Changing the Flow of Combat (a new initiative)

[tedcahill2]

Has anyone ever tried to come up with a way to change the action economy to favor martial types a bit more?

I've been trying to think of a way to implement an action system to replace initiative, that would work something like this:


Each character has an action rating (AR)
AR = Base Atk Bonus + Dex Mod + Int Mod + Misc Initiative Bonuses
Whenever a situation occurs that requires initiative to be rolled, each character/monster instead rolls 1d10+AR
The highest AR acts first followed by next highest, etc., etc. (same concept as initiative)
You should enter your character into the action order starting with your total AR roll and again at AR roll -5
EXAMPLE: if you roll 1d10+7 and get an AR of 13 you would enter yourself into the action order at 13, 8, and 3
On each of your turns in the action order you can take a single standard action
you can use your standard to take any move action or start a full round action too
a full round action would be completed by using your next turn to finish it
if using two-weapon fighting, rapid shot, or similar feats you can make an attack with both weapons, or fire two arrows, as a single standard action with the normal -2 penalty
subsequent attacks are no longer determined by base attack bonus and are instead based on having more turns in a combat round
each attack made after the first is still made at a -5 penalty per attack action taken in the round


Now obviously this would require some heavy tweaking and think through, but I've been pondering it for a while now. Is there anything here, or is this a waste of time to try and adapt into 3.5 or PF?

[zlefin]

there've been a variety of such projects at various times. none that have caught on greatly.
pathfinder unchained has a revised action system.

there's far simpler, standard ways to buff martials. but they'll never reach tier 1-2 (unless you go so far many people will cry)


while it's fun to think about those things, I don't see the set of proposals you have as being a notable basis for a decent alternate system, i.e. I don't think it's productive to work in terms of reaching a highly useable end-product; but if you enjoy thinking about them by all means do so. sometimes simply trying to build a system can be an entertaining and enlightening exercise.

[flappeercraft]

Suddenly the tarrasque now has like 10 standard actions per round.

[Dekion]

I'm not sure that this favors martials over spellcasters. If spellcasters use the same rules and focus on initiative enhancing abilities, which they tend to do, how is a spellcaster being able to cast multiple spells in a round, or being able to have more "turns" in a round to do so, helping make materials more relevant? I also feel as though it adds an unnecessary complication for little real change in result...Rounds would just be condensed into turns per character with some actions taking a couple of turns. The idea is interesting, but I don't think it really changes anything, unless I'm missing something.

[exelsisxax]

"favor martials a bit more"

AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Dude, you added INT to initiative. Massive giveaway to int-based spellcasters, who already have most of the initiative bonuses reserved for them. BaB to initiative isn't really much of a compensation.

Additionally, you basically took away move actions. Nice job: casters still get to cast a spell every turn, but martials have to use WHOLE turns just getting to the fight, and can only replicate full attacks by using MULTIPLE TURNS worth of actions, and still get iterative attack penalties.

The IDEA of mini-turns is a good one, but this makes dex and int even more god-stat and shanks martials even more.

[tedcahill2]

"favor martials a bit more"

AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Dude, you added INT to initiative. Massive giveaway to int-based spellcasters, who already have most of the initiative bonuses reserved for them. BaB to initiative isn't really much of a compensation.

Additionally, you basically took away move actions. Nice job: casters still get to cast a spell every turn, but martials have to use WHOLE turns just getting to the fight, and can only replicate full attacks by using MULTIPLE TURNS worth of actions, and still get iterative attack penalties.

The IDEA of mini-turns is a good one, but this makes dex and int even more god-stat and shanks martials even more.

I figured the burn rate on spells would be huge if caster could cast 2, 3, 4+ spells per combat round. But I guess I can see how that would still be a pretty big issue. What if all spells had double the casting time? So a caster would need a minimum of 2 actions to cast a spell. The beauty of this (in my thoughts anyway) is that there are potentially numerous other players/monsters taking their turn in the time between a caster starting a spell and finishing it on the next action. Lots of time for someone to try and interrupt their spell.

[InvisibleBison]

Wouldn't this make it almost impossible to perform a full attack against someone? Anyone targeted by a full attack could simply move out of their attacker's reach on their turn between when the attack starts and when it concludes.

