Initiative Rules

[Stormspace]

Anyone seen any variants on initiative that take into account movement. As an example, lets say an ECL 6 Barbarian charges a Wizard from 30' away. Currently the wizard can do nothing but stand there with his dagger in hand, hoping to do his fatal scratch on the charging behemoth with his AoO. It should take enough time to move 30' that the wizard might be able to get a spell off. At least that's my thinking on it.

Thoughts?

[ComaVision]

Initiative is an abstraction. The wizard was doing something and the barbarian very quickly ran at him. Also, why in this scenario does the wizard get an AoO?

[Flickerdart]

Or the wizard wins initiative and webs the barbarian before he can so much as take a step.

It helps to think of initiative like this - things do happen roughly at the same time, but they still resolve in order. The barbarian might charge just as the wizard started casting, but the barbarian got there before the wizard finished, and the wizard eats a charge attack and then AoO to the face for still having his guard down. The only difference between this and real-time is that when someone dies (or otherwise stops movement), they die in a slightly different place than they would have otherwise been.

It's possible to cut down turns into smaller chunks (say, everyone taking a 5ft movement or performing an attack, or casting 1/4th of a spell) but the implementation of that will be very tedious because people will forget what they're doing.

[Bronk]

Initiative is an abstraction. The wizard was doing something and the barbarian very quickly ran at him. Also, why in this scenario does the wizard get an AoO?

True, AoO happen when leaving a threatened square, not entering it.

As for the initiative, what the OP described is a lot like the AD&D initiative rules, with smaller weapons being faster to use than bigger weapons, and the same for weaker and more powerful spells.

[yellowrocket]

Once again someone's trying to screw mundanes. :smalltongue:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Anyone seen any variants on initiative that take into account movement. As an example, lets say an ECL 6 Barbarian charges a Wizard from 30' away. Currently the wizard can do nothing but stand there with his dagger in hand, hoping to do his fatal scratch on the charging behemoth with his AoO. It should take enough time to move 30' that the wizard might be able to get a spell off. At least that's my thinking on it.

Thoughts?
Go see how fast you can run 30 feet, and how many words you can get off in the same time. Now remember that even a 1st level barbarian is vastly stronger and faster than you. (I mean, probably. I don't know you)

Plus all the points about abstraction.

[Flickerdart]

Go see how fast you can run 30 feet, and how many words you can get off in the same time. Now remember that even a 1st level barbarian is vastly stronger and faster than you. (I mean, probably. I don't know you)

Plus all the points about abstraction.
Usain Bolt's top speed is 12.4 m/s. In six seconds of sprinting, he crosses about 244 feet, while wearing as close to nothing as possible to air on international TV.

A typical barbarian can move 160 feet in 6 seconds. If he picks up Run and Dash, that increases to 225 feet (11.5m/s, just 1m, slower than Usain). He can do this while carrying 200 pounds, which incidentally is about how much Usain Bolt weighs.

[Stormspace]

Initiative is an abstraction. The wizard was doing something and the barbarian very quickly ran at him. Also, why in this scenario does the wizard get an AoO?

To answer your question, a charge provokes an AoO.

I guess my point is that at what point is it unrealistic to presume a defender is doing nothing while a screaming barbarian is charging down on you? You certainly aren't casting a spell because you get an AoO and can cast your spell after the charge, provided you aren't dead or something else prevents you from doing that. No, the rules specifically state that regardless of how far the barbarian has to move with his charge, the wizard can do nothing other than make a melee attack. (if he loses initiative)

I just thought it was something someone might have noticed and corrected in the several years 3.5 has been around.

[Aleolus]

To answer your question, a charge provokes an AoO.

Only from opponents you pass, not from the target of the charge

[Stormspace]

Only from opponents you pass, not from the target of the charge

I don't know where I saw that to make me think so, but you are right.

[ComaVision]

I don't know where I saw that to make me think so, but you are right.

