PDA

View Full Version : Original System A New Initiative System? Maybe? Thoughts? Definitely Broken.



Liran Sterling
2017-07-12, 09:00 PM
Okay, so I've been thinking about Initiative, especially in 5e. It sucks. It's either too complex, or too dull. There's no simple yet dynamic way of doing Initiative.

I'm running a campaign this fall and I've come up with two possibilities of changing it up. The first I call Adjacent Initiative, and is the one I will likely be using. The second I'm referring to as Reaction Speed Initiative. Tell me your thoughts on both. I think Reaction Speed Initiative is mildly unfair and would result in too many unhappy players.

Adjacent Initiative - Very similar to the default 5e Initiative system. Essentially everyone rolls initiative like normal. Then, all players who rolled "adjacent" to each other in the initiative order go together. Let's say Alice rolls a 15, Bob rolls a 13, Clint rolls a 7, and Devin rolls a 3, and Orc 1 rolls a 10, Orc 2 rolls an 8, and Orc 3 rolls a 5. Alice and Bob would go at the same time, and Alice the orc fighter chooses to throw Bob the gnome rogue directly at the orcs. Their combo attack allows Bob do deal bonus damage at the discretion of the GM. Next Orcs 1 and 2 go. They choose not to work together and instead split up and attack separate targets. Next Clint shoots a fireball at an orc, then Orc 3 attacks someone, then Devin shoots an orc with his bow. This method keeps the simplicity of the base system but encourages teamwork and creativity, which I, as a GM, will reward.

Reaction Speed Initiative - This is where things get... confusing and possibly broken and unfair. I likely won't implement it for fear of making my players hate me. Here is is. Essentially it is a time based system, not turn based. Each unit of time is equal to one unit of what I call Reaction. Instead of Initiative being based on DEX and adding to your Initiative roll, you have a new stat called your Reaction Modifier. This score is whichever is higher, your DEX modifier, or your INT modifier, representing either reflexes, or fast mental processing. Any other factors such as feats that add Initiative get added, too. Now, at the beginning of combat, you roll your d20 like normal, then SUBTRACT your Reaction Modifier from the d20 roll. This resulting number is your Reaction Speed. Each unit of Reaction Speed (14 would have 14 units) represents a unit of time that is equal to .3 seconds. 20 units equals the traditional 6 second turn. 200 units represents a minute.

If that wasn't confusing enough, let's lay it out more. The lower your Reaction Speed, the fewer units will be between your turns. This means that if someone rolls very low, they could go more than anyone else, and potentially break the game.

Let's give an example. Alice rolls a 13 Reaction Speed, Bob rolls 19, Clint rolls 5, and Devin rolls 8. The two goblins roll together and get an 11. The units and turn order would be as follows:
1, 2, 3, 4, Clint, 6, 7, Devin, 9, Clint, Goblins, 12, Alice, 14, Clint, Devin, 17, 18, Bob, 19, Clint, 21, Goblins, 23, Devin, 25, Alice, and so on.

Basically it places you in at each unit which is a multiple of your Reaction Speed. Clint took 5, 10, 15, and 20. He went FOUR times before the goblins could go twice, because their turns fell on 11 and 22.

So here's what I'm wondering. Is there a way to take my concept of Reaction Speed or Units of Time to make a more dynamic system than what is in place? What I've come up with is nonfunctional and broken. While it would likely balance out over the course of many battles, with people swapping out for the broken positions that are all numbers lower than 10, but certain, max DEX or INT characters would have a distinct advantage and everyone would resent them and which they chose Rogue or Wizard too.

So what's up GitP? Got any hot tips for me?

aimlessPolymath
2017-07-13, 01:49 AM
On Adjacent Initiative: I'm pretty sure you can replicate that with the delay action, system depending. I can see it getting problematic if enemies are going simultaneously.

Reaction Speed: Pfft. I already broke it. Suppose someone had a Dex bonus of +3, and rolled a 1. :smalltongue:

More generally, I am very leery of any system which has a chance of breaking the action economy, which this system does in spades. The difference between a 1 and a 20 is incredible, and a good roll lets someone utterly dominate a combat. Furthermore, because the relative variance of low rolls are multiplicatively more powerful than high ones (2 vs 3 compared to 11 vs 12), high stats are similarly multiplicatively more powerful.

