2nd Edition style Initiative in 3.5: Upsides? Downsides?

[Mnemnosyne]

Lately, I have been thinking about initiative and turns in 3.5, and I've realized...I really don't like the system that much. It breaks each round of actions into separate privileged timeframes for each character, allowing them to act while everyone else is essentially frozen in time, with only a few exceptions (immediate or readied actions, and AoOs). Things aren't happening simultaneously, as they should be, but in a bizarre turn-based sequence of events.

In 2nd Edition, it did not work this way - everything did indeed happen simultaneously, to a degree. Actions finished at different times, depending on the character's initiative for that round (initiative was rerolled every round and modified based on the character's current action) but everyone began taking action at the same time. This is admittedly a bit more confusing than the privileged timeframe system that 3.5 uses, but it also makes a lot more sense; things are happening simultaneously rather than each character having a 'turn' while everyone else on the battlefield waits for him to finish his turn before taking their own action.

The 2nd Edition sequence of events, for those unfamiliar, is thus:
DM determines actions for all NPC's.
Players all declare their actions.
Initiative for the round is rolled, modified based on weapon speed and spell casting time (lower is better).
Actions take place and are resolved in order of initiative.

For characters that can take multiple actions in one round, such as having more than one attack per round, the attacks are spaced out by the character's weapon speed. In 2nd Edition a longsword had a speed factor of 5. Thus someone who rolls 3 on their initiative takes their first swing at initiative count 8, their second swing at initiative count 13, their third swing at initiative count 18, and so on.

So, I'm wondering: how dependent is 3.5, really, on this privileged timeframe system? What would the downsides be if I were to houserule initiative back to the 2nd Edition system; what would it interact badly with? What problems would crop up that I need to deal with? The most obvious thing that needs to be resolved is assigning weapon speeds to all weapons and spell casting times for all spells. Anything else?

[navar100]

Due to luck it's possible for a combatant to have two turns of actions before his opponent. That is devastating. For example, in round 1 A rolls low and B rolls high. B goes then A. In round 2 A rolls high and B rolls low. A goes before B. Therefore, in two rounds the order is B -> A -> A -> B. Depending on what A does, especially if it's spellcasting, B can be royally screwed.

B attacks. A casts Hold Person, B fails his save. A goes again. A goes for a coup de grace against B. B never got a chance for another saving throw to end the Hold Person as per the spell.

[Herabec]

Which works.

I mean, logically, a Wizard that just paralyzed a dangerous adversary would immediately move in for the kill. It just so happens that in that situation, the wizard was able to move in to take advantage of the situation faster than the victim was able to marshal their will.

AD&D was a brutal world, and combat was often unfairly unpredictable. That's one of the things I loved about it.

[Mnemnosyne]

Well, B's attack, since it came before A's spell, would have interrupted it and caused A to lose his spell in the first place (or, I suppose, forced a concentration check, but they didn't have those in 2nd Edition, so this is a concern here).

But the point is well taken; the danger of a person getting two actions off before their enemy certainly makes combat a lot more swingy. On the other hand, if we set initiative for the entire combat at the first round, then everyone goes in the same order always and if the mage went first, then he'll continue to go first throughout the combat and cannot ever be interrupted.

I'm not sure if there's a solution that can be implemented, or if the answer is 'accept the swingy combat' or 'deal with the set sequence of actions'.

[Barsoom]

There's a reason why 2E's initiative system is in the past. It's horrible. Declaring your action at the start of the turn, and being forced to commit to this action, regardless of what happened, and how previous actions modify the field, is just ... well, you may call it realistic, whatever that may mean, but it's just so player-unfriendly, grrr ... I'm glad they got rid of it.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I can see where you're coming from. I like the idea of 2e initiative (everyone acts at the same time), but I just don't think that it's implemented very well, or at least it leads to too much randomness.

I don't know if that's better or worse than how even in large combats of 10+ actors can all act based one what the person before them does within 6 seconds. That 6 second thing has always annoyed me.

[Yora]

Wasn't that always an optional variant rule anyway?

[Zombimode]

Wasn't that always an optional variant rule anyway?