I'm guessing you confused it with a bullrush?

EDIT: Also, are you not aware that every action in a round happens simultaneously? So if the Barbarian charged the wizard in the round, and the wizard cast a spell, the wizard was beginning to cast the spell as the barbarian charged.

[Stormspace]

I'm guessing you confused it with a bullrush?

EDIT: Also, are you not aware that every action in a round happens simultaneously? So if the Barbarian charged the wizard in the round, and the wizard cast a spell, the wizard was beginning to cast the spell as the barbarian charged.

In that case you'd be correct. But if it was a bull rush I'm not so certain. If the wizard takes the AoO does it disrupt his spell? If not, then he was not casting at the same time.

[Âmesang]

Only from opponents you pass, not from the target of the charge
Maybe the wizard has the "Hold the Line" feat?

[TheIronGolem]

Remember that readied actions are a thing. If the wizard won initiative and was looking to roast the barbarian mid-charge, that's how he would do it. If he didn't win initiative, it doesn't mean he was just standing there twiddling his thumbs while the barbarian charged him, it just means that he didn't manage to get his spell underway before that charge reached him.

[Elxir_Breauer]

I like to think of it in terms of how quickly you were able to react to the situation changing, and combat is CONSTANTLY changing circumstances. I would love to use the variant initiative rule where you roll every round, but that means an INSANE amount of bookkeeping in the middle of an already hectic scenario. Others have used that and it works great for them, but I don't have the patience to do so anymore.

[Stormspace]

I like to think of it in terms of how quickly you were able to react to the situation changing, and combat is CONSTANTLY changing circumstances. I would love to use the variant initiative rule where you roll every round, but that means an INSANE amount of bookkeeping in the middle of an already hectic scenario. Others have used that and it works great for them, but I don't have the patience to do so anymore.

I'm just finding the initiative rules to be too coarse, especially when movement is introduced. I guess no system is perfect but in my 2nd edition days, weapon speed and casting times were great ways to handle it. Everyone rolled a die, added weapon speed or casting time and that was the initiative order. I'd just call out a number and those with that number attacked. I'd typically group the bad guys together, or by weapon type. Of course that system didn't take into account movement either, but in general you knew when the mage was casting a spell based on initiative and casting time.

[Elxir_Breauer]

Even back in 1st and 2nd edition days, Initiative was mainly about at what exact point in the 6 seconds (or 10 seconds or however long a round was in a given edition) that character was able to get their action completed, except in the case of 1 round or longer cast times of course. The key thing to remember is that every action undertaken in a given round is happening within a 6 second framework of time chunks, where everything going on is fairly close to simultaneous.
The weapon speed and cast time bits were just extra modifiers to the initiative order, much like the Improved Initiative feat is today. To be honest, in real combat, the difference between a Greatsword or Greataxe versus a Rapier, at least on the speed point is quite a bit. On the other hand, movement speeds do nothing for initiative modifiers either, which makes about as much sense as weapon/casting speeds not having a modifier. In all, I'd say you could come up with some basic initiative modifiers based on the old cast time/weapon speed system, probably no more than +/-1 or 2 per modifying circumstance.
When an AoO interrupts a spell and causes it to fail, it's because of the distraction of that specific attack ON TOP of all the chaos going on around the caster at the same time, this particular bit of chaos just happens to be directed at the caster in a more focused manner. It may help to think in terms of an Action Movie sequence for this kind of thing: the Hero(es) get(s) the drop on the bad guys (They rolled the higher initiative total), then things tend to devolve into a sort of semi-organized chaos.

[Fitz10019]

Anyone seen any variants on initiative that take into account movement. As an example, lets say an ECL 6 Barbarian charges a Wizard from 30' away. Currently the wizard can do nothing but stand there with his dagger in hand, hoping to do his fatal scratch on the charging behemoth with his AoO. It should take enough time to move 30' that the wizard might be able to get a spell off. At least that's my thinking on it.

