PDA

View Full Version : initiative, kind of doesn't make sense...



randomhero00
2011-01-28, 01:31 PM
I mean, I get why say rogues are fast and dexterous so they tend to go first. But usually the tank should go first to draw fire and attention. Yet they usually have the lowest initiative except for dex tanks. Just thinking about giving all tank like classes free imp initiative.

Now of course its good for rogues to go first for SA, but often I find myself having the monsters go just after me, which leaves me in a precarious condition.

It just seems like there should be a better way to do initiative. Like the slowest goes first, and the fastest gets to decide how to react to the situation. I dunno.

BRC
2011-01-28, 01:40 PM
Initiative makes perfect sense. High-dex characters, with their good reflexes, react fastest to situations and go first.

It may not be Optimal for every strategy, for example a Wizard might want to go first, to hit the enemies with an AOE before the Meleers charge in, but that doesn't explain why the wizard goes before the guy who is fast enough to dodge fireballs.

Your logic could be used to justify, say, removing the movement penalties for heavy armor, because it's better for the people who wear it to move faster.

It could be used to let rouges SA on foes who still have their dex bonus, because you want to apply SA to every attack.

NeutralAwesome
2011-01-28, 01:52 PM
You could delay your action. Wait until the tank does his thing and then go for the kill, though then you would get stuck in that order.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-28, 01:57 PM
It just seems like there should be a better way to do initiative. Like the slowest goes first, and the fastest gets to decide how to react to the situation. I dunno.

There are a few systems that do it that way, yes. This has the result of slowing down gameplay even more than initiative already does.

If you think init doesn't make sense, I recommend playing without it.

ericgrau
2011-01-28, 02:09 PM
But how would the tank in big shiny armor draw fire if the foes are intelligent, and if his tanking ability is to keep foes from reaching his allies then all he has to do is march in front before the fight. The rogue needs to go early to get sneak attacks, and can stay safe in round 1 with a bow.

For that matter improved initiative is a pretty lousy feat for melee. Going 1/4 to 1/2 a round early in a 5 round fight doesn't really help all that much compared to the damage, AB and etc. you get from other feats available. Heck in D&D you need to play crusader or such to be a real tank; otherwise most classes can protect themselves pretty well or even sitting behind the melee buys you a round and an attack of opportunity before foes reach you.

I mean:
wizard: billion defensive spells and crowd control spells to reduce damage, and can do this at range behind the melee
cleric: is also heavily armored melee
rogue: Quite fragile but can fight at range, tumble away when hurt, or use many sneak attack triggers as defense as well. Also if they're melee a tank can't help them anyway.

Choco
2011-01-28, 02:12 PM
You could delay your action. Wait until the tank does his thing and then go for the kill, though then you would get stuck in that order.

This. If you are worried about initiative rolls messing up your strategy, then delay actions. If the enemies mess up your delayed strategy, that's what they are supposed to do.

Just because the rogue was the first one to realize what is going on and react to it does not mean he has to visibly act right away. If he is in no danger it would make perfect sense to wait for more favorable conditions.

Coplantor
2011-01-28, 02:14 PM
Just because you can go first doesn't mean you must go first, you can just wait for the tanks to move and then make your move.

Tankadin
2011-01-28, 02:37 PM
Sometimes you can get your DM to go along with some fluff that helps the tank out here. If the tank is an ex-soldier or has any kind of positive Wisdom modifier I'd roleplay it as walking point in a very alert way--maybe a listen/spot/perception check means the tank gets an action in the surprise round, which would at least allow them to get into position.

It isn't really a mechanical solution by any means, but if your DM digs on fluff it can be fun--and if you don't remember to RP it, well, way to stop being alert, tank!

randomhero00
2011-01-28, 03:08 PM
I guess it feels weird is all. It should feel like you're working as one cohesive team. But instead it feels more like you take turns dueling the monsters.

Choco
2011-01-28, 03:10 PM
I guess it feels weird is all. It should feel like you're working as one cohesive team. But instead it feels more like you take turns dueling the monsters.

That's a problem with the players and/or the DM IMO. The group I am playing with now actually has strategies and battle plans, and roughly sticks to them.

Cyrion
2011-01-28, 03:17 PM
I guess it feels weird is all. It should feel like you're working as one cohesive team. But instead it feels more like you take turns dueling the monsters.

Like Choco said, develop party tactics that you can implement regardless of the party's relative order. This may mean that a lot of people are taking delay actions in the first round, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

If you want to see this idea play out, have someone play a focused transmuter and/or have the cleric/druid memorize primarily buff spells for a couple of sessions. This will provide a vivid demonstration of the value of planning as a team.

MeeposFire
2011-01-28, 03:22 PM
But how would the tank in big shiny armor draw fire if the foes are intelligent, and if his tanking ability is to keep foes from reaching his allies then all he has to do is march in front before the fight. The rogue needs to go early to get sneak attacks, and can stay safe in round 1 with a bow.

For that matter improved initiative is a pretty lousy feat for melee. Going 1/4 to 1/2 a round early in a 5 round fight doesn't really help all that much compared to the damage, AB and etc. you get from other feats available. Heck in D&D you need to play crusader or such to be a real tank; otherwise most classes can protect themselves pretty well or even sitting behind the melee buys you a round and an attack of opportunity before foes reach you.