To solve this, I have a two-part solution.
1. Rather than acting again after a multiple of your Reaction Speed, you act again after 20 time units(i.e. one normal round). (A figure I am debating- I would like to allow for the occasional extra turn, while keeping normal timekeeping). This means that a round's worth of actions takes one round.
2. No matter your roll, you can't go before time unit 1. This avoids bonus-abuse to gain a large action advantage at the start of combat.
3. Characters add half their level to their Reaction Modifier; this is mostly to avoid punishing low initiative investment too badly. The race to go first is as in normal initiative, but a knight should gain reflexes with time.

Vogie
2017-07-13, 11:22 AM
Yeah, the second is definitely broken.

I like the concept, though. I almost feel a way to convert unused actions into increased initiative, or to burn existing initiative for bonus actions, could work (depending on system, of course). For example, someone lowering their high initiative for an extra move action at the beginning of the fight; or sacrificing their move later on in the battle to increase their initiative on the next turn.

It's very Bravely-Default-ish.

jqavins
2017-07-13, 03:11 PM
Ouch! That's so broken that I cut myself on the jagged, broken edges just reading it.

I have an easy fix for the worst of the breakage, but first a modification to the terminology. They way you described it, a lower "Reaction Speed" means you go faster. Low speed is faster? That's not confusing, no, not at all. Call it "Reaction Interval."

Now, here's the easy fix. Reaction Interval = 25 - Initiative Bonus - 1d6. Mind you, that's not enough of a fix, but the biggest problem you had is having the die as big as the base allowing results near zero. So reduce the random range and the result is somewhat less broken.

The bonus should be based either on Dex or a new stat, but not Int. Most of my friends consider me very intelligent (and I humbly agree) and I can often see what needs to be done, but that doesn't help because my body just won't start moving fast enough or go fast once it starts.

Using a whole new stat might be the way to keep Dex from becoming any more of a god stat than it already is.

But it's still broken.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-07-13, 04:09 PM
The first seems to offer very little benefit; as aimlessPolymath noted, simple delaying rules accomplish the same thing much more simply.

The second manages to be both painfully overcomplicated and painfully broken. Not only in the "character X can wind up more powerful than character Y" sense, not even in the "your initiative roll 100% determines how well you'll do in this combat" sense, but in the most fundamental game design goal-- every player should get the same amount of spotlight. In theory, in a thirty-minute combat, it should break down to "the monsters' turns take 10 minutes of total playtime, Bob takes 5, Alice takes 5, Joey takes 5, and Jill takes 5." Now, in practice that rule breaks down in all sorts of ways, but it does get at some commonly-accepted truths-- minionmancy is irritating for your fellow players, and a power that takes two turns to cast is an option to be avoided regardless of its power, because they alter how much time one player gets to, well, play, relative to everyone else.

It also strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. It sounds like you're talking about 5e-- that's a game that's put a lot of effort into balancing things around the action economy. Trying to overhaul that and balance it around a video game-style AP system seems like an awful lot of work that, at best, will result in a functionally brand-new game system.

If you do want to go that sort of route? I'd suggest a sort of "count up" system. Everyone starts at an initiative count of, oh, 30-[normal roll]. You start at initiative count 1, then 2, then 3, and so on, continuing up indefinitely. Once your turn hits, you can take an action, each of which has an initiative cost that adds onto your total. So, say, I roll a 14. 30-14=16, so I get my first action when the clock hits 16. When that happens, I decide to cast a fireball spell. That goes bang, I roll a bunch of damage, some goblins die, and my turn is over. Casting a 3rd level spell has an initiative cost of 23. I add that to my current value of 16 and get 39; I'll have to wait until then to act again.

Something like that lets you implement variable-action-cost-actions without having to bend over backwards to try to make things cyclical. If you want to be really mean, you could have the cost take effect before the action, to simulate the time it takes for the thing to occur. (the flow then would, I guess, go initial ini roll, declaration->action, declaration -> action, declaration...)

