Kinetic all-in-1-roll D&D/Pathfinder combatlike product

[DoomHat]

So, I just participated in a massive sprawling end of campaign combat. Long story short, it so highly illustrated my beef with Initiative based combat that I’ve sworn to make it my life mission as a gamer to preach A DIFFERENT Way!
It’s more then possible, here’s a couple big deal examples you might have heard of…
http://rpgsystems.wikidot.com/one-roll-engine
http://rpgsystems.wikidot.com/burning-wheel
There are more (oh so many more), but lets get to talking about d20.

Okay, I think its safe to assume you know the standard drill, you’re on a forum for a D&D fan comic, so lets skip ahead to how we’re mixing it up.

When someone declares violence against another, starting with the first aggressor (be they PC or NPC) the DM asks each player in turn (let's say going clockwise around the table) to declare how they wish to respond. All NPCs involved in the scene must also declare. Note: “With more violence!” is an adequate, and frankly not unexpected, form of response. Once all the declarations have been made, you have yourself a combat round, now you get to resolve it.
I don’t know whether or not you’ve noticed, but knockout drag-out fights (both real and in the movies) tend to happen more or less all at once. Same goes here, but, ah what’s that?
What if timing is a factor!? Like, what if I’m so wicked fast I should be able to take that biscuit peddling son of a haberdasher out before he can even take a swing? Well that’s where the 1-roll-does-it-all.

-You and your opponent roll your respective d20s.
-Then add the die result to whatever bonus is relevant to what you’re trying to achieve. If an attack roll, your BAB, if a skill check, your skill bonus. -This is your action’s “-Accuracy-”
-Then add the die result to your Initiative bonus. - This is your action’s “-Speed-”

Example: Spug the orc (poor doomed Spug) has decided to open a dialog with the party’s fighter, the only way he knows how. Sir Swordington, understandably, responds to the swinging club with a swinging blade.
They roll…
/Spug gets 12. His Initiative is +0 and his BAB is +1. So his action is -Speed[12]- and -Accuracy[13]-
/Swordington gets 9. His Initiative is +3 and his BAB is +2. So his action is -Speed[12]- and -Accuracy[11]-
The result: Resounding simultaneous whiffs. Perhaps their weapons collided mid arch?

Resolve and repeat until nobody’s willing (or at least able) to fight anymore.
Anyway, that’s the basic idea.

Now, there is one simi-sound complaint I’ve heard on this idea. What if someone takes down you opponent before your action goes off? Is that attack wasted?
Well there’s two ways to handle this,
1. The brutal simulationist approach: This sort of thing is known to happen on the battlefield. Two men commit to ruining the same poor bastard’s day, and even though the first hit may of well of done the job, the redundant hit is already on its way. No way to, or point in, stopping it now, assuming the second attacker even has time to notice. But on the up side, the whole fight should be moving so much faster, as a result of the blasted initiative phase being stripped out, you might not feel so bad about having “wasted” your turn.
2. Super-friendly happy-fair times: Your target this round has already gone splat with no help from you. Okay then, pick a ripe one, redirect your roll there. If you’re working with Action Points or something, make it cost one of those to do so. Done!

The whole notion here is that a d20 is always going to be a d20, no matter what it's being used for. So why not milk each result for all the information you can get.

It’s 6a.m. and I’m still awake, so lets go crazy with this notion.
You know how HP isn’t your actual health, but instead your last line of defense before getting REALLY hit? Ever been fed that line? Well I have and it’s dumb. Every DM ever describes a hit as a HIT. “You’ve just lost 10 HP, I hope you like horrible bleeding gashes, cuz boy have you ever got one.”

Well lets apply this one-roll-to-rule-them-all idea to that business as well.

Here ever after, should an attack's -Accuracy- exceed the target’s Armor Class, the target loses HP equal to the difference.
Ex: An arrow fired with -Accuracy[23]- at a target with AC17 removes 6HP from the target.

If the target loses all their HP in the attack, or has no more HP to lose they take DAMAGE!
DAMAGE! is mean. You have a penalty to all rolls equal to your current DAMAGE!. If you have more DAMAGE! then your Con score, you black out, if more then double, death.
The DAMAGE! done is determined by the weapon. A nat 20 always does DAMAGE! regardless of remaining HP.