I mean:
wizard: billion defensive spells and crowd control spells to reduce damage, and can do this at range behind the melee
cleric: is also heavily armored melee
rogue: Quite fragile but can fight at range, tumble away when hurt, or use many sneak attack triggers as defense as well. Also if they're melee a tank can't help them anyway.

That is a standard problem in 3e for tanks in that there are very few abilities out there that compels enemies to attack you. Heck even if the tank goes first why should the enemy attack you anyway? Unless you are a lockdown build or you have similar incentives enemies can just ignore you and it is probably a better choice since spellcasters are more dangerous and are better targets from any group that follows orders or have even average levels of intelligence.

werik
2011-01-28, 03:24 PM
Initiative is designed to create a structure that mimics what a "real" battle would like like given the constraints of a turn based gaming system. It is a game mechanic meant to logically construct the battle atmosphere. It is not the responsibility of the structure to conform to your party's optimal strategic advantage.

Work in the initiative order to your best advantage. If you don't want to get tied up in melee before the fighter gets out there, walk with an armed crossbow in hand. If the monster is flat footed and within 30', you still get a sneak attack without moving yourself to be surrounded. Even if they're not flat-footed, you still get an attack before they move up on you. Drop the crossbow after your shot and draw your melee weapon. Who cares if it gets broken or lost, they're not that expensive.

Furthermore, you can move somewhere with cover and hide. You could pull out a tanglefoot bag and toss one at a spell caster. You could ready a shot with your crossbow for when a spell caster starts to cast to disrupt their spell. This is just to say that there are other things that you can be doing while waiting for the tanks to move ahead of you. This in addition to delaying your action to follow your melee fighters, as has already been mentioned.

some guy
2011-01-28, 03:35 PM
I mean, I get why say rogues are fast and dexterous so they tend to go first. But usually the tank should go first to draw fire and attention. Yet they usually have the lowest initiative except for dex tanks. Just thinking about giving all tank like classes free imp initiative.

Now of course its good for rogues to go first for SA, but often I find myself having the monsters go just after me, which leaves me in a precarious condition.

It just seems like there should be a better way to do initiative. Like the slowest goes first, and the fastest gets to decide how to react to the situation. I dunno.

Remember that tanks and tanking are relatively new terms. I'm not sure if the fighting men from older editions had a tanking role, but I think not. D&D 3.5 is not really build around the concept of tanking, but you're free to create some house rules. Whatever makes your game more enjoyable.

stainboy
2011-01-28, 03:42 PM
I guess it feels weird is all. It should feel like you're working as one cohesive team. But instead it feels more like you take turns dueling the monsters.

There's a cool article about that here (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/?s=initiative). The author suggests that after the first round of combat, the DM ask the players collectively "what do you do" rather than asking one player at a time in initiative order. He makes a strong argument for it.


Remember that tanks and tanking are relatively new terms. I'm not sure if the fighting men from older editions had a tanking role, but I think not.

They tanked, just not by AoO-tripping or taunting or marking. It was a lot easier to force enemies to attack you when D&D happened in dungeons and you were the one blocking the doorway.

Captain Kidd
2011-01-28, 03:43 PM
The issue and probably cause of weirdness is, how does a game system handle simultaneous actions? In a "real" melee, people are changing what they're doing second by second, or less, based on what everybody else is doing, who change what they're doing based on ... and so on. There's no easy way to do that in a game system without bogging it down horrendously.

In 3.5 a turn is 6 seconds. Everybody is theoretically performing actions in those 6 seconds at the same time. But you have to break reality at some point and let them go one at a time. At that point, it's ruled that the more dexterous people have a slight advantage thus the dex modifier on the roll. Does it accurately portray reality? No, but then neither does a 10' x 10' x 10' cube of clear goo oozing its way down a corridor slurping up organics.

If you want the tank to go first to draw fire then, if you know a battle is forthcoming, let him lead the way, everybody else holding back far enough that they're considered out of the battle to the point of not rolling init yet or they all hold their actions. Although the whole "tank" concept is alien to me, and my players. (Even if I played Eve-Online for years and used that tactic in group NPC runs.) We tend to focus attention to where it needs to be. Yes that fighter decked out with the best armor and HP buffing and standing out front shouting "look at me!" is a tempting target, but that sorcerer in the back is the clear and present danger and typically gets the attention.

Now back in my 2e days I used the optional rule that if you rolled the same as somebody else, then it was simultaneous actions. That lead to interesting stuff like double kills. I.E. the fighter and orc have the same init and both attack and kill each other. I've toyed with bringing that into play in 3.5.

The only system I've played that tried to pulled off simultaneous actions is Star Fleet Battles where a turn is divided into 32 sub-turns called impulses. A ship's movement is divided by 32 and can move only 1 hex on the appropriate impulse. Faster moving ships thus get to move more frequently. The player can fire whenever the enemy is in range. (Leading to unfortunate "me too" firings.) This, along with other stuff, also leads SFB to being termed the Tax Forms in Space game. It also was maddeningly slow too, especially if there were more than 3 or 4 ships/players involved.

... umm, I'm not sure this post had a point to it ...

MeeposFire
2011-01-28, 03:44 PM
Remember that tanks and tanking are relatively new terms. I'm not sure if the fighting men from older editions had a tanking role, but I think not. D&D 3.5 is not really build around the concept of tanking, but you're free to create some house rules. Whatever makes your game more enjoyable.