JaneStop
2017-07-13, 05:52 PM
In my homebrew players like to use a d10 instead of a d20 for initiative so Dex has more of an impact.

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-13, 05:55 PM
The first seems to offer very little benefit; as aimlessPolymath noted, simple delaying rules accomplish the same thing much more simply.

The second manages to be both painfully overcomplicated and painfully broken. Not only in the "character X can wind up more powerful than character Y" sense, not even in the "your initiative roll 100% determines how well you'll do in this combat" sense, but in the most fundamental game design goal-- every player should get the same amount of spotlight. In theory, in a thirty-minute combat, it should break down to "the monsters' turns take 10 minutes of total playtime, Bob takes 5, Alice takes 5, Joey takes 5, and Jill takes 5." Now, in practice that rule breaks down in all sorts of ways, but it does get at some commonly-accepted truths-- minionmancy is irritating for your fellow players, and a power that takes two turns to cast is an option to be avoided regardless of its power, because they alter how much time one player gets to, well, play, relative to everyone else.

It also strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. It sounds like you're talking about 5e-- that's a game that's put a lot of effort into balancing things around the action economy. Trying to overhaul that and balance it around a video game-style AP system seems like an awful lot of work that, at best, will result in a functionally brand-new game system.

If you do want to go that sort of route? I'd suggest a sort of "count up" system. Everyone starts at an initiative count of, oh, 30-[normal roll]. You start at initiative count 1, then 2, then 3, and so on, continuing up indefinitely. Once your turn hits, you can take an action, each of which has an initiative cost that adds onto your total. So, say, I roll a 14. 30-14=16, so I get my first action when the clock hits 16. When that happens, I decide to cast a fireball spell. That goes bang, I roll a bunch of damage, some goblins die, and my turn is over. Casting a 3rd level spell has an initiative cost of 23. I add that to my current value of 16 and get 39; I'll have to wait until then to act again.

Something like that lets you implement variable-action-cost-actions without having to bend over backwards to try to make things cyclical. If you want to be really mean, you could have the cost take effect before the action, to simulate the time it takes for the thing to occur. (the flow then would, I guess, go initial ini roll, declaration->action, declaration -> action, declaration...)

Do the players do Jazz Hands with that spotlight too?

Grod_The_Giant
2017-07-13, 07:53 PM
Do the players do Jazz Hands with that spotlight too?
Only Bards. But Bards are required to.

Kaskus
2017-07-13, 10:00 PM
I was so excited to see this thread. I was thinking about initiative today as well and popped on just to write about that very thing! I dont have a full-on alternative system but I did have 2 thoughts...

1. What about using BAB instead of Dex as the initiative modifier?

2. What about having everyone roll a die (1d6) after their action and adding that to their initiative for the next round? While the numbers will escalate over a combat, i don't think that's a problem because all you need to do is figure out the order which is easy with any numbers (right?). Since it changes after the round, this keeps everyone having the same amount of spotlight while still allowing for some variance round to round. It also keeps high numbers as good, works fine with initiative modifying abilities and feats (either applied only for the base initiative or each round depending on your taste).

2a. If you wanted to add your own new stat for initiative, you could have that be a die size rather than a static number.

I was also thinking about the old speed factors from 2e but I think that is overly complicated and adds a bunch of unneeded work for the GM.

Kaleph
2017-07-14, 05:13 AM
I've read the OP and the idea from Grod, and they both remind me of an RPG called "Feng shui". Basically the initiative system tries to simulate a real-time combat, i.e. each character has initiative points, which he spends to perform actions, so increasing his initiative counter. Multiple-attack-rules become inconsequential, since any attack costs a certain number of points, and has long you have some remaining, you may still attack (this also suggests that BAB should have an influence on the initiative modifier).

The complicated thing is that the effect of your action takes place at your new initiative count, so other participants to the fight may possible act in the meantime.