I SLEEP NOW

Please give positive feedback if you have any.

[Dryad]

I think you're inventing a new kind of roll confusion with this.
First off, in this system, the initiative is always shifting. You'll be spending more time writing and rewriting initiative orders than you did before on the rolls.
The second problem I see is HP/DAMAGE! I personally think it's exceedingly clunky to have two separate hit-point systems to keep track of, and it gets worse that they're both dependent on a different system. (HP: Depends on number by which AC is exceeded, DAMAGE! depending on weapon and con score)
Yes; you'll be rolling far less dice. But you'll be writing, counting, substracting and trying to remember results of those dice a lot more.

I would suggest a different approach:
Roll initiative once; start of encounter.
Keep to the order as normal.
Make your attack roll as normal.
Dealing damage is STR mod (for normal melee attacks) plus weapon mod (for normal attacks). Let's say a dagger is size 1; it deals 1 damage plus strength mod. A sword sword is size two, a longsword is size three and a great sword is size 4. Strength mods are solid, weapon damage is solid; no need to calculate. You could do the same with ranged weapons and dex, or spells with int/wis/cha. (Let's say a spell deals 2x spell level +(caster stat) damage; this justifies the fact that there's only a single attack per round, as well as the fact that there's a limit to how many spells you can cast.)

The Dungeons and Dragons hit point system is pretty basic: A pool filled with hit points. As you take damage, the pool becomes smaller. Pretty basic stuff. The pool increases as your character becomes more powerful; also pretty basic, and very important for the heroic feel. Do you want to keep the heroic feel to your story? Then keep this system. If not, and you want to apply penalties, then you're going to have to work with a solid amount of HP that does not increase as the character gains levels.
However, doing so means that the damage levels have to be fixed in a fashion similar as shown above, which hampers -progress, and also takes a lot of the uniqueness out of spells and attacks; it makes them all more or less the same in feel.
You can't have the one and not the other, though. If you're going to fix the damage in order to speed up the combats, you're going to have to fix the hit points.. And vice versa. At this point, you're basically no longer playing a DnD game at all, and many standard rules (and even classes) will conflict to such an extent that you're actually simply writing a new system.

I've done that; writing a new system. It's quick, it's efficient, and it allows players to pick-and-choose, making their characters exactly as they want. I wouldn't say it's better than DnD; it has its own limits, and there are many things you simply can't do. No AoO, no normal grapples (yet), no normal trips, no normal disarms... All those awesome tactical options that DnD has are simply not there for every character. Only some characters can do certain things. In that sense, it is far more rigid, but that is the trade-off.

I'm not making that game public just yet, of course. I mean; a gal can dream, right? My dream is to eventually have it published, when I've gotten rid of some of the mistakes, and written a good, newbie-friendly and fun-to-read guide. It's entirely possible to write your own system, is what I want to say, but be aware that simplifying a system to the point where you can resolve anything with a single die-roll (as players nearly can in my system) brings its own limitations and problems, not the least of which is balance.

[DoomHat]

The whole Damage thing was meant as kind of a brainstorming aside, sorry, probably should've left that discussion to a different thread.
The issue here is initiative, and I think you've misunderstood my intent. Please read again and explain why you'd need to write your -Speed- down any more then you'd need to record your -Accuracy- with each attack.

:smallfrown: You know what, let me just start again and clarify myself in more direct language.

The Problem As I See It
Short version; The standard Initiative paradigm has the same impact on immersion/narrative flow/fun that a sledgehammer has on a carton of eggs.

Long version; Combat is at the beating heart of D&D and 98% all RPGs on the market. Why? If I were feeling cynical I'd say, "because most of them are mislabeled board games," but I'm not, so here's a fruitier answer. Conflict drives stories forward, and conflict exists in no purer form then a fight. The stakes are clear, the consequences dire. Flee, chase, slash, parry, push, pull, drag, live or die! Good times, action packed! Yet...
Yet the very instant the DM call for Initiative, the game comes to screeching standstill.
The following is a summery of just about every combat in every game I've ever played in most any system under just about every game master... ever (With a few happy exceptions I'll get to later).