Previous editions did have warriors tanking as in warriors were supposed to get in the monster's faces and prevent them from getting to your spellcasters in the back. The old players handbooks had good examples of that in a combat with trolls and orcs. The way it worked then was an assumed '"f I am in melee with a warrior I would stay in combat with him until I retreat or die". That was essentially the only mechanic at work. 3e suffers from the same problem but for some reason it comes up more. Perhaps it is the extra emphasis on tactical movement and opportunity attacks and the like but it does seem to come up more in 3e.

Knaight
2011-01-28, 03:53 PM
The issue and probably cause of weirdness is, how does a game system handle simultaneous actions? In a "real" melee, people are changing what they're doing second by second, or less, based on what everybody else is doing, who change what they're doing based on ... and so on. There's no easy way to do that in a game system without bogging it down horrendously.

Plenty of game systems handle simultaneous actions just fine, with varying levels of crunch. In the case of Burning Wheel, everyone scripts 3 sub rounds of very small actions, then plays them out against each other. This prevents one person from reacting to the next, to the next, and so forth, instead having everyone reacting to each other. One can change the script mid round, but the character hesitates as they work through the new tactics. Its simple, its elegant, and the only reason its rules heavy is because there are a lot of very specific actions, all of which have interactions between them. Its still lighter than D&D if spells get brought in. On the lighter side, Fudge handles this by having everyone plan actions and if they are fighting stances (general tactics that model how cautious the character is being), then has opposed rolls. One then reads the rolls of everyone fighting each other, and determines who hits how hard. If people are, overall, fighting cautiously it may well be nobody is hit. If people are, overall, fighting aggressively, it may well be everyone is hit, all of them for a significant injury.

randomhero00
2011-01-30, 04:00 PM
Right, but it seems to me like fast reacting characters,should actually go last, after everyone has declared what they're doing, so they can do the most effective action. Or perhaps any order they want. Granted that takes longer to do initiative. But perhaps highest initiative gets an extra standard action to represent this. Only usuable after at least one person has gone.


I know you don't *have* to go first if you role first initiative but it usually means your less effective if you hold.

Knaight
2011-01-30, 04:29 PM
Right, but it seems to me like fast reacting characters,should actually go last, after everyone has declared what they're doing, so they can do the most effective action. Or perhaps any order they want. Granted that takes longer to do initiative. But perhaps highest initiative gets an extra standard action to represent this. Only usuable after at least one person has gone.

The flat footed mechanics give an advantage to simply going first, as makes sense. If you are the first to react, then you should be the first to act, as you don't get an opportunity much better than an opponent who still hasn't registered the fact that combat is on. To take the example of a spagetti western pistol duel, whoever reacts first gets off the first shot, and have already won.

ffone
2011-01-30, 04:33 PM
Sometimes you can get your DM to go along with some fluff that helps the tank out here. If the tank is an ex-soldier or has any kind of positive Wisdom modifier I'd roleplay it as walking point in a very alert way--maybe a listen/spot/perception check means the tank gets an action in the surprise round, which would at least allow them to get into position.

It isn't really a mechanical solution by any means, but if your DM digs on fluff it can be fun--and if you don't remember to RP it, well, way to stop being alert, tank!

That's already built into the rules. High Wis means higher Spot/Listen mods which means more likely to ambush foes or not be ambushed. IIRC the DMG even has a blurb about using perception to determine encounter starting distance and possible surprise rounds.

holywhippet
2011-01-30, 04:38 PM
The thing is, intiative doesn't entirely favour those with high dex. Even with a decent dex bonus and a feat like improved initiative, you still have to roll a d20 to determine who moves in what order. Having +8 to initiative won't help if you roll a 1.

I do think the 2nd edition system was a bit better. IIRC you rolled a d10 each round, then added the initiative value of your action. A fast action like stabbing with a dagger would likely go before a wizard getting off a fireball spell for example. Initiative was rolled before every round of combat which made things more tactical as you might switch to a quick weapon hoping to stab an enemy spellcaster before they can get a spell off.

ffone
2011-01-30, 04:43 PM
Ah yes, was that the edition where walking around holding a dagger makes you faster?

randomhero00
2011-01-30, 04:44 PM
It still just seems....odd. I can't explain it but there feels like there's an inherent problem with the way we think of as iniatiative.

Cerlis
2011-01-30, 05:02 PM
Edited*

It still just seems....odd. I can't explain it but there feels like there's an inherent problem with the way we think of as iniatiative.

I think the problem is your still focused on turns.

its not representing your readyness or your willingness to act first.

it represents that in that split second when everyone realized **** was going down, that character was first to react.

in real combat that person might stutter and fall on their ass. they might freak and scream, they might draw there weapon and shout a warning. they might look for more enemies in case its an ambush, they might (as is the case with experienced adventuerers) react immediately and choose to attack the foe or protect an ally.

either way, that represents only 6 seconds. 6 seconds can definately be long enough to run 30 feet and attack at the end of that, but its still only 6 seconds. if you look at any fight scene in movies often the first 1-3 or more rounds are wasted with characters moving into position, telling each other to run, reloading. finding cover. ect. Heck, i kinda hate how everyone in DnD is fight or die. i was proud of myself when some hobgoblins decided to run for it when they realized half their group was killed. in said real or movie situation while the main characters are wasting their rounds making sure they arent in a deadly situation (such as by finding cover) so are the "monsters" a guard might fire his shots first, but as soon as the "PCs" fire back hes gunna run or take cover. he's not going to run into a group of PCs and start meleeing the first one he comes across.

you got to remember, no one takes turns going first. rounds represents 6 seconds. So if the fighter and rogue run up to an enemy and attack it. its not "The fighter runs up and hits him, then the rogue runs behind him and backstabs him" its "The fighter and rogue run up to him, the fighter gets there first and attacks and the rogue gets there a half second later and backstabs him"

all of combat is going in at the same time. however because stuff like getting stabbed in the chest, or having a wall manifest in front of you, hinders people who react a second slower, then the whole "turns" thing is applicable.