Individual Initiative in AD&D is only optional in the same sense in that using a battle grid in 3.x is optional. Sure, you can do without it, but most of the system assumes it in place.

Weapon speeds, casting times, item activation times... all rather critical rules for AD&D only have meaning with individual initiative.

Also, I would HIGHLY advise against using any other initiative method in AD&D. The other two methods basically boil down to one "side" acting before the other. And that turns many combats into coin-flip battles. If you win the flip, your team will obliterate the other, otherwise you get crushed.
4 to 10 creatures on the same side action all together before the enemies can even react goes a long way.

[Chronos]

The one part about 2nd edition initiative that was nice was spell casting times. It was possible for someone else to act while a spellcaster was casting, in which case you could disrupt the spell. That's something that's sadly missing in 3.x. Yes, they attempted to shoehorn it in, but they did a terrible job of it: The only way you can disrupt a spell is either by a trivially-avoided attack of opportunity, or by throwing the action economy out the window to ready an attack.

The only difficulty in porting this over to third edition is that spells don't have casting times listed any more. In most cases, the casting time of a spell was equal to its level, but not always, so you'd have to go through and figure out which specific ones should be less or more.

[Invader]

I was a big fan of weapon speeds and spell speeds. It made sense that someone wielding a dagger would generally be faster than someone wielding a great sword.

[Krobar]

The one part about 2nd edition initiative that was nice was spell casting times. It was possible for someone else to act while a spellcaster was casting, in which case you could disrupt the spell. That's something that's sadly missing in 3.x. Yes, they attempted to shoehorn it in, but they did a terrible job of it: The only way you can disrupt a spell is either by a trivially-avoided attack of opportunity, or by throwing the action economy out the window to ready an attack.

The only difficulty in porting this over to third edition is that spells don't have casting times listed any more. In most cases, the casting time of a spell was equal to its level, but not always, so you'd have to go through and figure out which specific ones should be less or more.

This 100%.

The spellcasting times and potential disruption is one of the things I miss most about 2nd Edition. That specific feature went a very long way toward balancing spellcasters.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The changing initiatives makes combat far more random and dangerous, which is a bad thing if you want the PCs to actually survive for any long stretch of time.

Weapon Speeds were utterly stupid, I thought they were cool as a kid playing BG, but in retrospect...wow, was that a terrible idea. SKR had a rant that explained why they were dumb that was pretty on point.

And casting times... it just meant you stuck to ones with the shortest casting times, anything longer was pointless. I suppose limiting casters in combat to a small subset of spells is a nerf, but it's a bit too heavy-handed for my liking. Seriously, the ones that took till the end of the round to go off were WORTHLESS, they were just wastes of page space.

If casters in 3E had to wait until "initiative count they started casting" - 10 or something for the spell to finish going off, with anyone acting between then having a chance to disrupt...maybe that would work? But then any melee touch spells would have to be an exception or else no one would ever use them. Healing spells would probably also need an exception unless, again, you like seeing PCs drop like flies.

[Flickerdart]

I was a big fan of weapon speeds and spell speeds. It made sense that someone wielding a dagger would generally be faster than someone wielding a great sword.
I'd like you to imagine an experiment. Take a guy with a dagger, put him next to a guy with a greatsword, and see if the dagger guy can get past the sword guy's reach and land a hit first. It doesn't matter that the weapon is lighter and easier to maneuver if it takes you longer to get it to where the other guy is at. Weapon speeds only "make sense" if you don't actually think about them.

[Thespianus]

Our group re-rolls initiative every round. It adds a slight randomness to battle, it makes some things very odd, but in general, I think it's pretty fun.

[Starbuck_II]

The changing initiatives makes combat far more random and dangerous, which is a bad thing if you want the PCs to actually survive for any long stretch of time.

Weapon Speeds were utterly stupid, I thought they were cool as a kid playing BG, but in retrospect...wow, was that a terrible idea. SKR had a rant that explained why they were dumb that was pretty on point.

