Initiative: if you go first then you went first.

[Username17]

The simplest Initiative system is to establish an order for participants to declare their actions in and resolve actions as they are declared for each participant in turn.
"I move and shoot!

The next simplest Initiative system is to establish an order for participants to declare their actions and a separate order for actions to be resolved in, and then resolve each participant's action in resolution order according to what they declared that they were doing during the resolution phase.

Anything else you do, whether it's giving various actions lead-up times; or splitting turns into phases where characters have their actions divvied up; or having actions resolve simultaneously with tie breakers or partial negations for incompatible actions; or turn interrupt declarations; or whatever is more complicated than the first two systems by definition.

---

That being said, a more complex initiative system is not inherently wrong. Most initiative complexities add tactical depth. If some actions are fast and other actions are slow then you can have characters use weak quick attacks instead of long slow attacks if they think it'll get through and make a difference. If actions can be interrupted then using your interrupts to stop really important shit is a big deal and a point of potential player skill.

But you should understand that the described system is more complicated than having everyone roll their init scores and then having everyone move and shoot when their number comes up. It's a whole separate mini-game which adds tactical depth at the cost of being a separate mini-game that people have to learn and use while playing the game.

-Username17

[Crissa]

We need to get away from thinking of units as only single pieces on the battlemap. When the zombies attack, they all attack at the same time. They're one unit, and aren't generally rolled for separately unless they are each the power of a PC.

One PC unit of power should be equal to one initiative, one attack roll, etc. It's more than one Imp, but less than a Bruiser or Boss.

-Crissa

[SunTzuWarmaster]

In every D&D game I've ever played all of Team Monster go at the same time, the only possible exception is the commander (who usually elects to go early in round 1 and later in subsequent rounds).

[Orion]

I generaly gave each unique monster an initiative, and each unique type of monster.

So, for instance, I'll have one initiative for orc axemen, one for orc archers, one for the orc monk, one for the orc monk, one for the orc summoner (and his summoned cohort), one for the pair of ghouls and one for the pet owlbear.

Generally, I make one of the players keep track of it for me...

[SphereOfFeetMan]

In every D&D game I've ever played all of Team Monster go at the same time, the only possible exception is the commander (who usually elects to go early in round 1 and later in subsequent rounds).

Gah. I guess we play very different games then. In games I play in there tends to be many creatures on both sides. If each team took turns, the Focus Fire and uninterrupted offense would probably result in one Team Party member death a round...

[JonSetanta]

K: Yep, in essence the gunner vs. puncher scenario would have to be played out even before they begin fighting to correctly grant either side their turn first.
The example scene was missing variables prior to the combat encounter, which IMO was the most important detail.
It really depends on where they were and whether or not each side was preparing for enemies, or just fuckin around with their cigarette or whatever.

[K]

1203479322[/unixtime]]K: Yep, in essence the gunner vs. puncher scenario would have to be played out even before they begin fighting to correctly grant either side their turn first.
The example scene was missing variables prior to the combat encounter, which IMO was the most important detail.
It really depends on where they were and whether or not each side was preparing for enemies, or just fuckin around with their cigarette or whatever.

Here's how the standard DnD encounter goes:

There are some orcs in a room. Four are archers, practicing shooting with bows in hand(Prepped). Four are warriors paying a game of knucklebones(Distracted). There are two warrior guards watching the game(Alert). The orc king is sleeping in his chair(Oblivious), but he's a cleric and he's got two ghouls under his commander guarding him(Ready for attacks on the king).


Four adventures walk up to the door, and they listen at the door and hear noises. The cleric Readies an action to Turn any undead he sees when the door opens. The Fighter Readies an action to rush any undead he sees (its been an undead-heavy dungeon so far). The Wizard is prepped, because he wants to see how things go before he casts a spell. The Rogue is prepped.

Kick down the door!

Everyone sees the other.

Ready actions go.
The Fighter has the highest Dex, and he decides to take his ready action and rush the ghoul. The ghouls have the next highest Dexes, and they attack the fighter. The cleric is next, and he blasts a ghoul with Turning.

Prepped actions go. The Wizard and orc archer tie Dexes, so they roll off, wizard wins and tosses a Web onto them. They lost their option to range attack in the Web, so they do melee attacks on the Webs. The Rogue is a Conan-type rogue so he had a low Dex, and he goes next and he runs and stabs a guard.

Alert actions go. The two guards attack.

Distracted actions go. The warrior orcs grab their shields and axes and attack.

Oblivious actions go. The orc king wakes up.


Now, probably a bunch of stuff died in this scenario, but you get the point, right?

[RandomCasualty]

1203369132[/unixtime]]

5. Ready: Waiting for someone to round the corner, saw them first because of longer sight in darkness or they were making noise, hiding or sneaking ambusher, etc.

4. Prepped: Guards in war zone. Adventurers poking around a tomb.

3. Alert. Guard in a a peace zone. Basic adventurer sitting in an inn.

2. Distracted. Average guy walking down the street. Person working at something.

1. Oblivious. Doing something loud and distracting. Dozing off.

I think this could really be simplified.
You should probably just have:

Ready
Alert
Distracted

There's really no reason to differentiate between some of the categories, since it's going to be a fairly wide grey line between Alert and Prepped and Oblivious and Distracted.

Is the guy preparing spells oblivious or distracted? How about the smith pounding on a sword or the rogue picking a lock?