So a rogue who wins initiative doesnt magically stay at the top of the turn. after the last guy goes initiative doesnt matter exept for what order turns are done. the rogue still goes after the slowest guy. thats cus turns are all happing at the same time. a rogue spends 6 seconds doing this, and the slow guy does 6 seconds doing that. a rogue doesnt magically start at the front of a turn based system. everything happens at the same time, but the rogue started a split second earlier so everything he does resolves first.

really initiative only matters in the first round of combat.

If you wanted a more "realistic" way of doing things you could have each round represent 3 seconds and everyone only gets on action. this would be more realistic and representative because the rogue might run up to an enemy, and as he runs up there he realizes its a bad idea (cus maybe the enemy manifested tenticals out of his face as his first action)

So while in the current system the rogue runs up and backstabs him, then the badguy manifests tentacle-face defensively and attacks with it; you would have the rogue run up to the enemy, then tentacle-face is cast, then the rogue runs away and tentacle-face hits the fighter (instead of possibly the rogue)

--------------------

Either way, anytime you decide to turn real life mechanics into a game you are going to lose some form of realism. and when it comes to fairness, alot of realism is lost. if your group was fine with it, you could play the game 100% with no stats whatsoever and keep it all based on your judgment and own sense of fairness and sensibility. but most people (if anyone) can do that . so thus we have a game with rules for most situations.

holywhippet
2011-01-30, 05:04 PM
Ah yes, was that the edition where walking around holding a dagger makes you faster?

Define faster. I don't think it changed your movement speed, but you could potentially act earlier as a dagger was a faster weapon to use than a broadsword for example.

MeeposFire
2011-01-30, 05:06 PM
Ah yes, was that the edition where walking around holding a dagger makes you faster?

Wasn't initiative determined by the action you took in 2e? So yes a dagger was faster if you used it but if you wanted to do something that did not use the dagger then it did not help you. So if I cast a spell the casting time determined my initiative not the dagger I held in my hand.

randomhero00
2011-01-30, 05:07 PM
Define faster. I don't think it changed your movement speed, but you could potentially act earlier as a dagger was a faster weapon to use than a broadsword for example.

yeah the speeds dont really match up logically. You'd have:
combat experience (so you don't lose time freaking out at all)
weapon speed
reflex speed
thought speed (analyzing and then acting)
and move speed
And probably one or two more...

Lapak
2011-01-30, 05:08 PM
Define faster. I don't think it changed your movement speed, but you could potentially act earlier as a dagger was a faster weapon to use than a broadsword for example.Which doesn't make actual sense if you start outside of melee combat range. All other factors being equal, the guy with the broadsword/halberd/two-hander is going to get to swing before dagger-guy.

I vaguely recall early D&D running initiative differently; I think there was a missile-fire phase that explicitly went before melee combat, for example.

Swordguy
2011-01-30, 05:09 PM
Define faster. I don't think it changed your movement speed, but you could potentially act earlier as a dagger was a faster weapon to use than a broadsword for example.

You could act faster when using a dagger...as long as you were actually ATTACKING with the dagger, not just casting a spell.

The old trick people tried to use was that a Wizard, with a dagger with a low weapon speed, could apply that weapon speed to his initiative during a round in which he was casting a spell.

What was actually supposed to happen was that everybody declared their actions for the upcoming round, and then rolled init to determine in what order the actions resolved. So if you declared you were casting a spell, you couldn't apply the dagger's weapon speed modifier to your initiative - you had to apply the "casting a spell" modifier.

Runestar
2011-01-30, 05:10 PM
There's a difference between wanting to go first, and being able to. :smalltongue:

Knaight
2011-01-30, 05:12 PM
yeah the speeds dont really match up logically. You'd have:
combat experience (so you don't lose time freaking out at all)
weapon speed
reflex speed
thought speed (analyzing and then acting)
and move speed
And probably one or two more...

Combat experience, reflex, and thought speed can all be safely merged together, as the reflexes relevant to combat merge all three. As far as weapon speed goes, abstracting that is usually a good idea, particularly given everything else involved in weapon interactions, leaving move speed as another major speed. In short, initiative and movement speed is fine, though continuing with the constant initiative past the surprise round is odd.

MeeposFire
2011-01-30, 05:13 PM
Which doesn't make actual sense if you start outside of melee combat range. All other factors being equal, the guy with the broadsword/halberd/two-hander is going to get to swing before dagger-guy.

I vaguely recall early D&D running initiative differently; I think there was a missile-fire phase that explicitly went before melee combat, for example.