And casting times... it just meant you stuck to ones with the shortest casting times, anything longer was pointless. I suppose limiting casters in combat to a small subset of spells is a nerf, but it's a bit too heavy-handed for my liking. Seriously, the ones that took till the end of the round to go off were WORTHLESS, they were just wastes of page space.


Best part the best spells had low times: Sleep (yes the best spells at low levels), Glitterdust, Magic Missile (okay not the best but eh) all have casting times below 4 (MM and Sleep have same speed).

3.5 actually weakened Sleep by giving it a big casting time (1 rd action).

[Zombimode]

And casting times... it just meant you stuck to ones with the shortest casting times, anything longer was pointless. I suppose limiting casters in combat to a small subset of spells is a nerf, but it's a bit too heavy-handed for my liking. Seriously, the ones that took till the end of the round to go off were WORTHLESS, they were just wastes of page space.

Uhm, do you have, by any chance, any actual play experience with AD&D, or is this just theorycrafting?

Wizards spells had typically a casting time of 0+spell level, while priest and druid spells typically 3+spell level.
By contrast, a longsword had a speed of 5, maces, flails and battleaxes of 7, greatsword 9, small and medium creatures with natural weapons 3, large creatures 6, huge creatures 9 and so on.

Meaning even when casting a high level spell (level 5 and above) there is a good chance you finish the spell before the mundanes can act. Priest spells are a bit slower, but they wear heavy armor and shields thus having a good AC.

Seriously, I have played and DM'ed AD&D 2e for over 6 years. The initiative system may have problems, but casting times are not one of them.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I barely played 2E D&D, like a couple games, when I first got into D&D. Then 3E came out and never went back. Since I hardly knew what was even going on back then, I rely heavily on BG for knowledge of how 2E worked, even though BG incorporated some stuff outside of 2E (from 3E or completely new) as well.

I thought spells of a given level could have different casting times. I do recall some of the best spells also being the fastest, as Starbuck mentioned. And yeah, some weapon speeds may have been slower than most spells. But daggers and some others* definitely were faster than most spells, and if you're a spellcaster I would think you'd want to assume the worst. *shrug*

*What about bows? Was that just a Baldur's Gate thing? Because holy crap were bows outstanding at disrupting mages in BG...

[Mnemnosyne]

Individual Initiative in AD&D is only optional in the same sense in that using a battle grid in 3.x is optional. Sure, you can do without it, but most of the system assumes it in place.

Weapon speeds, casting times, item activation times... all rather critical rules for AD&D only have meaning with individual initiative.

Also, I would HIGHLY advise against using any other initiative method in AD&D. The other two methods basically boil down to one "side" acting before the other. And that turns many combats into coin-flip battles. If you win the flip, your team will obliterate the other, otherwise you get crushed.
4 to 10 creatures on the same side action all together before the enemies can even react goes a long way.
Yeah, it was optional in the same way that proficiencies were optional; listed as optional in the PHB, but pretty much every other part of the system seemed to assume you were using it.

I'd like you to imagine an experiment. Take a guy with a dagger, put him next to a guy with a greatsword, and see if the dagger guy can get past the sword guy's reach and land a hit first. It doesn't matter that the weapon is lighter and easier to maneuver if it takes you longer to get it to where the other guy is at. Weapon speeds only "make sense" if you don't actually think about them.
Properly simulating this wouldn't have to do with initiative; it would require your weapon to contribute to your AC. The guy with the dagger most definitely can get an attack off faster; the guy with the greatsword can probably keep him at distance because of the greatsword, but that doesn't have anything to do with how quickly the guy with the dagger is striking, it's a factor that isn't modeled in any version of D&D that I know of.
I barely played 2E D&D, like a couple games, when I first got into D&D. Then 3E came out and never went back. Since I hardly knew what was even going on back then, I rely heavily on BG for knowledge of how 2E worked, even though BG incorporated some stuff outside of 2E (from 3E or completely new) as well.