An example:
I have initiative count 20, and I start to cast orb of fire (which costs, say, 8 points, and therefore will be triggered at initiative count 12)
The enemy I'm targetting has initiative count 19, and moves 30 ft (which costs, say, 6 points)
At initiative count 13 the enemy completes his movement, and he's 30 ft away compared to his starting Position
At initiative count 12 I cast orb of fire, but - oooh! - now my target is out of range!

Vogie
2017-07-14, 08:56 AM
I've read the OP and the idea from Grod, and they both remind me of an RPG called "Feng shui". Basically the initiative system tries to simulate a real-time combat, i.e. each character has initiative points, which he spends to perform actions, so increasing his initiative counter. Multiple-attack-rules become inconsequential, since any attack costs a certain number of points, and has long you have some remaining, you may still attack (this also suggests that BAB should have an influence on the initiative modifier).

The complicated thing is that the effect of your action takes place at your new initiative count, so other participants to the fight may possible act in the meantime.

An example:
I have initiative count 20, and I start to cast orb of fire (which costs, say, 8 points, and therefore will be triggered at initiative count 12)
The enemy I'm targetting has initiative count 19, and moves 30 ft (which costs, say, 6 points)
At initiative count 13 the enemy completes his movement, and he's 30 ft away compared to his starting Position
At initiative count 12 I cast orb of fire, but - oooh! - now my target is out of range!

That sounds like a redux of the Roborally queue. Everyone sets up their respective actions and then executes them simultaneously - which works in a limited information environment (for example, card-based robot programming) but wouldn't work around a tabletop. Each time you announce your action, the other players, including the DM, will try to adjust their turns in response, even subconsciously.

Kaleph
2017-07-14, 12:34 PM
That sounds like a redux of the Roborally queue. Everyone sets up their respective actions and then executes them simultaneously - which works in a limited information environment (for example, card-based robot programming) but wouldn't work around a tabletop. Each time you announce your action, the other players, including the DM, will try to adjust their turns in response, even subconsciously.

I think it's intentional...

EDIT
I'm talking about a system which I played once 15 years ago, I hope my memories are accurate enough...

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-14, 03:56 PM
Only Bards. But Bards are required to.

Well Bards have to. That is a given. What about Mimes who are miming Bards?

jqavins
2017-07-15, 07:27 PM
2. What about having everyone roll a die (1d6) after their action and adding that to their initiative for the next round?
Is this different from changing the initiative roll from 1d20 to (1d20 + 1d6)?

Kaskus
2017-07-16, 12:59 PM
Is this different from changing the initiative roll from 1d20 to (1d20 + 1d6)?

Yes. Example...

Player 1 Rolls Initiative of 16
Player 2 Rolls Initiative of 11
Monster 1 Rolls Initiative of 15
Monster 2 Rolls Initiative of 12

Round 1 = P1 - M1 - M2 - P2, & everyone rolls a d6 after their action
P1 rolls a 1 :( - initative is now 17
P2 rolls a 4 - initative is now 15
M1 rolls a 4 - initiative is now 19
M2 rolls a 6 - initiative is now 18

Round 2 = M1 - M2 - P1 - P2
P1 rolls a 2 - initative is now 19
P2 rolls a 6 - initiative is now 21
M1 rolls a 1 - initative is now 20 (either use dex as is standard or roll off to break tie)
M2 rolls a 2 - initative is now 20

Round 3 = P2 - M1 - M2 - P1
Etc. Etc. Etc...

So in round 1, both monsters went after P1 but in round 2 they went before. So, the monsters both acted twice before P1 got to act again.

In round 2, P2 was last but in round 3, they were first. So, P2 gets to act twice in a row.

You can still end up with some double actions and changeups in the order but everyone still gets to go every round.

Note: A larger die would increase the variability, while different sized dice for each combatant would lead to those with higher dice going first more consistently as each round progressed.

jqavins
2017-07-16, 01:53 PM
Ah, I see. Interesting. Worth further consideration.

zlefin
2017-07-16, 03:38 PM
the second system can work if you use much different numbers than you did.
it's a lot like the system from Tactics Ogre (and probably a bunch of others in the Tactics line, haven't played too many of them)