A halberd could go first if they could set for the charge or similar things. Otherwise you just reacted too slow to bring your weapon to bear.

ffone
2011-01-30, 05:51 PM
You could act faster when using a dagger...as long as you were actually ATTACKING with the dagger, not just casting a spell.

The old trick people tried to use was that a Wizard, with a dagger with a low weapon speed, could apply that weapon speed to his initiative during a round in which he was casting a spell.
.

This. This is exactly what I was referring to.

I'm not familiar with the AD&D rules so I don't know whether people were 'simply' metagaming them, or actually getting them wrong: but there definitely were groups where people would hold daggers just to go earlier.

(I also found the rule odd b/c, while a dagger may be faster to move, it's also shorter - you could argue the broadsword guy should get the init boost b/c he comes into range first. Basically a microcosm of the 3.X reach / AoO effects.)

Swordguy
2011-01-30, 05:58 PM
This. This is exactly what I was referring to.

I'm not familiar with the AD&D rules so I don't know whether people were 'simply' metagaming them, or actually getting them wrong: but there definitely were groups where people would hold daggers just to go earlier.

There's a word for people who deliberately misread or misinterpret the rules to give them an in-game advantage:

Cheaters.

And it's unfair to blame the system when what you're talking about is a player issue. It's either an honest mistake, in which case it's the GM's job to gently correct it an ensure the game is being correctly played, or it's NOT and honest mistake and people are cheating. In neither case is the system itself at fault.

holywhippet
2011-01-30, 06:00 PM
Which doesn't make actual sense if you start outside of melee combat range. All other factors being equal, the guy with the broadsword/halberd/two-hander is going to get to swing before dagger-guy.

Not really. A dagger is a very light weapon, you can swing it pretty quickly. Weapons like swords are a lot heavier then daggers so it takes more time to get your swing going. Of course, if you are waiting for your opponent to get in range, a two handed sword should get the first attempt because of it is so long.



I vaguely recall early D&D running initiative differently; I think there was a missile-fire phase that explicitly went before melee combat, for example.

Dunno about that, might have been in 1st edition specifically. However, in 2nd edition if you had to move before attacking your DM might make your attack initiative a bit higher since you need to complete your movement first. As such, someone launching a ranged attack could go first because their opponent would need to move into melee range first.

Lurkmoar
2011-01-30, 06:06 PM
Actually, if your arrow or bolt was already readied earlier, you could fire off one arrow or bolt before initiative was even rolled. edit: as long as they were specialized in their weapon of choice.

Elven ambushes were pretty brutal, I'll tell you what...

The Big Dice
2011-01-30, 06:19 PM
Not really. A dagger is a very light weapon, you can swing it pretty quickly. Weapons like swords are a lot heavier then daggers so it takes more time to get your swing going. Of course, if you are waiting for your opponent to get in range, a two handed sword should get the first attempt because of it is so long.
You have a knife, I'll have a spear. We'll stand 15 feet apart and see who can hit who first.

Which is kind of the point you're making. However, a straight line is a faster attack than a curve. Which is why the second fastest thing in sport is the tip of a fencer's weapon. The fastest being a bullet. So your two handed sword is going to be slower than a knife, because you have to swing while the other guy can stab. But, it has greater reach, which is it's own advantage.

I think what I'm trying to say is, weapon speeds are complicated things. There are a lot of factors that affect who will get to act first. And even more that affect who will make a hit land on the other guy first.

But getting to the Initiative thing. 1st edition L5R had a system where you'd roll Initiative, declare your actions from slowest to fastest and then resolve the actions going from fastest to slowest. It made for a slower round, but it did make sense in that the faster people could see what was going on around them, then act accordingly.

It's always been a minor gripe for me that perception and decision making speed aren't a factor in Initiative in just about any game I've ever seen. It's always physical reaction time. Which, when you stop to think about it, doesn't really make any sense at all.

Ozreth
2011-01-30, 06:22 PM
Initiative isn't about who acts first, it's about who is ABLE to act first if they choose to because they are more dextrous. Nothing more. As others have said, delay your action : )

The Big Dice
2011-01-30, 06:30 PM
Initiative isn't about who acts first, it's about who is ABLE to act first if they choose to because they are more dextrous. Nothing more. As others have said, delay your action : )

What has dexterity got to do with sizing up a situation and making the choice on what to do, then seeing that choice through?

holywhippet
2011-01-30, 06:41 PM
What has dexterity got to do with sizing up a situation and making the choice on what to do, then seeing that choice through?

D&D bundles dexterity, agility and reflexes into the one bundle. It doesn't really make sense, but neither does the strength stat deciding both how well and how hard you can hit an opponent and how much you can carry.

It's just another simplification that D&D has in it.

ffone
2011-01-30, 06:46 PM
There's a word for people who deliberately misread or misinterpret the rules to give them an in-game advantage:

Cheaters.

And it's unfair to blame the system when what you're talking about is a player issue. It's either an honest mistake, in which case it's the GM's job to gently correct it an ensure the game is being correctly played, or it's NOT and honest mistake and people are cheating. In neither case is the system itself at fault.

Thanks, I had to look up the word 'cheaters' but now it's part of my vocabulary.

Do you actually know they were misreading the rules? The posts above mine seem to go both ways. it might've been how they really worked.