I thought spells of a given level could have different casting times. I do recall some of the best spells also being the fastest, as Starbuck mentioned. And yeah, some weapon speeds may have been slower than most spells. But daggers and some others* definitely were faster than most spells, and if you're a spellcaster I would think you'd want to assume the worst. *shrug*

*What about bows? Was that just a Baldur's Gate thing? Because holy crap were bows outstanding at disrupting mages in BG...
BG isn't really a good comparison in this regard because of a lot of odd little quirks in the way its rules were implemented. In normal AD&D, bows had a speed factor of 6, 7, and 8, depending on the bow, so they were worse at interrupting than daggers or swords. Short swords were great if you were next to the mage with their speed of 3, and darts were the best at long range, with a speed of 2.

In 3.5, I notice it's pretty much assumed that the mage is going to successfully cast the spell, because methods of interrupting him are very limited; AoO's that can be easily removed by defensive casting, and readied actions, which make you lose your action if the target doesn't do the trigger action. In 2nd Edition it was much less certain that the mage was going to successfully cast, especially if the enemy had someone dedicated to the task of interrupting him.

I think it's largely Barsoom's point of 'player unfriendliness' that caused them to change the system, but I find that's a questionable argument for having everyone act in obvious 'turns', with every participant in the battle standing around doing nothing until his turn comes up. The scenario that a fighter or monster can conduct a full attack, hitting their target four, or possibly more times, depending on their attack routine, while no one else has a chance to intervene, seems ridiculous on the face of it. How long does it take to swing a greatsword four times? Why is it that you can move, or cast a spell, while the fighter that intends to charge you stands absolutely still, rather than barreling down on you? If you succeed in casting the spell, the fighter hasn't moved; he takes a completely different action because your spell prevented him from charging, but realistically, he would have already been charging and your spell would have gone off mid-charge, not while he was standing around waiting his turn.

The biggest problem I can see is making the combat sequence more complex, but I'm also looking for any other mechanical pitfalls I'm not thinking of; things that 3.5 assumes are working in privileged timeframes, and will break if those privileged timeframes are removed.

[Grayson01]

Deadlest Warrior kinda disagreed with you. Shaka Z. Vs William W. the only killing blows Shaka got were the times he could did in and stab William, infact he great sword was shown to be extreamly slow in reaction time.


I'd like you to imagine an experiment. Take a guy with a dagger, put him next to a guy with a greatsword, and see if the dagger guy can get past the sword guy's reach and land a hit first. It doesn't matter that the weapon is lighter and easier to maneuver if it takes you longer to get it to where the other guy is at. Weapon speeds only "make sense" if you don't actually think about them.

[Flickerdart]

Deadlest Warrior kinda disagreed with you. Shaka Z. Vs William W. the only killing blows Shaka got were the times he could did in and stab William, infact he great sword was shown to be extreamly slow in reaction time.
Deadliest Warrior is...not the most historically accurate of sources, and there are ways of fighting with the greatsword other than "swing it around at a maniac" that actual knights used for more control. The Zulu is also not using a dagger, but two weapons nearly as long as William's sword.

[Invader]

I'd like you to imagine an experiment. Take a guy with a dagger, put him next to a guy with a greatsword, and see if the dagger guy can get past the e sword guy's reach and land a hit first. It doesn't matter that the weapon is lighter and easier to maneuver if it takes you longer to get it to where the other guy is at. Weapon speeds only "make sense" if you don't actually think about them.

It's been noted that you're talking about something different than weapon speed. Someone with a dagger will absolutely be able to attack faster than someone with a greatsword.

[Flickerdart]

It's been noted that you're talking about something different than weapon speed. Someone with a dagger will absolutely be able to attack faster than someone with a greatsword.
I'm talking about how long it takes between wanting to hit a guy and hitting said guy, which is what weapon speed is supposed to model. With a dagger, you have to run up to the guy and lunge, with a greatsword you can spend less time doing both because it's already very long.

[Invader]

I'm talking about how long it takes between wanting to hit a guy and hitting said guy, which is what weapon speed is supposed model. With a dagger, you have to run up to the guy and lunge, with a greatsword you can spend less time doing both because it's already very long.

But on the same token if someone with a dagger had already closed to close quarters wouldn't it seem logical that he could stab someone 3 or 4 times faster than you could swing a greatsword 3 or 4 times?

