. Warlocks are a good example - they want to Curse with their minor, move for Shadow Walk and then blast something. Leaders would probably suffer from the same problem.
-Charging is great action economy, and reach weapons get even better just because you don't have to spend move actions on shifting as often. Likewise with free movement. Barbarians rejoice.
-Forced movement gets a boost because enemies being out of position can easily be straight-up action denial. Controllers would probably do pretty well.

A lot of effects in 4e come into play "at the end of your (next) turn." Zones disappear, you make saving throws, you lose buffs and debuffs, etc. What would teoynt be? After you've used a Standard? Maybe until a number of ticks had passed equal to the number of active combatants +1 times the cost for a standard/move/minor, but that would be a lot of bookkeeping.

All in all, it's a dramatic enough change (especially in 4e, where extra actions are hard to get) that a lot of your tactics will probably end up revolving around it. Which is fine if you want initiative and action types to play a dramatic and complex role in your combat, but not so much if you want to roll initiative and go. Fights in 4e already take a long time. :/

Gametime
2010-08-09, 06:14 PM
This is an intriguing idea. I think it would be interesting to adapt it to the 3.5 ruleset, which is somewhat less reliant on the strict delineation between action types, in my experience. You'd have to do it with only noncasters, since any possible increase in the number of actions a 3.5 caster gets is bad times, but it might work for an Iron Heroes type setting.

nightwyrm
2010-08-09, 06:19 PM
plays hell with monsters that acts on multiple set init scores like tiamat and bebilith.

Swordgleam
2010-08-09, 07:56 PM
It seems like a lot of extra bookkeeping. Most groups I've played with have enough trouble remembering the order when it's one turn at a time.

But if you really want to split things up, a simpler way might be dividing the round in to segments. Have everyone go in order of initiative each segment.

Segment one: Move and/or minor action.
Segment two: Standard action or full round action (if you didn't take a move or minor)
Segment three: Move and/or minor if you have one left.

That breaks it up a little, but without getting too complicated. It also makes surprise rounds more granular, since you can choose to have mildly surprised enemies only miss a segment or two.

Olo Demonsbane
2010-08-10, 02:56 AM
If you do this, I reccomend rerolling initiative every round. That way, someone isn't horribly useless in the BBEG fight when they roll a natural 1 on their initiative.

Also, for 3.5 play, note that my wizards have ~+25 on initiative by level 7, and I'm sure that more potent optimizers can do things even more drastic. And that's without buffs. Just a word of warning. Maybe make spells cost more than a simple standard action to use...{5-8}+Spell Level?

ShaggyMarco
2010-08-10, 07:09 AM
How I would implement this:

1. Roll Initiative every round
2. Feats/Powers that trigger on rolling initiative either only work on the first round's initiative or work on any round's initiative roll.
3. Characters can still only take a standard, move, minor, and immediate action each round. All of these action types should cost a certain amount of "initiative points." (Maybe 4 standard, 3 move, 2 minor, 2 immediate)
4. "Beginning of Turn" stuff happens when you take your first action. "End of Turn" stuff happens after your last action's initiative count (so delaying won't let you avoid that stuff).
5. Opportunity Actions would also cost a certain amount of initiative points, since 1/turn is now a rather meaningless limitation. (Maybe 2 points per OA with the reintroduction Combat Reflexes as a feat which reduces it to 1 point per OA?)
6. If you fall to 0 initiative, you can take no more actions that round, even if you haven't spent all of your actions.
7. Daze and Stun no longer deny you actions. Instead they inflict a penalty to your initiative checks (Daze equal half level, Stun equal to level?). This may drop your initiative low enough to prevent you from doing things, but will more-than-likely just make sure you go last while dazed/stunned-still a nasty draw-back in this sort of system.
8. You no longer add half level to Initiative rolls OR Action Costs scale with tier.
9. Second Wind grants a bonus to your next Initiative Check.

This will still be harder to keep track of and extend combat some, but could also add some rich tactical complexity, keeping PCs engaged in shorter bursts.

It might also streamline things to say that NPCs act at 3 predetermined Initiative counts, and can take 1 of their 3 actions at that count+their normal immediate action+1 opportunity action.

Reinboom
2010-08-10, 08:16 AM
I've done such an initiative in a still-in-the-works system.

The playtesting (among 3 different groups thus far) has generally proven it to speed up combat. Having to only think about a single action or a single action + a little bit of movement on each round makes things go much much faster.

However, the system is also built for this. 4E is not. Having movement "tag along" to what would otherwise be "standard actions" was a necessity; if it wasn't as so, it would become a bit of a cat and mouse game with many fights. There are very few "touch" range actions. How things are timed works completely differently. "Minor actions" become a slightly more significant weight on the game. Anything that adjusts initiative has to be watched with a keen eye...

From a playing standpoint, it's much easier (in my opinion). From a developing standpoint, it makes things more difficult.

Other things to point out:
You want the highest unmodified roll subtracting the lowest unmodified roll to be less than whatever a "standard action" costs. Otherwise, you get the 1 vs 20 situation above, where the person who rolled 20 can take many full "standard" actions before the person who rolled 1. This can break down many games. The timing equivalents I have on my system:
"Standard" (+ movement for most actions. Less than full movement) : 20 ticks.
"Substandard" : 10 ticks.
"Minor" : 5 ticks.
Initiative is a d20 roll. A single attribute modifies this. Only a single option to characters can improve this further (and this usually takes quite a bit of dedication, usually it will only provide a +2 or +3 at most).
Surprise gives a +10 bonus to init.

Also, with 4E specifically, there are a lot of effect issues. "Until the end of your next turn", "At the beginning of your next turn", and so on. What if you just want to take a minor action first and that just so happens to push your tick cost after someone elses? Does that mean, that was the end of your turn? If so... :smallfrown:


(Final notes: Matching initiative costs. This happens a LOT in this type of system.
My tie-breakers:
PC always goes before NPC. This is the one thing they gain mechanically over NPCs.
Who got their initiative noted first goes first with the first actions.
Who arrives at a tick last goes frist with actions beyond that.)

Kurald Galain
2010-08-10, 09:07 AM
In the traditional D&D initiative system, the characters and monsters in an encounter go in initiative order and each take a full turn before the next PC/monster takes its turn. However, this strikes me as extremely unrealistic

Yes, this is unrealistic, but it is more or less inherent to a turn-based system. I would recommend taking any RPG that is not played on a game board, and not using initiative rules. That is, character A describes what he'll do, you'll decide what enemy B will do, and the actions are assumed to take place simultaneously. Both sides roll, and you narrate the result based on what they were trying to do and whether they succeeded. I find this works surprisingly well, and even tends to make combat faster.

Zieu
2010-08-11, 09:19 PM
Well whereas in the normal D&D initiative system rolling low just means you go last, but in this version a low roll basically sidelines you from the entire encounter...how is that going to be addressed?