Initiative is called! All in-game actions must be withheld and reserved for your eventual turn. Each player rolls, does some math, the DM ask each player their individual result. Then he rolls for NPCs. Then does some math, then takes a moment to organize it all. This usually takes about 2 to 3 minutes.
Then, each player from highest result to lowest takes their turn. Between asking clarifying questions, thinking it over, arguing about how rolling to resolve certain actions is supposed to work, issuing one liners (often shoehorned into number of words limited by the rules) then finally rolling to resolve, each player's turn can take anywhere from 40 seconds to 10 minutes (sometimes absurdly more).
The biggest issue being that no other player has any say or involvement of any kind, unless the DM allows strategic kibitzing. Assuming each player's turn takes an average of 3 minutes, that leaves any given player in a 4 person game 9 mind bleeding thumb twiddling dice stacking god damn minutes between turns. God help you if you've built a ranged character. "Okay, I'm good and far back, don't really need to move, okay. Roll to hit... Whiff? Okay then, back to my ipod I guess."
Occasionally things will move along at a good clip or the DM has enough going on that it's worth keeping track of things as they happen, but this is rare indeed.
So here we are, life and death struggle is a slow boring slog and I hate it. What can we do to change things?

My Proposed Solution
Last Monday, I ran a StarWars Saga Edition game. Over the course of the session, my players struggled their way through a space-station under siege by two separate waring pirate factions. The fighty characters fought, the talky character talked, the skillmonkey screwed with the computer system to great effect. Not once did I call for Initiative during the whole thing. I just treated combat as just a protracted skill test. "Whoever's attack roll or skill roll is higher is considered to have happened first, even if it wasn't rolled first".
It was a hit. My players loved it. There were three separate combats, all fought and done with in a single 2 and a half hour session, with time left over for intrigue, character moments, and scene setting. Everyone got to play more or less simultaneously, it was cinematic, tense, and most importantly, fun.

My above post does much the same, but allows players keep the advantage of any initiative specific abilities they've taken.

I invite you to playtest it yourself. I'd like to hear any feedbak you can give.

[Dryad]

I have in the past (and close present) played with such a 'simultaneous' system, though it was rather rudimentary.
The problem isn't easily explained, but let me first explain my view on why combat (and thus combat-focussed rules) is so terribly important in a role-play:
The presence of conflict doesn't only spice things up and further the story (and in that sense, conflict is absolutely essential, as a lack of opposition destroys any good story), but the presence of all these combat rules should serve another very important purpose: The willingness to avoid combat.
Dungeons and Dragons, and especially fourth edition, aren't good sponsors for this purpose overall, but a game master could raise the difficulty of encounters enough to instil their players with fear. And fear, in turn, makes for gréát immersion and story, and is possibly the best tool you have at your disposal to create good roleplay encounters.

The problem with your suggestion of simultaneous play is that you cannot complicate rounds and actions. You run the risk of taking away a character's combat uniqueness, flavour and feel, and you run the risk of not allowing much in terms of special actions at all; it quickly becomes little more than 'I hit you, you hit me.' In my opinion, it strengthens the feel of turn-based combat rather then diminishes it. The feel, of course, since you're taking the long-round-turn thing away nearly entirely, so you're diminishing actual turn-based play by turning a round into lots of mini-rounds, all isolated between attacker and defender, while both are either at any moment in time.

Even so, you're still forced to keep track of everyone's speed at each turn, as well as keep track of defenses, damage dealt, all in the same number. Not only is a failure in such a case an irredeemable one; fail on one thing, and you automatically fail on the other (which is, in my opinion, bad design since it forces a good roll, and if a roll is good, then everything is good all in one go), but you also have to calculate everything on that roll meaning confusion may very well happen. Sooner or later, your game revolves not on your character or your specialities; instead, it becomes more and more about that single role. Special attacks no longer matter, spells become more empty, your character concept in a moment of conflict will cease to matter, and all will be focussed purely on that roll. RNG (Random Number Generation) will take over your game, and decisions will lose their splendour. Now; an amount of RNG is good; it adds to the tension. I understand that. It feels good when you heal for a large amount without expecting much; it's rewarding and heroic to be able to do something (like crit) on a pivotal moment. But it's also unpredictable, and completely devoid of any choice you make. It's random.
To find a balance, you can't rely too much on random things. To fail utterly and completely in everything you want to do based on a single roll is unfair, especially when a team member succeeds on everything based on their lucky twenty.
This is why there are many dice to be rolled; to make sure spikes are evened out. To not punish as much for a single straight-out failure. To be able to make things right even if RNG leaves you in the cold.