[martixy]

I figured the burn rate on spells would be huge if caster could cast 2, 3, 4+ spells per combat round. But I guess I can see how that would still be a pretty big issue. What if all spells had double the casting time? So a caster would need a minimum of 2 actions to cast a spell. The beauty of this (in my thoughts anyway) is that there are potentially numerous other players/monsters taking their turn in the time between a caster starting a spell and finishing it on the next action. Lots of time for someone to try and interrupt their spell.

You don't want to ENCOURAGE burn rate, as that exacerbates the 5-minute adventuring day problem even more. Also the rocket-tag aspect.

Making all spells 2-action casts does offer some tactical advantages in play which sounds like a good thing on paper. Most probably over time people will tend to target casters automatically, because they'd still have to most bang-for-your-action potential.
And when is concentration resolved - at start of casting, end?

You start casting, a dude comes next to you - when do you get Conc check? When does he get an AoO?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Has anyone ever tried to come up with a way to change the action economy to favor martial types a bit more?

I've been trying to think of a way to implement an action system to replace initiative, that would work something like this:


Each character has an action rating (AR)
AR = Base Atk Bonus + Dex Mod + Int Mod + Misc Initiative Bonuses
Whenever a situation occurs that requires initiative to be rolled, each character/monster instead rolls 1d10+AR
The highest AR acts first followed by next highest, etc., etc. (same concept as initiative)
You should enter your character into the action order starting with your total AR roll and again at AR roll -5
EXAMPLE: if you roll 1d10+7 and get an AR of 13 you would enter yourself into the action order at 13, 8, and 3
On each of your turns in the action order you can take a single standard action
you can use your standard to take any move action or start a full round action too
a full round action would be completed by using your next turn to finish it
if using two-weapon fighting, rapid shot, or similar feats you can make an attack with both weapons, or fire two arrows, as a single standard action with the normal -2 penalty
subsequent attacks are no longer determined by base attack bonus and are instead based on having more turns in a combat round
each attack made after the first is still made at a -5 penalty per attack action taken in the round


Now obviously this would require some heavy tweaking and think through, but I've been pondering it for a while now. Is there anything here, or is this a waste of time to try and adapt into 3.5 or PF?
Let's see... basically, you get two standard actions a round (which can combine into a full round), instead of the usual move+standard (which can combine into a full round). You've removed full attacks in place of allowing two attacks per standard action*. Swift action functionality is unknown.

It's bad. Spellcasters don't need to move as often, so they can cast twice per round most of the time. Martial types start out much more lethal, but scale even worse than normal, and still have move-and-attack issues. Moreover, it's added complexity for what seems to me to be very little benefit.

If you want to tip the scale of action economy towards martials? Turn full attacks into standard actions. BOOM, martials have comperable action economy. (You could even turn spellcasting into a full-round action, though as usual for broad-stroke casting nerfs, it hurts all-fireball-all-the-time blasters more than persistomancers or god wizards). You could also follow the guideline of my five-rule quickfix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?535084-Five-Quick-Rules-for-Fixing-3-5) and grant a bonus move action to anyone who takes 6 levels of non-magic classes.


*Which, besides making such abilities mandatory, actually devalues BAB somewhat-- you no longer care about having enough "official" BAB for extra attacks, you just need to boost your to-hit. Benefits gishes by a lot.

[Eladrinblade]

This guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?396998) did; go to "combat rules".

[rel]

simple fix:
All spells (you can add an exception for the fun but not OP ones like featherfall if you like) take one full round to cast.

The full attack, attack and charge actions are now all standard actions that grant you an appropriate number of free action attacks you can pop out whenever you feel like (in the middle of a move, while falling past someone, before running off, etc) on your turn.

Combat is really tiring, you need to take 10 minutes to catch your breath (and wait for all your good buffs to time out) after a fight before you can keep adventuring.

[weckar]

Seems like you would be way more comfortable playing Aces & Eights. Just saying.

What would happen in this system if you ended up with a negative AR (post-roll)?

[martixy]

This guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?396998) did; go to "combat rules".

I guess some fixes are kind of obvious. I also did dodge bonuses for increasing BAB and considered adding level(or BAB) to initiative - however I gave up in the end, as ultimately it isn't the bonuses that matter but their relative strength and it's an additional rule(so more cognitive load) for not enough benefit.