[Flickerdart]

But on the same token if someone with a dagger had already closed to close quarters wouldn't it seem logical that he could stab someone 3 or 4 times faster than you could swing a greatsword 3 or 4 times?
In such close quarters, you half-sword, and don't keep swinging it.

[Invader]

In such close quarters, you half-sword, and don't keep swinging it.

It still wouldn't be as fast as stabbing with a dagger.

[Slipperychicken]

The changing initiatives makes combat far more random and dangerous, which is a bad thing if you want the PCs to actually survive for any long stretch of time.


Making combat more chaotic and unpredictable does help keep it a risky proposition for any character (much like it is IRL), which discourages the often-maligned brainless rampages which many campaigns consist of.

[Flickerdart]

It still wouldn't be as fast as stabbing with a dagger.
[citation needed]

[StreamOfTheSky]

Making combat more chaotic and unpredictable does help keep it a risky proposition for any character (much like it is IRL), which discourages the often-maligned brainless rampages which many campaigns consist of.

No, that's not how you encourage less bloodlust. There will still be combats, and a PC can and will still die from the random turn order changes.

You encourage less combat by being sure to offer full xp awards (or even with a bonus!) if a problem is resolved by other means. And then don't make letting the potential enemies live bite the PCs in the ass by doing the whole "...to fight another day!" thing.
You could also try to do what 1E did (or so I've been told): xp is based on acquiring loot, not on defeating monsters. So if you can get the loot w/o fighting, you get exactly the same either way. Encourages sneaking and other means of avoiding combat as you get the same exact reward with less/no risk.

But a lot of players just like combat. You also need to accept that. It's my favorite part of D&D, for example, and I'd be very loathe to not engage in it. Unless you were to make the combat rules so horrible that it's no longer fun, but that's like "convincing" someone not to blow all his money on a shiny new car by smashing it up with a sledgehammer...

[Raendyn]

Initiative in 3.x sux big time. Thats why they were forced to create immediate and swifts. The system had problems thats why these extra type of actions came up.

Also to whoever thinks that casting times forced wizards to pick faster spells which in general ment weaker/lower lvl. That also solves so many problems of 3.x when above lvl 7~ casters laugh at fighters. Not to mention that ready actions couldnt be more awkward.

I also agree on the "we all decide actions before we see every other action's outcome", OK, you lost a over-powered spell on someone that missed the dissintegrate save and was left with 2 hp's. sh1t happens, but that actually makes sense and has happened before in movies and novels.

How about playing 11th in the initiative order and u have time to see full round action metamagic sorc spells, if/where they hit at their long range, if the enemies took heavy or partial hit from that and if they got severly wounded while the spell seemed to hit them crystal creal. So u figured out what save is high, and if they have resistances.

When I describe such events to ppl playing 2nd edition they tell me to stop playign 3.5 after they laugh hard, and guess what? Their reaction makes perfect sense.

[Invader]

[citation needed]

I'll assume you're kidding about believing a greatsword is as fast as a dagger and you're being sarcastic about wanting a citation:smallamused:

[Emmerask]

I'll assume you're kidding about believing a greatsword is as fast as a dagger and you're being sarcastic about wanting a citation:smallamused:

You two are talking about different things^^

He is talking about the whole process of getting into striking distance + hitting the guy, while you are talking about being in perfect striking distance and hitting.

In your scenario I agree, daggers are the much faster weapon,
in his scenario i dont quite know which weapon is faster overall...

So what would be needed on top of different speeds for weapons would actually be a melee distance for each class (or multiple ones if applicable)
then during combat you must first acquire the distance for your weapon before being able to attack.

Dark eye (and maybe gurps?) actually has such an optional subsystem for fighting ^^


As for the general discussion, 3.5 system is extremely easy to use and learn but it has a ton of negative aspects and makes combat feel a bit static... so yes while harder to use I think 2e is the overall better system although harder to use and learn.

[Flickerdart]

I'll assume you're kidding about believing a greatsword is as fast as a dagger and you're being sarcastic about wanting a citation:smallamused:
You'll assume incorrectly. I expect some evidence to substantiate the claim that a dagger is so much faster at delivering attacks than a greatsword in a fight that they need different weapon speeds.

