[1e/2e] Initiative, ho!

[Delvin Darkwood]

So, in my groups hybrid 1e/2e AD&D game, i want to try out a different initiative system, specifically the optional one in the players handbook, were each side chooses their actions, rolls initiative, and then modifiers their roll for weapon speed and spell casting times.

How well does this system actually play out in use? Is it fast and speedy enough to not seriously bog down combat? Any advice from anyone familiar with the system would be much appreciated

[SowZ]

So, in my groups hybrid 1e/2e AD&D game, i want to try out a different initiative system, specifically the optional one in the players handbook, were each side chooses their actions, rolls initiative, and then modifiers their roll for weapon speed and spell casting times.

How well does this system actually play out in use? Is it fast and speedy enough to not seriously bog down combat? Any advice from anyone familiar with the system would be much appreciated

The biggest problem is bogging down combat with new initiative rolls at the start of each round.

If you want to do this, it is easier to do initiative at the start of combat as per usual. But after the first round, the die roll/init. stat becomes irrelevant. It is ONLY used for the first round of combat. After that, compare everyone's weapon modifiers to get highest init. and that is the turn order used. So then you say, 'weapons with a speed on 9 go now. Now 8. Now 7. etc. etc.' Factor in a weapons reach as a big factor here, btw. Adding to the die roll each time, calculating how modifiers affect the rolled init., etc. is too complicated.

I've done a similar system to this before on a couple occasions. It works fine but does take a bit more time.

[ken-do-nim]

So, in my groups hybrid 1e/2e AD&D game, i want to try out a different initiative system, specifically the optional one in the players handbook, were each side chooses their actions, rolls initiative, and then modifiers their roll for weapon speed and spell casting times.

How well does this system actually play out in use? Is it fast and speedy enough to not seriously bog down combat? Any advice from anyone familiar with the system would be much appreciated

I really like the 2E system (didn't realize it was optional). I add the following:
+5 to init for half-move
+10 to init for full move

Here's how I do it in play. Zed and Brin both use a longsword (sp5). Zed plans to do a half-move and attack. Brin stands still and attacks. Their buddy Conner is just moving into the action this round.

Party initiative: roll is a 7.
12 - Zed finishes his half-move, Brin attacks, Conner finishes his half-move
17 - Zed attacks, Conner finishes his full-move

Of course you can do individual initiative too.

[hamlet]

So, in my groups hybrid 1e/2e AD&D game, i want to try out a different initiative system, specifically the optional one in the players handbook, were each side chooses their actions, rolls initiative, and then modifiers their roll for weapon speed and spell casting times.

How well does this system actually play out in use? Is it fast and speedy enough to not seriously bog down combat? Any advice from anyone familiar with the system would be much appreciated

It works very well and doesn't, in my experience, bog down combat as long as you take at least one minor acceptable break from reality. When I tried it last, I made the error of having monsters with multi attacks (in this instance, it was lots of ghouls) have their three attacks come in intervals. So the first claw came at initiative +3, then another claw three segments later, then a bite three segments after that. THAT bogged down combat. If you just have the monsters get their attack routine all at once on their intiative with the appropriate modifier from the DMG, then it works out great IME.

Also also, if you want to shop around, there's another two versions of it. The Hackmaster 4e books used this iniative with some minor differences. I found that it worked out well enough. Also, hunt up a book called A Curious Volume of Forgotten Lore, which I can't recommend highly enough, for another minor variation along with lots of additional stuff including a few new classes that fit in very well with AD&D. Plus, the PDF is fairly inexpensive.

[Matthew]

Adding weapon speed to the initiative die makes it much more difficult to interrupt spells, which I would definitely recommend against. Generally speaking, individual initiative, but can get a bit tricky if you are rolling for seventeen orcs and the like.

[hamlet]

Adding weapon speed to the initiative die makes it much more difficult to interrupt spells, which I would definitely recommend against. Generally speaking, individual initiative, but can get a bit tricky if you are rolling for seventeen orcs and the like.

I haven't had that experience. We get lots of interrupted spells all over the place.

Yes, magic users tend to be a little quicker when they throw out those fun little first level spells, but they're not always as quick as a thief with a dagger.

[Jay R]

It's fine when all players understand the initiative rules, but achingly slow when you have to explain it to the same player each round.

[Delvin Darkwood]

Thanks all very much for the feed back. I have one quick question as well, how do multiple attacks (from dual wielding, specialization, fighter levels etc) factor into this system?

Edit: Nevermind, i had neglected to read the next direct paragraph. I am silly.

[hamlet]

It's fine when all players understand the initiative rules, but achingly slow when you have to explain it to the same player each round.

Same is true of any initiative system. Someone who can't get the D20 init system can drag that game to a halt just as quickly.

[Jay R]

Same is true of any initiative system. Someone who can't get the D20 init system can drag that game to a halt just as quickly.

That's almost true. An initiative system that the DM can track by herself won't slow you down.

But the crucial step in any game, to keep it from dragging, is to get every person focused on keeping it moving.

[hamlet]

That's almost true. An initiative system that the DM can track by herself won't slow you down.

But the crucial step in any game, to keep it from dragging, is to get every person focused on keeping it moving.

There's no extra work in the AD&D 2e initiative system for the player than there is in the D20 system.

Roll the appropriate die (a d10 in one, a d20 in the other) and add the appropriate modifiers. The only real difference is that in AD&D, the modifiers are based on how fast your weapon is rather than just your dexterity and any appropriate feats.