[DoomHat]

There's a lot of feed back here, so I'm going to break things down a little.


"The willingness to avoid combat."
I actually couldn't agree more. However, this is a suggestion for streamlining D&D, and at the end of the day, D&D is about killing people and taking their stuff. Other games serve other purposes. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd Ed. is the best I've seen so far at straddling the line between 'Combat as an inevitability' and 'Combat as a thing to be desperately avoided'. That's because Warhammer is about doomed people in a doomed world, struggling to push back the tides of entropy for just one... more... day.


You run the risk of taking away a character's combat uniqueness, flavour and feel, and you run the risk of not allowing much in terms of special actions at all

No, not even a little bit, actually. You see, this whole thing (in concept) is actually based on the One Roll Engine. I linked it above but, here let me save some time...
The heart of it is here, in the box.
[SPOILER]ORE uses a pool of D10s equal to a Stat + Skill. The maximum pool size is 10 dice (additional dice can offset any penalties). Success is achieved by rolling matches (a set). The more dice matches, the wider the set is which indicates speed and competence. The number on the matching dices is the height, where a higher roll is a more favourable result. The result is described as <width>x<height>, e.g. 2x7 for a pair of sevens.

Width: Widest strikes first and does more damage.
Height: Higher strikes in a more vital location, like head.
Static Contest: Succeeds on a match but there can be a Difficulty to roll over or Penalty to the dice pool.
Dynamic Contests: Two trying to do same thing, but only one can win. The best can be widest or heighest depending on what is being attempted. In a race widest would be best, but in a calm argument with plenty of time height would be best. The GM should indicate which before the roll.
Just like in my suggestion, ORE doesn't got into special "Combat Time" to resolve violence. Each round of combat is effectively a single omni-turn.
Also, it was originally designed to run a superhero game. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a game that requires more flexibility for PC distinctiveness in terms of combat tricks then a superhero game.
The fantasy game rules set, Reign, has a whole host of diverse 'Martial Techniques' for players to employ.
If anything, this system encourages players to shake things up with more interesting shenanigans. It's way easier for them to communicate with each other and the payoff is more immediate.


Not only is a failure in such a case an irredeemable one; fail on one thing, and you automatically fail on the other
Normally, when an attack roll fails, do you then roll to see how much damage you didn't do?
Every time you roll dice in an RPG, you're asking a question. In standard d20, the question is almost always binary, Yes or NO. Did I hit, Yes or NO? Did I land safely, Yes or NO? Is the guard convinced, Yes or NO?
If I missed, does it matter how fast I missed? In truth, multiple rolls means increased odds of failure. How many times have you rolled {19 +Preposterous} to hit, but then rolled {1+sad} for damage. There's a reason so many modern games (Shadowrun 4th, FATE, ORE, Ect.) derive damage directly from the accuracy result.
So in short, flow chart!
Did you hit? If Yes...
Did you hit before anyone could stop you? If Yes...
How hard did you hit?


RNG (Random Number Generation)
If I were super worried about RNG then I'd switch off the d20 and onto something with a bell-curve. But the challenge I set out for myself was trying to figure out how to make the rules of standard d20 more fun without having to strip out everything and start from scratch.

[Dryad]

You say you're trying a superhero story, and one'd be hard pressed to find a story more focussed on personal extravagance (let me put this freely) than a superhero story.
I'd like to point out that that's for the system to decide, in this case.
A system that says: 'You can only do this and that' is very restricting no matter what the story is about.