Thoughts?

I've developed the same interest, although mine is from wishing battle were more chaotic.

So I'm tinkering with an Excel spreadsheet to handle intitiative. Everyone rolls init as normal. Then I add 1000 to those scores and sort the character list descendingly. The top row (say, headers at row 4, top character at row 5) is the current spotlight character, perhaps a barbarian. He makes a choice, like charge the wizard. After he's moved 10 feet of that charge, apply a minus to his init score and the sheet gets re-sorted. If someone new is in the top row now, that new character gets to act (gets the spotlight). If the barbarian is still at the top, he can continue moving (keeps the spotlight), and the process repeats. Swinging his weapon is followed by the result (damage), then minus to his init and re-sort.

I'm making clickable spots/buttons at the top of the sheet (above row 4) that apply minuses to (and only to) the top row character's initiative. Those buttons work no matter which character occupies the top row at any given time.

I'm trying to avoid screwing mundanes by having spellcasting a two-step process. You choose a spell and start casting it, then minus to initiative and re-sort (other people will probably get the spotlight). When you get the spotlight again, choose target and finish casting the spell, then spell results, minus to initiative and re-sort.

I'm considering weapon size/speed as a factor. I'm considering spell level and damage die count as factors. I'm considering replacing the d20 with d10 to keep everyone's numbers close together. I'm wondering if I need rounds at all. I'm wondering if, by copying the rows to a second sheet at each change, I could wind up with a log of my party's combats.

Half of my problem in completing this is being bogged down by the scope creep of new ideas.

I'm miles away from having it done enough to use it in-game, so I can't dispute Flickerdart's warning about forgetful players. He is probably right. My main goal is edge-of-your-seat suspense, via the chaos/unpredictability of 'when do I act next?'. Will interruption create eagerness or frustration? I should steel myself for my Spotlight Initiative being a flop.

[Stormspace]

I've developed the same interest, although mine is from wishing battle were more chaotic.

So I'm tinkering with an Excel spreadsheet to handle intitiative. Everyone rolls init as normal. Then I add 1000 to those scores and sort the character list descendingly. The top row (say, headers at row 4, top character at row 5) is the current spotlight character, perhaps a barbarian. He makes a choice, like charge the wizard. After he's moved 10 feet of that charge, apply a minus to his init score and the sheet gets re-sorted. If someone new is in the top row now, that new character gets to act (gets the spotlight). If the barbarian is still at the top, he can continue moving (keeps the spotlight), and the process repeats. Swinging his weapon is followed by the result (damage), then minus to his init and re-sort.

I'm making clickable spots/buttons at the top of the sheet (above row 4) that apply minuses to (and only to) the top row character's initiative. Those buttons work no matter which character occupies the top row at any given time.

I'm trying to avoid screwing mundanes by having spellcasting a two-step process. You choose a spell and start casting it, then minus to initiative and re-sort (other people will probably get the spotlight). When you get the spotlight again, choose target and finish casting the spell, then spell results, minus to initiative and re-sort.

I'm considering weapon size/speed as a factor. I'm considering spell level and damage die count as factors. I'm considering replacing the d20 with d10 to keep everyone's numbers close together. I'm wondering if I need rounds at all. I'm wondering if, by copying the rows to a second sheet at each change, I could wind up with a log of my party's combats.

Half of my problem in completing this is being bogged down by the scope creep of new ideas.

I'm miles away from having it done enough to use it in-game, so I can't dispute Flickerdart's warning about forgetful players. He is probably right. My main goal is edge-of-your-seat suspense, via the chaos/unpredictability of 'when do I act next?'. Will interruption create eagerness or frustration? I should steel myself for my Spotlight Initiative being a flop.

I like that you are thinking about it, but your system seems like it might be hard to understand by the players. After giving it some thought here is what I've come up with.

Spellcasting in Combat

When a spell caster has declared they are casting a spell, a threat provokes an AoO from that caster, and the caster is the target of that threat the caster has one of these options.