There's just too many edge cases I think.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

We typically run 2-20 enemies for 4 PCs. The most tokens so far has been 38 enemies to 16 PCs/NPCs. Yes, focus fire was a valid strategy on both sides in this particular battle, but it was primarily to obtain a specific, locational objective.

[JonSetanta]

That works K, but still too many categories to consider. If I were DMing an encounter, I wouldn't want to keep track of that many degrees of preparedness.

I would knock that down to:
- Ready (includes Ready and Prepped)
- Alert
- Distracted (includes Distracted and Oblivious)

But it does make perfect sense.
And I genuinely hope something like it can fit in the "New System"


edit: Oh, and I'd also extend the "Degrees of Alertness" to noncombat and skill situations as well.

Thieving items from a character would only work if the target was Distracted, never when Alert or better.

Recovering certain abilities after an encounter, such as ToB maneuvers, would only happen when the character reduces their mental state down to Distracted. Being Alert means they are ready for combat, which means they are not relaxing or focused on other tasks. Such separations define what is "combat or not".

Certain skill checks such as the traditional D&D actions of "I search for traps" or "I search the bodies" could be waived if the players are willing to focus their attention to a level of Distracted, potentially risking ambush by foes in risky areas.
Anyone not willing to give up defense would need to pass the checks but also retain their fighting readiness.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Everyone likes threes...

But yeah, if simultaneous actions were workable it would be really nice to have a system of 'Whoever goes first declares last', and if you aren't aware of someone then they declare after you.

Wierdness arises in the following situation: A is stalking B, but has not realized that C is the target of B. B is trying to sneak up on C. C notices A (you probably see where this is going...), because A is making no effort to put cover between herself and C.
In what order do they declare their actions?

This could be workable by doing something silly like everyone writing down their actions on paper. Situations like that probably won't arise too often, and resolve themselves fairly quickly. In addition there could always just be a DM power clause where we assume that the DM is impartial enough to declare NPC actions last (when appropriate) in such situations.

[Edit]At the same time, there really is a lot of appeal to just rolling and then acting in order.[/Edit]

[Crissa]

You guys are still not solving the ready action vs the alert. K does solve that.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Wait, which 'you guys'? I agree with K's idea since it works fine IMO but it needs to be less complex.

[Crissa]

What's so complex about K's?

It just solves the stupid argument between 'alert' and 'readied action'. Yeah, the guard is 'alert' but gosh, he doesn't know if his start condition will happen at all. The latter is pretty sure it'll happen, but only has the exact 'when' within a few seconds.

I always wondered if we could put a declinator onto initiative that wouldn't be too heavy. Like, in 3.0, if you want your move action first, it burns up half your initiative and you move down the order for the other half of your action.

Why shouldn't Initiative be complex? We have movement and distances and why can't 'time' be something that is variable instead of one dimensional (before/after)?

-Crissa

[Bigode]

Unless I'm missing something, we're still referring to K's idea on the OP, right?

If yes, someone tell me: it doesn't leave room for people to just act faster (not in the sense of getting more actions), which's something that even real people do. So, if we want to tell stories of unrealistically awesome people, WTF? But I do think K's has merit, so I stand by the Warmaster.

[Crissa]

Act faster than what, Bigode?

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Confusion levels in this thread have exceeded 9000.

[Bigode]

What, every thread I touch today gets plagued by misunderstanding? Well, I meant "the guy who didn't know what was happening acts fast enough to interrupt others that did".

[Crissa]

Sure, if he beats their rolls multiple times over. I don't mind an ability or feat that allows you to act as if you're one level better - but we need those levels to make it happen, and we need limits on stacking in this mini game else someone stacks it and wins all the other games.

-Crissa

[K]

SunTzuWarmaster's point addresses the wrong problem. Yes, its a problem that if a Gelatinous Cube can "autokill people on a surprise," but that a problem with its "ability to autokill a group of people."

I don't think I even care about people who want to act first in the initiative round. It doesn't seem a matter of "fastness", but a matter of "I don't want to go last."

I mean, if someone has the drop on you and you don't see them before they see you, you can just be as fast as all get out and they still get to go first.

You might still get an attack though with some ability, but a full round of actions where someone might be surprised and then take a move action to get out of the range of attack seems just dumb to me.

[Bigode]

Crissa has a point, but I didn't mean "you can get optional bonuses to stack towards Hell", just a roll of [level-based amount, equal for all characters of the same level] + [attribute-based amount, one or maybe 2 of them] + [awareness state modifier], so there isn't arbitrary stacking potential.

But K, what about "yes, I sneaked up on him, but he just threw me right when I was about to stab him"? And no, he didn't just feign not noticing ...

[Crissa]

I think that should be a property of 'OMG this guy outclasses me in all ways and I shouldn't be here' rather than 'he beat my roll, why did I bother sneaking again?'

But I can't answer for K.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

Put a level based modifier in for badassery like that.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I like the level-based modifier, but mostly I want the ability to use Immediate Actions (or the equivalent) if you are "ready" (Prepped, but probably not alert).

In this manner when the terribly-slow Gelatinous Cube or terribly-dangerous Roper closet-troll you, you can take your "Immediate Action" ability of "5' step" "Parry 1 attack to your person" "add +5 to reflex saves" or "shoot ink like a squid".

I don't like a bunch of PC's getting wrecked when the closet is full of ropers, and I think giving them some sort of partial "dive out of the way" action should be allowed if they are exploring an ancient tomb.

[Crissa]

And you get players who will always insist that they're 'ready' when on guard, but assert the NPCs on guard are unfair if they get the same.

That's an argument I don't want to have.

-Crissa