ORE is very different from your idea.
For one: You have a pool of d10s. As you said; the more rolls you throw, the chance to fail increases, but you're a bit off about that. If you throw more dice, the chance to fail on some of them is increased. So is the chance to succeed. The result of this is that overall, you're somewhere in the middle.
ORE seems to use many dice just for this purpose.

I still don't like the result of your die-roll dictating what your character does, though. I don't see that being any improvement on immersion.

A single attack in DnD is subject to this as well, though. Normally, you just go and poke people with a sharp metal stick. (Attack.) You roll to hit. If miss, you don't roll again. If hit, you roll damage (or use fixed damage). This system can work if, and only if, there is a very limited amount of actions each turn. And then, it can work quite well. However, DnD, for the sake of immersion, complicates things. Massive spells, massive this, massive that, massive everything. So DnD has multiple attacks in a round. And this is where it actually gets interesting.
See; each attack you make, you can fail due to RNG, or you can succeed due to RNG, or you can succeed due to averageness. The more rolls you make, the more the total sum of that will resemble averageness. This will save a lot of players from taking the role of temporary dead weight.

If you start requiring only a single roll for a combination of actions, then if you fail drastically at speed, you ALSO fail drastically at attack AND damage. And that's the part that just isn't right. It punishes someone's attack and damage for a roll that should have nothing to do with those; it puts someone outside of the game for a whole turn, and whatever they do in that turn, they are useless because they are both too slow, and incapable to hit or scratch something.
And that is a flawed idea, if I may be honest.

[DoomHat]

You say you're trying a superhero story, and one'd be hard pressed to find a story more focussed on personal extravagance (let me put this freely) than a superhero story.
I'd like to point out that that's for the system to decide, in this case.
A system that says: 'You can only do this and that' is very restricting no matter what the story is about.
This is not what I am trying to say at all. You have what I was trying to say upside down somehow.
I proposed an alternative Initiative system. You put forward your concern that it would restrict player’s available options and functional distinctiveness.
I was attempting to assure you that this was not the case, and in fact, the basic principle of the thing is derived from a game that is highly effective at running superhero games (among other things).
I then proposed that superhero games require a great deal of available options and functional distinctiveness. So, to recap…
A good superhero game requires a great deal of available options and functional distinctiveness. ORE has been used to run good superhero games. My idea is based on ORE. Ergo, my idea possesses a great deal of available options and functional distinctiveness.
I’m really not sure were you’re getting the impression I’m tying player’s hands behind their backs here. Can you please explain it to me? Can you describe what you think my system looks like in practice? Give me some example please. Because I haven’t proposed anything like Apocalypse World or D&D4th, which state clearly that you can do X and only X, ever.


ORE is very different from your idea.
The goal of ORE is to derive 2 pieces of information from each 1 roll. I am attempting to reproduce that effect through a d20. It’s not perfect, but I believe it works.


For one: You have a pool of d10s. As you said; the more rolls you throw, the chance to fail increases, but you're a bit off about that. If you throw more dice, the chance to fail on some of them is increased. So is the chance to succeed. The result of this is that overall, you're somewhere in the middle.
ORE seems to use many dice just for this purpose.
Are you being purposefully obtuse at this point? A dice pool functions as a whole. The only functional difference between a single die system (d20) and a dice pool system (ORE) is how the odds are modified. Dice pools alter the odds by adding and removing dice, thus creating a probability curve. Single die systems use static bonuses and penalties shift the range of results to include more positive outcomes.
When you roll dice you are asking a question. No matter how many you roll or how you read them. One roll, one question.



I still don't like the result of your die-roll dictating what your character does, though. I don't see that being any improvement on immersion.
Alright, fair point. Lets toss the whole die mod thing and make Speed a meaningful choice instead. :smallbiggrin:
The default Speed of an action is equal to your character’s static initiative. Before the Accuracy roll is made, you may choose to add a penalty to it. You receive a bonus to your static initiative equal to the penalty you’ve given your Accuracy roll.
In this way, players can choose to have their character scramble, taking their action faster, but more recklessly. Flavor made crunch, the best kind of mechanic.