A BAB approach relatively favours martials and monsters, while a level-based approach mostly favours monsters, due to the frequently high monster HD.

[Zaq]

I feel like this system could kinda-sorta work if the game was designed around it, but just inserting it into 3.5 as written (or even nearly as written), my gut feeling is that it creates at least as many problems as it solves.

Come to think of it, what problem is this fundamentally trying to solve? That should be your #1 step whenever you implement a houserule: identify clearly and as specifically as possible what problem you're trying to solve (and, therefore, why the game will be better/more fun with your rule than without it). I won't call the initiative system perfect, but honestly, I don't see it as being a glaring weakness of the system. What's your intended outcome of this?

[Elkad]

simple fix:
All spells (you can add an exception for the fun but not OP ones like featherfall if you like) take one full round to cast.

I'd allow an exception for more spells than that. Casters need a few standard action things. Probably mostly evocations.
And then put hard interrupts back in. No more concentration checks. No more casting defensively. If you get hit, the spell is wasted.

[weckar]

No, seriously, what DOES happen if your AR roll is negative? Do you just not get to act at all? :smallfrown:

[Grod_The_Giant]

No, seriously, what DOES happen if your AR roll is negative? Do you just not get to act at all? :smallfrown:
I'm assuming you act at initiative count AR roll -1 and -6, then.

[weckar]

The initial post made it seem as if it reset at 0.

[tedcahill2]

I'm assuming you act at initiative count AR roll -1 and -6, then.
I couldn't quite figure out how to word it, but this is more or less correct. If the highest AR is a 13, that's where the action order starts. How I worded the original post wasn't how I envisioned it, I just was in a rush to type it up.

So the turn cycle if 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2 etc.

So if you rolled the 13 you get to go on 13, 8, 3, -2, -7, etc.

I'm not sure how that can be easily managed yet, and I know it's complicated, but that really preserves my vision of how this would work.

[tedcahill2]

Come to think of it, what problem is this fundamentally trying to solve? That should be your #1 step whenever you implement a houserule: identify clearly and as specifically as possible what problem you're trying to solve (and, therefore, why the game will be better/more fun with your rule than without it). I won't call the initiative system perfect, but honestly, I don't see it as being a glaring weakness of the system. What's your intended outcome of this?

I wasn't really trying to specifically fix anything, I just think the combat in D&D can get pretty stale because you can't react to the changes of the battle very easily. I thought it might be more fun to get multiple micro-turns each round instead of one turn.

Example: Under the current rules a mage casts a fireball and you roll a save a that's that.

Under this micro-turn system you might see the enemy mage start to cast a spell, but they wouldn't be able to finish it until their next turn. So you might have one person be able to actually identify the spell being cast and yell "fireball, scatter" and then the rogue's like f- this I have evasion and stays put, but the clerics like, "damn" and runs around a corner, and the fighter is like "oh no you don't" and attempts to interrupt the casting by firing his crossbow at the mage, and if after all that the mage gets his fireball off the battle field has changed considerably from when he started casting it

It just seems more interesting to me that way.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I didn't realize you got a turn every five initiative counts. That sounds... spectacularly poorly-planned, honestly. It makes AR the single most important number on your sheet, because it suddenly determines not just when you go, but how often you get to go.


I wasn't really trying to specifically fix anything, I just think the combat in D&D can get pretty stale because you can't react to the changes of the battle very easily. I thought it might be more fun to get multiple micro-turns each round instead of one turn.

Example: Under the current rules a mage casts a fireball and you roll a save a that's that.

Under this micro-turn system you might see the enemy mage start to cast a spell, but they wouldn't be able to finish it until their next turn. So you might have one person be able to actually identify the spell being cast and yell "fireball, scatter" and then the rogue's like f- this I have evasion and stays put, but the clerics like, "damn" and runs around a corner, and the fighter is like "oh no you don't" and attempts to interrupt the casting by firing his crossbow at the mage, and if after all that the mage gets his fireball off the battle field has changed considerably from when he started casting it

It just seems more interesting to me that way.
It sounds like you want turn order to flow something like so, yes?