1) The caster can disrupt his spell and make the AoO normally using an available weapon.

2)The caster can make a Concentration check and if successful take a 5' step out of the threat area. He can still take that step if he fails the check, only the spell has been disrupted. Note that opponents with reach may still be able to strike at the spellcaster. The attacker does not get an AoO on the caster moving away as he forfeited that opportunity by provoking the original AoO.

[martixy]

Usain Bolt's top speed is 12.4 m/s. In six seconds of sprinting, he crosses about 244 feet, while wearing as close to nothing as possible to air on international TV.

A typical barbarian can move 160 feet in 6 seconds. If he picks up Run and Dash, that increases to 225 feet (11.5m/s, just 1m, slower than Usain). He can do this while carrying 200 pounds, which incidentally is about how much Usain Bolt weighs.

The point is... by wearing a Usain Bolt, you can run around really, really fast.

@Fitz, I get your system and I like the idea as a theoretical exercise.
It is however very, very poor game design.

[Stormspace]

I like that you are thinking about it, but your system seems like it might be hard to understand by the players. After giving it some thought here is what I've come up with.

Spellcasting in Combat

When a spell caster has declared they are casting a spell, a threat provokes an AoO from that caster, and the caster is the target of that threat the caster has one of these options.

1) The caster can disrupt his spell and make the AoO normally using an available weapon.

2)The caster can make a Concentration check and if successful take a 5' step out of the threat area. He can still take that step if he fails the check, only the spell has been disrupted. Note that opponents with reach may still be able to strike at the spellcaster. The attacker does not get an AoO on the caster moving away as he forfeited that opportunity by provoking the original AoO.

I had a conversation with a friend and after that the following clarifications should be made.

The 5' step does not provoke an AoO from the attacker, but any opponents adjacent to the caster still get any AoO on the caster as he moves out of the threatened square.

The caster must be the target of an attack that provokes the AoO to get this benefit. An opponent moving along side the caster does not give the caster this benefit.

Any spells the caster is in process of casting are disrupted by responding to an AoO. A caster cannot cast and use a melee attack in the same round.

[nyjastul69]

This might be better suited for the homebrew subforum.

[Stormspace]

This might be better suited for the homebrew subforum.

Maybe at this point, but it didn't start that way. :)

[ExLibrisMortis]

That rule seems to me like it's Evasive Reflexes (Tome of Battle) for casters.

[Stormspace]

That rule seems to me like it's Evasive Reflexes (Tome of Battle) for casters.

That's a great feat. Perhaps it should be a bonus feat for Spell Casters that don't wear armor.

[Fitz10019]

I like that you are thinking about it, but your system seems like it might be hard to understand by the players.

"but...hard to understand"? You forget my goal is chaos. No 'but' needed. I actually want it to be unpredictable to anyone not looking at the spreadsheet in action.

[Flickerdart]

"but...hard to understand"? You forget my goal is chaos. No 'but' needed. I actually want it to be unpredictable to anyone not looking at the spreadsheet in action.
So it's intentionally bad game design.

[AMFV]

So it's intentionally bad game design.

It's not bad design if it's intended to do a thing and it does that thing... That would be... well good design. Now it may be a bad thing or an unfun thing that it does. But if it's designed to do something and it does. Then it is NOT bad design. Also it seems pretty poor form to call something bad design simply because you dislike it. Particularly if it works for the operator who designed it.

[Flickerdart]

It's not bad design if it's intended to do a thing and it does that thing... That would be... well good design. Now it may be a bad thing or an unfun thing that it does. But if it's designed to do something and it does. Then it is NOT bad design. Also it seems pretty poor form to call something bad design simply because you dislike it. Particularly if it works for the operator who designed it.
There's much more to design than the achievement of a narrow goal, especially when that goal goes counter to the enjoyment of the experience's users (in this case, the players). I can talk about this at length, if you like - my degrees are on the subject.