A single attack in DnD is subject to this as well, though. Normally, you just go and poke people with a sharp metal stick. (Attack.) You roll to hit. If miss, you don't roll again. If hit, you roll damage (or use fixed damage). This system can work if, and only if, there is a very limited amount of actions each turn. And then, it can work quite well. However, DnD, for the sake of immersion, complicates things. Massive spells, massive this, massive that, massive everything. So DnD has multiple attacks in a round. And this is where it actually gets interesting.
See; each attack you make, you can fail due to RNG, or you can succeed due to RNG, or you can succeed due to averageness. The more rolls you make, the more the total sum of that will resemble averageness. This will save a lot of players from taking the role of temporary dead weight.
My suggestion removes none of these things.


If you start requiring only a single roll for a combination of actions, then if you fail drastically at speed, you ALSO fail drastically at attack AND damage. And that's the part that just isn't right. It punishes someone's attack and damage for a roll that should have nothing to do with those; it puts someone outside of the game for a whole turn, and whatever they do in that turn, they are useless because they are both too slow, and incapable to hit or scratch something.
And that is a flawed idea, if I may be honest.

In the world of kung fu, speed determines the winner.
- The Beast, Kung-Fu Hustle
Ha! But anyway, seriously. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, if you fail drastically at attack, you ALSO fail drastically at speed AND damage? Lets take a look at what happens if we split these things into three separate rolls.
Roll to attack: If failed: end turn
If successful…
Roll for speed: If low: risk being disrupted
If high or not disrupted…
Roll damage: If low: Feel like an idiot
If high… Yay!
See what I was getting at? One task, three chances to fail.

Is anyone else out there? I’d like to hear a diversity of opinions on this.
Probably my fault to making the OP while woozy from lack of sleep. Not a very telling thread title I’m willing to admit.

[Dryad]

I'm not entirely sure how you can implement several attacks, or a cast-time for a spell with this idea. That's basically what I'm trying to say. DnD leans on the length of these actions; by resolving them in your way, it's simply confusing. Who goes first when actions more complex and longer than strikes are being pitted against strikes? How would you resolve that?

Also, no. There is a huge difference between a dice pool and single die. A dice pool is much more lenient, because on average, successes and failures should even out. A single roll doesn't; it grants only one result, no matter averages.

I'm not saying your idea is bad, but it might not work well with a d20 system, and there is a price to pay. I already pointed out that I made a system that Uses very little rolls, and it works like a charm... But there is, of course, a price. In my system, it works. The same idea in DnD would not

[DracoDei]

Dryad is right about statistics. More dice usually means closer to average results.

Also, that "thumb twiddling"? If the players are competent that means "ten minute turns" DON'T happen much, because the players whose turn it wasn't were thinking about their action, including contingency plans for various possibilities of OTHER characters (NPCs and PCs) actions so that they have to do as little as possible thinking when their turn comes up... and ideally they have the dice in hand for their first action that turn (or even a handful of differently colored dice for their full-attack or such). So yes, it does slow things down even after initiative... A LITTLE, but not as much as you seem to think if the players are properly trained by the GM and eachother. And it isn't like there is any way around the fact that a PC can't act without some thinking-time on the player's part. Some players just like to ponder, but that is a separate issue.

[chrisrawr]

I... actually kind of like this. It could be added onto the existing initiative system, actually.

Roll initiative as normal, to determine resolution order. Movement and actions that provoke attacks of opportunity are made in this initiative order. When two characters threaten each other, they each roll all of their attacks, with the character higher in the initiative order gaining a bonus to the 'speed' of his attacks.

It's crude, will need an entire system of rules built around it, and might fail spectacularly, but I'd love to see a bear's mauling claw thwarted by a timely trip, only to have the tripper be taken down in a grapple anyways - without taking two turns and an attack of opportunity.

[DoomHat]

I really wish that you could change thread titles, so I could rename this one something along the lines of ‘Initiative Alternatives’, because I’ve basically given up on my original idea. It just doesn’t fit in d20 as it stands.
I’ve been wracking my brain to come up with some other solutions but all of them would require a complete system makeover. The biggest problem I’m starting to realize is that most nonstandard initiative systems are found in Narrativist games that simply do not mesh with d20. So in short, I was over thinking it.