[Invader]

You'll assume incorrectly. I expect some evidence to that substantiate the claim that a dagger is so much faster at delivering attacks than a greatsword in a fight that they need different weapon speeds.

Well watch any video ever of someone getting stabbed by a dagger and someone swinging a greatsword. It's really not hard to see which is faster.

Short of that I'm sure there's a physicist on the boards that knows the equation that proves it's faster to swing a 12 inch stick compared to a 3 foot stick let alone jabbing with the smaller one.

[Flickerdart]

Well watch any video ever of someone getting stabbed by a dagger and someone swinging a greatsword. It's really not hard to see which is faster.

Short of that I'm sure there's a physicist on the boards that knows the equation that proves it's faster to swing a 12 inch stick compared to a 3 foot stick let alone jabbing with the smaller one.
What part of "there are other ways of wielding a greatsword than swinging it like a baseball bat" was unclear?

[Invader]

What part of "there are other ways of wielding a greatsword than swinging it like a baseball bat" was unclear?

Right but a greatsword does slashing damage and the damage given is predicated on swinging it like a big heavy sword. You could smash someone with the pommel but greatswords don't do bludgeoning damag. A dagger on the other hand does piercing or slashing damage so I can happily choose whether I swing with it or stab with it as there are actual rules for what I want to do.

[Flickerdart]

Right but a greatsword does slashing damage and the same given is predicated on swinging it like a big heavy sword. You could smash someone with the pommel but greatswords don't do bludgeoning damag. A dagger on the other hand does piercing or slashing damage so I can happily choose whether I swing with it or stab with it as there are actual rules for what I want to do.
Then the stats for the greatsword are incorrect, and it should have the option of dealing piercing damage. A weapon used by armoured knights against other armoured knights would be totally useless if all it did was have a single cutting edge.

[Endarire]

Having played 2E and 3E tabletop, I prefer 3E's initiative style. As a PC and GM, it's much easier to think about. There are fewer rolls and it's more forgiving to all those involved. It also helps me understand when effects (like buffs and summons) end.

[lsfreak]

Well watch any video ever of someone getting stabbed by a dagger and someone swinging a greatsword. It's really not hard to see which is faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc
In the first demonstration, I count at least four distinct strikes inside 2 seconds.

From what I remember of conversations in the Real Weapons thread, a dagger has an advantage over a longsword (D&D "greatsword") in close, but nothing like it would have over a spear.

[Agincourt]

Initiative in 3.x sux big time. Thats why they were forced to create immediate and swifts. The system had problems thats why these extra type of actions came up.


I think these new actions came up because there was a kernel of a concept that had not been fully articulated yet. The Spell Feather Fall or quickened spell show the designers had an inkling of where they wanted to go. Sometimes it takes a little practice for an idea to full form.

[limejuicepowder]

I (partially) agree with the original poster about 3.5's combat; even if everything is supposed to be happening in 6 seconds, it's nearly impossible to think about it that way due to the way turns are broken up. Also, the lack of options on other people's turns, especially for non-casters, is pathetic and strongly reinforces the notion of "you attack, ok now I attack" mentality.

However, the thought of using the 2nd edition combat system makes my head hurt. They may have been on to something with weapon and spell speeds (though it sounds extremely cumbersome), but declaring actions and then being forced to carry them out regardless is insanity. As a RL martial artist, the thought of HAVING to run in to every spinning back kick, just because I chose to spring forward for a strike, makes my ribs hurt.

Though I never finished the project, I was working on my own DBZ RPG where combat revolved around action points. Characters would roll initiative much like they do in 3.X; when that initiative number came, they would gain 3 action points. After that, they were free to spend their points whenever they wanted. Each attack required the expenditure of one or more action points. Any action could be interrupted by anyone else using an attack that costs less points (i.e., it was faster). Thus, if you won initiative, you could use a massive attack but it would leave you defenseless when your opponent got his actions. Any unspent action points were lost at the beginning of your "turn," so you can't have more than 3 points at a time. I actually thought it was a rather elegant solution, if I do say so myself.