And the fact that it was a somewhat common practice, and not stopped by DMs, suggests that at best the rules were not very clear on the point. Which is also bad on the part of the system.

And the issue underscores that, while the rule was supposedly for realism, it probably wasn't realistic (moving is also part of a turn; why does the dagger help you move earlier?)

The Big Dice
2011-01-30, 06:52 PM
D&D bundles dexterity, agility and reflexes into the one bundle. It doesn't really make sense, but neither does the strength stat deciding both how well and how hard you can hit an opponent and how much you can carry.

It's just another simplification that D&D has in it.

Strength governs how much you can lift and how hard you can hit. At least that's what boxers I've known have all believed. Technique helps, but a stronger person tends to be larger. And in turn, that means they can hit harder.

However, I still fail to see what dextreity, reflexes and agility have to do with assessing and acting on a complex and changing situation.

MeeposFire
2011-01-30, 06:52 PM
Thanks, I had to look up the word 'cheaters' but now it's part of my vocabulary.

Do you actually know they were misreading the rules? The posts above mine seem to go both ways. it might've been how they really worked.

And the fact that it was a somewhat common practice, and not stopped by DMs, suggests that at best the rules were not very clear on the point. Which is also bad on the part of the system.

And the issue underscores that, while the rule was supposedly for realism, it probably wasn't realistic (moving is also part of a turn; why does the dagger help you move earlier?)

It won't in 2e you said what you were going to do in the round before you actually start the round. Initiative was used to determine the order those actions went in. So unless you use a dagger it would not apply its modifier. This is a good thing at times since if you were just moving around you would not want the dagger slowing you down with its attack speed of 1. Dagger is only faster than most other weapons, if you wanted to get silly just use natural style weapons like your fists as those had no speed mod naturally.

Notice this is backwards from 3e and 4e where you roll initiative to determine the order then you determine your actions.

holywhippet
2011-01-30, 07:17 PM
Strength governs how much you can lift and how hard you can hit. At least that's what boxers I've known have all believed. Technique helps, but a stronger person tends to be larger. And in turn, that means they can hit harder.


There's a difference in strengths depending on how you train your muscles. Most muscle training falls into two categories - stamina and power. Hitting something hard mostly falls into the power category - you are trying to pack as much impact into one blow as possible. Carrying heavy weights over a distance is more of a stamina thing, you are trying to maintain a certain amount of power over an extended duration.

Of course there is a different type of stamina associated with power based moves - a boxer will be trying to hit hard and keep hitting hard for the duration of the fight. Weight lifters on the other hand don't really need huge amounts of stamina - something like the clean and jerk is over in around 5 seconds. They don't need to hold the weight up for long, just long enough to have it under control.



However, I still fail to see what dexterity, reflexes and agility have to do with assessing and acting on a complex and changing situation.

I think the basic idea is that someone with high dexterity can react quicker to their current situation and move faster to implement their intended actions. For example, if someone is moving to attack you your high dexterity lets you work out their planned attack vector and lets you move move quickly to hit them first. To some extent this is fair enough, a lot of martial arts is about training and muscle memory rather than carefully analysing the situation and planning your moves.

The Big Dice
2011-01-30, 07:22 PM
To some extent this is fair enough, a lot of martial arts is about training and muscle memory rather than carefully analysing the situation and planning your moves.
Not many martial arts train you to react quickly when giant insects appear out of thin air because some dude in a robe waved his hands. And nor do many boxing or MMA gyms teach you to run a specific distance (30 feet in 6 secones? That's REALLY short) to position yourself exactly 30 feet away from someone so you can throw something at them before they can react to it. Even though they knew you were there before it all went pear shaped.

MeeposFire
2011-01-30, 07:22 PM
and a good chunk is just the game being an abstraction and trying to keep things fun.

That is why 3e went to this simpler method of initiative in the first place. It is faster and easier to remember/use. Yea you can find things that do not 100% make sense but for the typical game it is more than enough.

SiuiS
2011-01-30, 07:32 PM
I guess it feels weird is all. It should feel like you're working as one cohesive team. But instead it feels more like you take turns dueling the monsters.


You could delay your action. Wait until the tank does his thing and then go for the kill, though then you would get stuck in that order.


Just because you can go first doesn't mean you must go first, you can just wait for the tanks to move and then make your move.

You're thinking selfishly.
Delaying IS playing as a team- the fat skirmished rogue delays (sets position and says "draw fire on the right flank, pull and I'll rip the left") the fighter tank delays as well (hefts shield and says "you got it. Suppressive fire!") and the wizard drops an AoE In the enemy crowd. Then the fighter goes, running alon the right and ripping into wounded enemies. The rogue then covers the left, flanks for sneak attack, and sets up AoOs to pick off any weak links which try to regroup- and if they don't regroup, the fighter will kill them.

This works a lot better than "I got a 21 on I initiative, I'm going to charge the left side. Fighter hit the right, wizard stomp the middle. Hope the monsters don't go first!". Working as a unit means sometimes, you sacrifice for the group. Saying "why doesn't initiative work for me" misses the point.

holywhippet
2011-01-30, 07:49 PM
Agreed, at times I've asked players to delay their actions until after mine because I'm either going to move into a flanking position to help their attack out or because I'm going to use a spell to help them first. Or even asking an ally to hold back because I'm going to use an AoE spell which I don't want them getting hit with.