To Dryad
Mapped it out, and yeah, turns out to be a headache after all.
So, here’s the new proposal-
Step 1: Roll Initiative as normal
Step 2: Declarations- Each character involved declares their actions for the round in order from lowest to highest initiative.
Step 3: Roll to resolve. Everyone rolls to determine to successfulness of their action (where applicable). Actions taken by a character with higher initiative have higher priority, meaning they are considered to have occurred first.

All that really changes here is that instead of having each turn exist as its own scene, events move more fluidly. High initiative characters will be better able to take advantage of their speed, being better able to adapt to an evolving situation. Players who rolled low should be encouraged to talk with the other players to come up with their over all strategy.

Addressing DracoDei’s response-
What if the whole group is new to the game? What if your group isn’t cool with that kind of play style? If that’s how it’s meant to be, why doesn’t the book give any suggestions to that effect?
It’s not the time that’s the biggest problem anyway, it’s that players are isolated from each other during that time. Time in combat is awkwardly staggered. While other people are taking their turns there’s nothing for you to do but sit back and quietly scheme to yourself.
RPG’s are supposed to be collaborative experiences I am lead to think.

Replying to chrisrawr
Kind of adds incentive to maneuvers over regular attacks doesn’t it?

[Dryad]

Your new idea is exactly the same as White Wolf, my own system, and a few others use. It's absolutely marvellous because it allows faster players to respond to slower players, and it can work wondrously well; I even think it can work fantastically in a d20 system (even wíth spellcraft).

One thing that I found important is that things like movement do not need to be declared; only the attack/heal/cast actions. Some actions, like swift or free actions, could (or maybe should) be allowed on the fly.
Another hint: This works best if the Game Master calls out players, in a fashion much like:
(on order of initiative, slow to fast:)
"Player 1: Your action!
Player two: Your action!
Player three: Your action!
Monsters do this!
Player four: Go ahead!"
This keeps the flow in check; makes it faster, and stops them pondering too much on their actions.
Another advantage of using this initiative system is that it allows for more tactical play. Faster players can respond to slower monsters, and vice versa, making decisions more important.

BUT! As with every system, there is a catch: If two players succeed in taking out one opponent, the third player, who focussed on that opponent, might have nothing to do in their turn. Now; in WoD (and my own system), there are resource options. Vampire, for instance, has a blood pool and a humanity pool and such; my own system has a single general resource system. In these systems, players can sacrifice resources to change their decision during their turn of resolving. They pay a price to yank themselves free from their determination, and to do something unexpected.
D20, however, doesn't have good resources. Every resource-based ability has their own specific x/day resources, from spellcasting to supernatural abilities to psionics to special abilities, to even a resource based on a die. (1/die-roll rounds)
The question is: Would you allow players to redefine their turns in a d20 system, or not? As it stands, both have their benefits, and both have their problems. In d20 especially, the ability to redefine your turn has the added problem of limit; what do you base your limit on, and does it work a number of times per day, per minute..? The opposite problem, the one of nót redefining your turn is: How do you prevent situations where players can't act due to unexpected events, like specific enemies dropping dead beforehand?

Before you implement this system, you really do want to ask yourself how you're going to solve this problem.
I can give you some options for solving it wíth the ability to redefine your actions:
-Ability based limit (A number of times per day equal to (your chosen ability's) modifier
-Skill-based limit (A number of times per day equal to 1/2 a character's ranks in the {Quick Thinking} skill

Granted; these are probably not very good, and you may very well be able to create a much more fluent system, ór simply choose for the other option: No redefining of turns; suck it up, you should have chosen better actions. Either way works, of course.

I just wanted to attend you on the price for implementing it. Every system comes at a price, so that's not to mean it's a bad system at all.