I taught the whole thing to a 10 year old in the span of 3 minutes. It's not counter-intuitive or difficult.

[Matthew]

I haven't had that experience. We get lots of interrupted spells all over the place.

Yes, magic users tend to be a little quicker when they throw out those fun little first level spells, but they're not always as quick as a thief with a dagger.
They are a *lot* quicker, but you would have to play without weapon speed to know that (well, not in the case of a two-handed sword). :smallbiggrin:

[Lapak]

They are a *lot* quicker, but you would have to play without weapon speed to know that (well, not in the case of a two-handed sword). :smallbiggrin:Two things balance it out to some degree, in my experience:

- (in 2e at least) a magical weapon's speed factor is reduced by its bonus. As casters get slower - most spells have a speed factor equal to their level - weapons speed up. A long sword +3 is as quick as a dagger IIRC; I remember from the Example of Play that a warhammer + 4 has a speed factor of 0.

- it encourages weapon-wielding types to keep an extra weapon handy specifically for disrupting a spellcaster. If the guy waving a two-hander around wears a bandoleer of darts or throwing knives, he's got a better chance of keeping the enemy mages from finishing their nasty spell.

[hamlet]

Two things balance it out to some degree, in my experience:

- (in 2e at least) a magical weapon's speed factor is reduced by its bonus. As casters get slower - most spells have a speed factor equal to their level - weapons speed up. A long sword +3 is as quick as a dagger IIRC; I remember from the Example of Play that a warhammer + 4 has a speed factor of 0.

- it encourages weapon-wielding types to keep an extra weapon handy specifically for disrupting a spellcaster. If the guy waving a two-hander around wears a bandoleer of darts or throwing knives, he's got a better chance of keeping the enemy mages from finishing their nasty spell.

Precisely.

It also leads to the oft heard refrain around our table of "KILL THE SPELL CASTER!" which often leads to whacky hijinks.:smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

Two things balance it out to some degree, in my experience:

- (in 2e at least) a magical weapon's speed factor is reduced by its bonus. As casters get slower - most spells have a speed factor equal to their level - weapons speed up. A long sword +3 is as quick as a dagger IIRC; I remember from the Example of Play that a warhammer + 4 has a speed factor of 0.

- it encourages weapon-wielding types to keep an extra weapon handy specifically for disrupting a spellcaster. If the guy waving a two-hander around wears a bandoleer of darts or throwing knives, he's got a better chance of keeping the enemy mages from finishing their nasty spell.

That is not "balanced" to my mind, it is just rather silly. There is already a very good reason to carry a dagger, and that is as in the real world for very close combat situations where the enemy may be trying to grapple you. Having to rely on magical weapons to have a decent chance of interrupting a spell caster who is standing perfectly still is quite intolerable. Any way you cut it, weapon speed factors make it unnecessarily difficult to interrupt spell casters, unlike in first edition where they actually increased the probability, and this in addition to the increase from using 1d10 for initiative. Even a speed factor of 1 represents a 10% increase in the probability that a spell caster will not be interrupted. These are not insignificant differences and absolutely will affect the balance of power, in my view to the detriment of the game, but obviously that depends on how frequently you consider it desirable for spell casters to be interrupted.

[Lapak]

That is not "balanced" to my mind, it is just rather silly. There is already a very good reason to carry a dagger, and that is as in the real world for very close combat situations where the enemy may be trying to grapple you. Having to rely on magical weapons to have a decent chance of interrupting a spell caster who is standing perfectly still is quite intolerable. Any way you cut it, weapon speed factors make it unnecessarily difficult to interrupt spell casters, unlike in first edition where they actually increased the probability, and this in addition to the increase from using 1d10 for initiative. Even a speed factor of 1 represents a 10% increase in the probability that a spell caster will not be interrupted. These are not insignificant differences and absolutely will affect the balance of power, in my view to the detriment of the game, but obviously that depends on how frequently you consider it desirable for spell casters to be interrupted.I didn't say that it was balanced in the abstract, just that the things that come with higher levels (slower spells, faster weapons) do tend to lead to more interrupted spells ('balancing it out to some degree.') In terms of game mechanics, low-level wizards being less vulnerable to interruption is at least somewhat desirable due to their limited spells-per-day and fragile hit point totals.

In terms of the actual situation in-game, on the other hand, I agree with you completely that the fact that if I'm standing five feet away from a wizard it's easier to interrupt him with a dagger than a sword, all other things being equal, is ridiculous. That makes no sense.

[Matthew]

I didn't say that it was balanced in the abstract, just that the things that come with higher levels (slower spells, faster weapons) do tend to lead to more interrupted spells ('balancing it out to some degree.') In terms of game mechanics, low-level wizards being less vulnerable to interruption is at least somewhat desirable due to their limited spells-per-day and fragile hit point totals.

I think you always have to remember sleep in these situations, a no save instant win button for level one magicians. Obviously you can mitigate the problem of weapon speeds, I agree, to me it just makes better sense to drop them altogether. In a 1d10 versus 1d10 situation and a 1 segment spell, the magician has something like a 45% chance of his spell going off before any attacks against him are taken into consideration (36 "win" and 9 "draw" results). Those are pretty good odds, though obviously not every magician has access to sleep at level one.



In terms of the actual situation in-game, on the other hand, I agree with you completely that the fact that if I'm standing five feet away from a wizard it's easier to interrupt him with a dagger than a sword, all other things being equal, is ridiculous. That makes no sense.

Quite so.