SiuiS
2011-01-31, 12:00 AM
Good stuff, man.


enemies can just ignore you and it is probably a better choice since spellcasters are more dangerous and are better targets from any group that follows orders or have even average levels of intelligence.
this is deceptively an intriguing situation. Let us assume some basic things.
First, the Tank has the highest HP in the party.
Second, the Tank has the highest armor in the party.
Third, the tank can reliably damage the enemy- hit ratio of 3:1, deals 10 damage after DR.

The enemy CAN go for everyone else first. Hitpoint damage will drop the wizard and cleric pretty fast, and rogue as well. But then, after being singed and burnt and stabbed by everyone else, there is still an enemy who cannot be easily dealt with, who reliably damages you (like a thorn in your paw, really) and who is at full health and angry because you killed his meal tickets. Sure this is the guy who let everyone die, but he's also the guy who can lift everyone else's corpses and gear, haul em back to town, and bring em back to life.

Personally, Id hate to be that dragon at half HP who still has the most insistent threat left to deal with, even if he isn't the sharpest thorn. And hey, nothing says you automatically start to hold your breathe; it requires a specific action to do so.

Ignore the only man out of four who has the upper body strength to shut down your repiratory system, let him flank and stop considering him a threat? To ahead ;3

MeeposFire
2011-01-31, 12:04 AM
Good stuff, man.


this is deceptively an intriguing situation. Let us assume some basic things.
First, the Tank has the highest HP in the party.
Second, the Tank has the highest armor in the party.
Third, the tank can reliably damage the enemy- hit ratio of 3:1, deals 10 damage after DR.

The enemy CAN go for everyone else first. Hitpoint damage will drop the wizard and cleric pretty fast, and rogue as well. But then, after being singed and burnt and stabbed by everyone else, there is still an enemy who cannot be easily dealt with, who reliably damages you (like a thorn in your paw, really) and who is at full health and angry because you killed his meal tickets. Sure this is the guy who let everyone die, but he's also the guy who can lift everyone else's corpses and gear, haul em back to town, and bring em back to life.

Personally, Id hate to be that dragon at half HP who still has the moan insistent threat left to deal with, even if he isn't the sharpest thorn. And hey, nothing says you automatically start to hold your breathe; it requires a specific action to do so.

Ignore the only man out of four who has the upper body strength to shut down your repiratory system, let him flank and stop considering him a threat? To ahead ;3

So instead you attack the guy who takes the longest to kill and allow the most dangerous threats free reign to kill you? That is a strategy that leads to death. Yea the fighter might kill you if you ignore him but the spell casters will kill you if you ignore them and they will have time to prep defenses.

Xuc Xac
2011-01-31, 12:56 AM
Not really. A dagger is a very light weapon, you can swing it pretty quickly. Weapons like swords are a lot heavier then daggers so it takes more time to get your swing going. Of course, if you are waiting for your opponent to get in range, a two handed sword should get the first attempt because of it is so long.

If you want to swing a dagger across a 4 foot slash, you have to swing your arm through about 60 degrees of arc and move your hand about 4 feet. You can slash across the same distance with a two-handed sword by just pivoting the hilt about 26 degrees, which you can do by moving your left hand about 6 inches. Longer weapons are levers which amplify movement. A small movement at the wrist turns into a long movement at the tip of the blade. Even if your hands are moving slower, the longer blade is still moving much faster and covering more distance in the same time than the shorter one. But the fact is, your hands won't be moving that much slower. Big weapons aren't actually that heavy (and the effective weight is halved because you're using two hands to move them).

Youtube is full of videos of people sparring with two-handed swords using techniques from old fighting manuals. They are really surprisingly fast. They don't hit harder because they are heavier. They hit harder because they move so much faster.

If you just want to thrust instead of swinging, then the longer weapon still wins because your arm moves at roughly the same speed but the tip of the longer weapon has a big head start on the way to the target.

Jothki
2011-01-31, 03:16 AM
Right, but it seems to me like fast reacting characters,should actually go last, after everyone has declared what they're doing, so they can do the most effective action. Or perhaps any order they want. Granted that takes longer to do initiative. But perhaps highest initiative gets an extra standard action to represent this. Only usuable after at least one person has gone.


I know you don't *have* to go first if you role first initiative but it usually means your less effective if you hold.

The new King's Bounty games (very similar to Heroes of Might and Magic, heck, it might even work like that in those games as well) have initiative work like that, but only if you want it to. Units with higher initiative go earlier in a round, but if you choose to delay the unit's action, it gets moved to the second half of the round, in which initiative works in reverse order, with higher-initiative units moving later. For the lowest-initiative unit, waiting actually does absolutely nothing, since it simply moves their action from the end of the first half to the beginning of the second. It works out pretty well, but in that game, round boundaries actually mean something, rather than just cycling back to the start of the order without any other consequences.

Is there any reason you can't just voluntarily lower your initiative through action delays? You maintain the advantage of suddenly being able to snap back into a higher position at will.

Heck, if you get highest initiative, could you delay to lowest and then take a double-action at some point during the battle?

Shyftir
2011-01-31, 06:12 AM
One thing that initiative lacks to me is an allowance for "quick thinking." I feel init. should be based on wisdom/perception + dex to allow for reflex both in body and mind.