[ComaVision]

It's not bad design if it's intended to do a thing and it does that thing... That would be... well good design. Now it may be a bad thing or an unfun thing that it does. But if it's designed to do something and it does. Then it is NOT bad design. Also it seems pretty poor form to call something bad design simply because you dislike it. Particularly if it works for the operator who designed it.

Fortunately, Flickerdart said it's bad game design, rather than just saying bad design in general.

[Flickerdart]

Fortunately, Flickerdart said it's bad game design, rather than just saying bad design in general.
It's bad game design and bad design in general. The execution of a stated goal to the exclusion of any external consideration is more accurately described as engineering. It is a very well-engineered rule. One could also evaluate it as a work of art - individual expression in the form of a game houserule, that evokes particular reactions from an audience. In that regard, it is also quite successful.

But it's really not very good design at all.

[AMFV]

Fortunately, Flickerdart said it's bad game design, rather than just saying bad design in general.

If they are enjoying themselves, it is emphatically not bad game design. Degrees notwithstanding. You cannot claim that there are objective standards to a creative field, outside of sales figures and enjoyment polls. Anything else is frankly pretentious hogwash, and in this case insulting to somebody who did not ask for feedback, and was providing something that they enjoyed. There is no reason to be a jerk to somebody who presents something we don't like, just because we like our fun a certain way.

[Flickerdart]

If they are enjoying themselves, it is emphatically not bad game design.
You are making an unwarranted assumption. The creator of the rule enjoys the rule. We have no evidence that the users (that is, the players) would. Your entire complaint appears to based on this misconception, so I will address it no further.

Interestingly, even if you were right (and people other than its creator were enjoying it) you'd still be wrong - loads of people enjoy bad things, like watching the Star Wars Holiday Special or wearing ugly sweaters.

[zergling.exe]

It's bad game design and bad design in general. The execution of a stated goal to the exclusion of any external consideration is more accurately described as engineering. It is a very well-engineered rule. One could also evaluate it as a work of art - individual expression in the form of a game houserule, that evokes particular reactions from an audience. In that regard, it is also quite successful.

But it's really not very good design at all.

I'd argue that good design is doing what people want (even if it may not be a conscious desire). Maybe the description sounds bad, but it is actually a fun thing in practice? There are lots of things that could go wrong, but is there anything wrong with trying it out?

[Flickerdart]

There are lots of things that could go wrong, but is there anything wrong with trying it out?

Of course not. Testing is part of any good design process. But the simplest test to perform is heuristic analysis, and this rule fails that test quite thoroughly.

[AMFV]

You are making an unwarranted assumption. The creator of the rule enjoys the rule. We have no evidence that the users (that is, the players) would. Your entire complaint appears to based on this misconception, so I will address it no further.

Interestingly, even if you were right (and people other than its creator were enjoying it) you'd still be wrong - loads of people enjoy bad things, like watching the Star Wars Holiday Special or wearing ugly sweaters.

So you get to be the arbiter of what people enjoy? And what quality is? Pretentious hogwash, sorry, but that's what that is. Many people throughout history have taken it as their place to judge what is and what isn't "quality" and they are mostly proven by history to be wrong. You are not the gatekeeper of fun or of gaming. Have you successfully sold a game? Made money doing it? Designed a game which has won awards? If you haven't then we can safely conclude that your opinions are not any more valid than anyone elses'.

Now you'll note, I didn't claim that it was good design, or productive design, or that I would find it fun. But you don't get to be the arbiter of what is quality, especially if somebody DID NOT ASK for your enlightened and superior degree enforced feedback.


Of course not. Testing is part of any good design process. But the simplest test to perform is heuristic analysis, and this rule fails that test quite thoroughly.

I'm glad you have a test that will tell you which games will sell, can I borrow a million dollars?