Major actions (spells, breath weapons, etc) are initiated
Minor actions (movement, attacks, etc) are declared and resolved
Major actions are resolved


Besides turn order, in many ways it seems like the bigger issue is how D&D handles movement-- specifically, very poorly. Even if you do throw in "big attack's coming in, gotta move" stimuli, the game is kind of sticky. AoEs for movement (particularly when combined with reach) make moving across the battlefield a good way to get a dozen spears rammed through your gut, and full-round full attacks make sitting still way more attractive than it should be. Seems to me that an overhaul of that side of things is at least as important to spicing things up in the way you want.

[tedcahill2]

I didn't realize you got a turn every five initiative counts. That sounds... spectacularly poorly-planned, honestly. It makes AR the single most important number on your sheet, because it suddenly determines not just when you go, but how often you get to go.


It sounds like you want turn order to flow something like so, yes?

Major actions (spells, breath weapons, etc) are initiated
Minor actions (movement, attacks, etc) are declared and resolved
Major actions are resolved



Not quite, or at least not quite if I understand you correctly. Let just keep using my example with the guy rolling a 13 AR. At action order 13 he goes, the nearest enemy is 5 ft to his left, he steps over and attacks, turn over. On action order 8 he can stay put and attack the same target again (since it's his second iterative attack during the round his attacks would be at a -5 penalty), OR he could choose to move toward another target (the key thing here is that a single turn in the action order would be roughly equivalent to a standard action).

Full attacks are no long a thing at all because the micro-turns otherwise represent your ability to make iterative attacks, more turns in a round, more attacks can potentially be made. It also means that someone with 3 turns in a round can use those turns to triple move, 1 move action on each turn. My end goal is that characters that would have a high number of attacks per turn will instead have a high AR, but given the flexibility of the micro-turn system a fighter types have more battlefield mobility (aka able to move more frequently)

[Grod_The_Giant]

I was asking more from a design GOAL perspective than a "how does what you wrote work." I think there's some virtue to the underlying idea, but the current way it's being implemented is not ideal.

The issue with "single actions only" is that the impetus is still going to go attack with as many as possible. You're not going to want to bounce around the battlefield, because that's still going to eat into your killing ability. If you want more movement and object interaction type stuff, you need to add MOVE actions, specifically.

[tedcahill2]

I was asking more from a design GOAL perspective than a "how does what you wrote work." I think there's some virtue to the underlying idea, but the current way it's being implemented is not ideal.

The issue with "single actions only" is that the impetus is still going to go attack with as many as possible. You're not going to want to bounce around the battlefield, because that's still going to eat into your killing ability. If you want more movement and object interaction type stuff, you need to add MOVE actions, specifically.

My thought was that this would provide fewer lost actions.

Let's say a high level fighter with 4 attacks per full attack action drops him opponent after 2 attacks. Unless he can reach another target he have effectively wasted two potential attacks for the turn.

Under my micro-turn variant (in it's final form, not current form) that same fighter would ideally have a total of 5 actions. So if he dropped someone in 2 hits, he can then move on his next turn, and still have two more turns for two more attacks.

[Grod_The_Giant]

My thought was that this would provide fewer lost actions.

Let's say a high level fighter with 4 attacks per full attack action drops him opponent after 2 attacks. Unless he can reach another target he have effectively wasted two potential attacks for the turn.

Under my micro-turn variant (in it's final form, not current form) that same fighter would ideally have a total of 5 actions. So if he dropped someone in 2 hits, he can then move on his next turn, and still have two more turns for two more attacks.
My first thought is that turns/round should not be random. You should not gain or lose actions because of a single random die roll at the start of the combat. Order can be randomized, but number of actions is tied so closely with power that I don't think you want that variable at all. Or optimize-able. So, I'd suggest a basic rule of one action per iterative attack from BAB. So one action at first, one at BAB +6, one at +11, and one at +16.

Now, you want movement, so I'd suggest allowing some shifting around without eating up your normal actions, or provoking AoOs. Perhaps one 5ft step per action, and 5ft step distance is increased by 5ft/4 pts of BAB. So a low level guy can only shift a bit, but at BAB, oh, +12 you're taking three actions/round, and can shift 20ft between each one without eating into your killing potential. You could also divorce this from BAB, I suppose... a very odd conceptual hack might be to have a progression based on how many base skill points/level your class gives you, since that correlates pretty well with how light-and-agile the combatant is supposed to be... but I digress.

How's this sounding?