Xuc Xac
2011-01-31, 10:17 AM
One thing that initiative lacks to me is an allowance for "quick thinking." I feel init. should be based on wisdom/perception + dex to allow for reflex both in body and mind.

There's an important step missing there that just isn't covered by D&D stats: killer instinct. In real life fights, determining "initiative" comes down to three steps:

Mentally assessing the situation and realizing that you should fight now.
Overcoming your resistance to hurting other people and being willing to make an aggressive strike.
Physically acting (or reacting).


Spot, Sense Motive, or other Wisdom/Perception skills help with number 1. Dexterity covers number 3. There are no stats for number 2 but it's the biggest limiting factor in real combat. A big part of military basic training involves getting recruits to get past that stumbling block. Bayonet charges aren't really a common tactic anymore, but modern militaries still keep teaching bayonet drills to try to develop that killer instinct in recruits. Despite their fantasies to the contrary, most people don't want to hurt another person even in a life or death situation. Just look at a relatively non-lethal combat like a fist fight among drunken college students on a weekend. There's a lot of angry shouting and posturing and pushing before someone works up the nerve to throw a punch. People will hesitate a long time before acting. D&D, like most games, gets around this problem by assuming PCs are sociopathic murderous hobos. The game Unknown Armies has a fairly realistic combat system. It begins with a long list of "ways to avoid a fight" before going to "So you've decided to murder a human being..."

I personally prefer to gloss over number 2 in gaming because I like a cinematic, "action movie" approach, but I would like more emphasis on number 1. Number 3 is actually the least significant factor in determining who goes first except in a few specific cases (like Western-style, quickdraw gunfights or Samurai iaijutsu duels and those both feature a long pause during which both fighters can get past 1 and 2 before it's time to check 3).

John Campbell
2011-02-01, 06:00 AM
If you want to swing a dagger across a 4 foot slash, you have to swing your arm through about 60 degrees of arc and move your hand about 4 feet. You can slash across the same distance with a two-handed sword by just pivoting the hilt about 26 degrees, which you can do by moving your left hand about 6 inches. Longer weapons are levers which amplify movement. A small movement at the wrist turns into a long movement at the tip of the blade. Even if your hands are moving slower, the longer blade is still moving much faster and covering more distance in the same time than the shorter one. But the fact is, your hands won't be moving that much slower. Big weapons aren't actually that heavy (and the effective weight is halved because you're using two hands to move them).
Also, with a one-handed weapon, you've got maybe four inches of leverage on the hilt - the width of your palm. With a two-handed weapon, you've got the spacing between your hands for leverage... probably a foot and a half, at least, and with many weapons more. My default grip on my polearm gives me about two feet of leverage, and for some blows I shift grips to increase that, to as much as four feet sometimes, particularly when fighting in close (where D&D, y'know, says I can't use my pole at all). This lets you apply far more than merely twice as much effective power.

And on top of that, that extra power, extra mass of the weapon, and the extra speed you get from that length of lever arm means that the weapon doesn't have to move as far to hit damagingly hard. I can and have dented steel helms with a rattan pole with blows where the business end of my weapon moved less than a foot. This is nigh-impossible with a light weapon, even with all the wind-up in the world. Not only is the arc distance for a given linear distance less, the linear distance itself can be shorter.


Youtube is full of videos of people sparring with two-handed swords using techniques from old fighting manuals. They are really surprisingly fast. They don't hit harder because they are heavier. They hit harder because they move so much faster.
Well, they hit harder because they're heavier too. But the blow energy increases only linearly with mass, and with the square of the velocity.

Somewhere out there there's a videotape of a Champions' Battle at Pennsic some years back, when Master Tearlach the Profane, one of our local polearm gods, was at the top of his form. Towards the end of the battle, there are five Midrealm knights left, facing off against four remaining Eastern knights and masters, including Tearlach. They're out at long range, kind of feeling each other out and maneuvering for position before they engage, when, suddenly and for no apparent reason, the Middie in the center of their line just falls down. The Easterners punch into the resulting opening, roll up the Middies, and shortly thereafter, the battle is over and won.

If you flip frame-by-frame through that bit where that Middie just falls over, there's one frame where Tearlach's shoulders and hands have moved a bit, maybe six inches, and the haft of his polearm is torqued backwards because the head of it hasn't started to move yet. In the next frame, he's back in his original position, and the haft of his polearm is torqued sharply forwards... he's back in his stance, and the striking end of his weapon hasn't caught up with him yet. And that Middie is already starting to fall backwards.

NTSC video runs at 30 frames per second, so, in the ~1/15th of a second covered by those two frames, Tearlach threw a nearly-complete blow and recovery with a 7.5' glaive, hard enough that the guy he hit didn't merely accept the blow as good and drop, but actually got knocked over by it.

Tearlach's hit me with that blow, too. I was standing up facing off against him, and then I was lying on the ground with Tearlach standing over me saying, "Would you like a hand up?" Nothing in between.


If you just want to thrust instead of swinging, then the longer weapon still wins because your arm moves at roughly the same speed but the tip of the longer weapon has a big head start on the way to the target.
All those speed, power, and leverage advantages translate into maneuverability when you're point-fighting, too. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of fencing experience with my polearm... the point of a two-handed weapon can be at least as tricksy as the point of an epée. A lot of people who only have experience with the HULK SMASH school of polearm fighting don't realize that, and it's usually good for a kill or three before they start to figure it out.