[Flickerdart]

So you get to be the arbiter of what people enjoy?
Do you? :smallsigh:

[AMFV]

Do you? :smallsigh:

Nope, and if you'll note I didn't claim to be. Not even a little bit. I'm cool with you not enjoying that particular rule. I wouldn't enjoy it. I am not cool with you officiously declaring it bad design using a purported "heuristic metric". If you had such a metric, you could have become rich designing the most popular game. The real truth is that people find things fun in odd streaks, unpredictably and are driven by things that aren't always obvious.

The success or design quality of a game, is really not something that can be measured, save against it's specific design goals. I mean you could measure the fun of the participants (which the DM may have done), or it's sales figures. Otherwise any metric is going to be as I said, pretentious hogwash, not grounded in empirical data. Are you arguing that you can develop such a metric contrary to data, or without data, because that's hogwash.

I don't think that rule is probably the best idea, but if the DM's goal is to promote a more chaotic game, it certainly does that, and possibly his players enjoy it. I don't think I would, but I've never tried that particular thing, so I can't say one way or the other. Hell, even if only the people playing it enjoy it, that doesn't make it "bad design" that just means that it's purpose designed, and it fits that purpose exactly.

Now there might be less involved ways to get what he wants, or ways to improve it, but if the thing he designed is working and isn't creating more problems than it's solving, it is good design.

[Flickerdart]

Nope, and if you'll note I didn't claim to be.
You sure do seem to see yourself as some kind of design goal master, though. Which is what you are accusing me of doing, so it is much the same.


I am not cool with you officiously declaring it bad design using a purported "heuristic metric". If you had such a metric, you could have become rich designing the most popular game.
Slow your jets, buddy. The purpose of a user test is not ever to find the best solution. It's to find flaws in the solution that you have. The particular solution fails one of the most important of Jakob Nielsen's systems heuristics, "visibility of systems status." Any design that willfully ignores this is bad design. In a design process where you are paid money to do it (such as, y'know, my day job) discovering a flaw like this is key to the "fail early" environment of a small design team, because it means you can redesign the thing before you've invested time and money into building it.


if the thing he designed is working and isn't creating more problems than it's solving, it is good design.
Let me quote the creator of the rule in question.

"...I'm miles away from having it done enough to use it in-game..."

You can drop the whole "people enjoy it so how dare you" angle. Nobody is enjoying it because nobody is playing with it. It's not done.

[Fitz10019]

The particular solution fails one of the most important of Jakob Nielsen's systems heuristics, "visibility of systems status." Any design that willfully ignores this is bad design.

I certainly can't make a claim of good design. Is there any latitude on selective visibility within Nielsen's heuristics? The system status is entirely visible to me as DM. I can see who is next -- I just don't know when-next because that depends on the spotlight character's decisions.

Is dodgeball bad design? I think the predictability would be similar for players -- suddenly you have the ball, make a decision, you don't know when you'll have the ball again.

My original goal was and remains chaos from the player's point of view. A secondary goal borne out of scope creep is that we can ignore rounds entirely, and therefore a player can choose any action he wants when he has the spotlight because without rounds, he's never 'out of' any specific action type. I think this will be empowering and more immersive.

[ZamielVanWeber]

My original goal was and remains chaos from the player's point of view. A secondary goal borne out of scope creep is that we can ignore rounds entirely, and therefore a player can choose any action he wants when he has the spotlight because without rounds, he's never 'out of' any specific action type. I think this will be empowering and more immersive.

Honestly I can see it going the other way. Not knowing when I get to act next can be extremely frustrating as I cannot plan out in advance what I am going to do. If the holds true for your players combat will be slowed down immensely because it is not as useful to plan in advance, not to mention players will also have to pick their actions more carefully. Spellcasters now can be interrupted easily since people can attack them after they started casting their standard action spells but before they finish. Then again heavy testing is part of any major rules change, so we shall see?

[ComaVision]

@Fitz

Honestly, you might be better off building a system rather than trying to fit 3.5 in to it...