[tedcahill2]

My first thought is that turns/round should not be random. You should not gain or lose actions because of a single random die roll at the start of the combat. Order can be randomized, but number of actions is tied so closely with power that I don't think you want that variable at all. Or optimize-able. So, I'd suggest a basic rule of one action per iterative attack from BAB. So one action at first, one at BAB +6, one at +11, and one at +16.

Now, you want movement, so I'd suggest allowing some shifting around without eating up your normal actions, or provoking AoOs. Perhaps one 5ft step per action, and 5ft step distance is increased by 5ft/4 pts of BAB. So a low level guy can only shift a bit, but at BAB, oh, +12 you're taking three actions/round, and can shift 20ft between each one without eating into your killing potential. You could also divorce this from BAB, I suppose... a very odd conceptual hack might be to have a progression based on how many base skill points/level your class gives you, since that correlates pretty well with how light-and-agile the combatant is supposed to be... but I digress.

How's this sounding?

If I base it on skill points wouldn't it hurt fighter types more than anything?

The reason I went with a d10+AR to determine action order (and number of turns) was to simulate how combat already works from level 1. At level 1 you get 2 actions, move and standard, per round. So to mimic that base line number of actions I figured 1d10 roll, assuming no other modifiers, would have a roughly 50% chance of getting 1 or 2 actions per round. For PCs, with probable modifiers of +3 or +4 at those low levels, you're pretty likely to get at least 2 turns, possibly 3, right out of the gate. I could also simulate this have AR start at a base 10 (which gives two actions per turn) and letting modifiers increase it further. Doing this would give all fighter types 3 actions, minimum right from level 1, cause they'd have a base attack of +1 bring their AR to 11.

I definitely wouldn't be opposed to giving each class their own Base Action Bonus stat. My motivation behind adding dex and int into the AR originally was to give rogue types a boost to AR, because while their base attack is weaker than a straight fighter types they have a similarly action heavy combat need. I didn't intend to be boosting the actions of wizards, or other Int casters, by adding Int to AR, it was more of a "speed of body, speed of thought" idea that would determine AR.

At the end of the day my over all design goal is to do two things. 1) break up combat decisions into smaller chunks, so that players can get more actions per round, as well as simulate the flow of a real battle slightly better and 2) give martial characters a little lift by giving them more actions per turn than they would have otherwise had under the standard rules

[Grod_The_Giant]

I see where you're coming from with d10+AR, but I think the result is bad-- number of actions/turn is way too important to randomize like that. Stick with standard initiative, maybe adding 1/2 BAB to it if you want to boost martials a bit there, and use another system (one which is static and difficult-to-impossible to optimize) to determine actions/round.

[tedcahill2]

I see where you're coming from with d10+AR, but I think the result is bad-- number of actions/turn is way too important to randomize like that. Stick with standard initiative, maybe adding 1/2 BAB to it if you want to boost martials a bit there, and use another system (one which is static and difficult-to-impossible to optimize) to determine actions/round.

Let me see if I understand your suggestion, cause I like it if I do.

Keep initiative as is, but use that to determine action order (standard stuff). However, merge it with my micro-turn variant so that you get to take an action every 5 ticks of initiative, up to a maximum number of actions per round determined by class?

So for example, a fighter starts with 2 actions at level 1, and gets +1 action at base attack bonus of +6, +11, and +16, for a total of 5 actions.

So let's say you roll a 23 initiative and you currently are at a level where you get 3 actions. You can act at 23, 18, and 13. How would that work if you rolled a low initiative though? Like if you rolled a 9 would you lose actions? Hmmmm

[Grod_The_Giant]

Let me see if I understand your suggestion, cause I like it if I do.

Keep initiative as is, but use that to determine action order (standard stuff). However, merge it with my micro-turn variant so that you get to take an action every 5 ticks of initiative, up to a maximum number of actions per round determined by class?

So for example, a fighter starts with 2 actions at level 1, and gets +1 action at base attack bonus of +6, +11, and +16, for a total of 5 actions.

So let's say you roll a 23 initiative and you currently are at a level where you get 3 actions. You can act at 23, 18, and 13. How would that work if you rolled a low initiative though? Like if you rolled a 9 would you lose actions? Hmmmm
That sounds about right, yeah. I wouldn't have you lose actions, just act on 9, 4, -1, and -6.