Edit:

While other people are taking their turns there’s nothing for you to do but sit back and quietly scheme to yourself.
I just want to point out that this is largely a player problem. Some players will watch other people's turns with interest, being enthused about their success, or being bummed out about their failures. Some players will sit back, ponder their actions. And some players will start taking the attention away from the player who's turn it is. The last type of player is common, but they kill the immersion, and I've yet to find a good way of dealing with them. The best way I know is a way I'd really rather not employ: Tell them to shut up time and again, and finally showing them the door. They kill it for everyone else, after all, and the distraction quickly becomes too much... And turns will, in effect, take the ages you describe. You are absolutely right about that. Changing the system does benefit you somewhat; for a while, people will be more on their toes, more alert. But eventually, this one player (it's usually only one in every group, I've noticed) will again force everyone's attention on themselves when it's not their turn.
The only thing I've seen that works well without verbally kicking them out of the house is:
You, act. You, act. You, act. Keep it up like a freight-train. And for that, the declaration system works miracles. You: Say. Then you, then you, then you. Then go. Roll, do. Roll, do. Roll, do. Roll, do. Turns last the blink of an eye (providing no dice over-run or calculation spree from hell), and while one additional advantage is that players will feel less in control over the encounter, which in turn increases immersion. The price (there's always a price) is that it can be very demanding on the game master. They need to think of their monster's actions and attentions, the order of initiative, and they need to up the tempo drastically.
A middle road is maybe best; less fast and more relaxed, while still keeping it much faster than ordinary DnD. However, that'll only work without the attention-seeker.
Next time you play, try finding out which of your players is the attention seeker. Which one starts the off-roading during other people's turns. Because that's the player that's your main problem, in all likelihood.

Still, I do commend your actions on finding a better system. It's not as easy as people may think, and everyone benefits from progress. :)

[chrisrawr]

As a semi-unrelated comment; you can change the name of the thread by editing the original post; above the message box, there's a box labeled "Title:" - simply alter what's in your title to alter the thread name.

Edit: There's always been incentive towards maneuvers over regular attacks. The problem is, maneuvers aren't part of 'natural' combat, because WotC decided they should be 'special', and made them cost feats and size to be worthwhile. There's little thought gone into the states (There's no forced prone, pinned doesn't really do anything, no way to suffocate an opponent without magic or alchemy, etc.), it's binary (you've either tripped someone or not, which I suppose keeps things simple, but even an "off-balance" effect would help remedy many problems - from bull-rushes to tumble checks), and there's not much you can really do with it at the moment, because trip-locking is 'unfair' (despite its many real-world advantages), and hit-points are the only way of determining a person's vitality.

Of course, the DM is free to impose Fatigued and Exhausted conditions on the players and their opponents (though wizards are much better at DM's when determining when the enemies should be exhausted, if I might say) - but that enters the realm of "good roleplaying", rather than "an effective system." If I can promote the CRE8 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141326) system here, I will - it addresses many of these issues wonderfully.

Anyways, tl;dr - What you want to do to initiative is a good thing, and I'll be keeping an eye on where you go with it, and how you work other parts of the game into it (spells? maneuvers? powers, feats, class abilities, familiars, magic items?).

[Immonen]

Suggestion to Doom Hat:
have those with lowest initiative declare actions first, and don't allow them to alter actions as others declare. this allows those with speed to take better advantage of it, and those with lower speed less able to plan and forced to rely on reactions. faster players can obviously cut in at any time they like, but they'll be forced to deal with whatever people after them plan; their characters are acting as rashly as they are.

[Set]

Option 1 (quick fix, minimal work);

Never roll initiative. Everyone just goes on their Initiative modifier number, in order.

Everybody does exactly average damage. Longsword = 4.5 (4 pts on a normal hit, 9 pts on a crit). Dagger = 2.5 (2 pts on a normal hit, 5 pts on a crit). Greatsword = 3.5 x2 (7 pts on a normal hit, 14 on a crit). Add modifiers normally. 10d6 fireball does 10 x 3.5 = 35 pts (17 if saved). empowered 10d6 fireball does 10 x 3.5 x 1.5 = 52 pts (26 if saved).

Option 2 (more work. although M&M has done most of it already);

Same deal with Initiative. Just go with the modifier (or modifier +10, or whatever).

Take a look at Mutants & Masterminds, which eliminates abstract hit points and bases everything around damage rating and 'toughness saves.' You might find it very much to your liking, or hate it with great passion.

Here's the
Unearthed Arcana quick-and-dirty explanation of how such a hit point-less damage / injury system would work. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/injury.htm)