I use d6 group initiative. One player rolls a d6 and I roll a d6. If they meet or beat the bad guy's roll then the party members all act first. The actual numbers rolled don't matter. "Bad guys 3, Players 6" has the exact same mechanical effect as "Bad guys 2, Players 3". What if that wasn't the case? What if the number rolled indicated how much you could get done before the end of the round? Below is a stab at the idea. I don't usually like new mechanics that require you to consult a new chart all the time, so I'm not sure I'd use it as a hard and fast rule. But I think I will start considering the number on the inish die as a means of gauging how much the PCs can achieve in a round.
Players' Roll
1
Cast 1st level spells safely
Wielders of two-handed weapons may not attack this round.
Only weapons in hand may be used to attack.
Scrolls/potions/wands/oil may only be used if in hand and ready for use.
Missile fire into melees targets randomly.
2
Cast 1st and 2nd level spells safely
Wielders of two-handed weapons may only make unarmed attacks, weapon out of position.
Scrolls/potions/wands/oil may only be used if in hand and ready for use.
Swords and daggers may be drawn and used immediately.
3
Cast 1st-3rd level spells safely
Scrolls/potions/wands/oil may only be used if in hand and ready for use.
Swords and daggers may be drawn and used immediately.
4
Cast 1st-4th level spells safely
Swords and daggers may be drawn and used immediately.
Fighter types who drop their foe may make an extra attack.
5
Cast 1st-5th level spells safely
Any melee weapon may be drawn and used immediately.
Anyone who drops their foe may make an extra attack.
Missile fire may fire at small targets (a sword hand, the wizard's magic eyeball, etc)
Hand held weapons may be thrown and a new weapon drawn for use next round.
6
Cast any spell safely
Missile fire may fire at small targets (a sword hand, the wizard's magic eyeball, etc)
Crossbow users may fire and immediately reload (but not fire at small targets)
Any melee weapon may be drawn and used immediately.
Hand held weapons may be thrown and a new weapon drawn for use next round.
Anyone holding a dagger may make two melee attacks.
Anyone with a shield may make an extra shield bash attack.
Anyone who drops their foe may make an extra attack.
Monsters' Roll (humanlike foes use the above chart)
1
Claw/Claw/Bite Types: one claw only
Tentacled Horrors: one tentacle attack only
Monsters that Swallow Hole: bite but no swallow possible
Breath Weapon: no breath weapon allowed
Gaze Attack: no gaze allowed
General: Only front line party members can be meleed
2
Claw/Claw/Bite Types: both claws
Tentacled Horrors: d6 tentacle attacks
Monsters that Swallow Hole: as normal
Breath Weapon: small puff targets 1 foe for half damage, does not count as a usage per day
Gaze Attack: gaze attack 1 target
General: Only front line party members can be meleed
3
Claw/Claw/Bite Types: both claws
Tentacled Horrors: d6 tentacle attacks
Monsters that Swallow Hole: as normal
Breath Weapon: full breath weapon
Gaze Attack: gaze attack 1 target
General: Only front line party members can be meleed
4
Claw/Claw/Bite Types: full attacks
Tentacled Horrors: d6 tentacle attacks
Monsters that Swallow Hole: as normal
Breath Weapon: full breath weapon
Gaze Attack: gaze attacks d6 party members
General: Party members behind front line can be targeted in melee, but front line makes rear attacks
5
Claw/Claw/Bite Types: full attacks
Tentacled Horrors: d6 tentacle attacks
Monsters that Swallow Hole: as normal
Breath Weapon: full breath weapon
Gaze Attack: gaze attacks d6 party members
General: Party members behind front line can be targeted in melee, but front line makes rear attacks
6
Claw/Claw/Bite Types: full attacks plus some bonus (grab, tailslap, headbutt, etc)
Tentacled Horrors: all tentacles attack
Monsters that Swallow Hole: bit/swallow up to d4 adjacent targets
Breath Weapon: full breath weapon
Gaze Attack: gaze attacks all possible targets
General: Party members behind front line can be targeted in melee
An Overdue Apology
-
First of all, I am not being compelled or forced to do this, at least not
by any external agent. This is all about acknowledging my mistake. When the
alleg...
%202.png)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Posts
-I like it in theory but think it should be simpler--like somehow what can be done is based on the die roll number
ReplyDelete-and hey, why not use a bigger die then? It's mechanically the same and then you could use a d10 "1 allows level 1 spells to be cast safely" "2 allowas level 2" "3 allows level 3" etc.
-if you use a d20 you could actually make it even simpler by allowing a mechanic based on characters' initiative like "if the enemy's initiative was lower than your dex you can..." etc.
-currently I always use a "if one party rolls a 6 and the other a 1 on the first round that's a surprise round" anyway or a variation on that.
Jeff, I have adapted way more of your stuff IMC than I have ever commented on.
ReplyDeleteBut this one is too complicated for me to want to bother with.
It just seems like the kind of segment horror I am bound to perpetually overlook things & forget & run the pc's different to the Monsters etc.
I have never seen "make initiative more exciting" among a players desires. Maybe that is the point here or something- make the mundane awesome- but I'll leave this one.
I had to log in to testify to the brilliance of this post. This idea, while I think I would change some of its particulars, looks like it can provide some interesting elements to combat. Does any published game system use anything of the sort?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a whole bunch of specific stuff to remember for a payoff that, most of the time, is just restricting what actions the PCs can take during the round.
ReplyDeleteIf you want that level of granularity, why not say there are six segments in the round, and the initiative number represents which segment the players get to act on? Then you can assign costs in segments to different actions, so drawing a weapon takes 1 segment, unslinging a bow takes 2, etc. That way players can choose to take slower actions and go last, or quicker actions and go sooner. Plus it's much easier to remember. Of course, then you have players acting at all different times in the round.
I think there's some potential here but I'd have to see it simplified to put it to use myself.
ReplyDeleteI quite like the idea of a good initiative roll giving the players some sort of bonus, but a streak of low rolls could tip the balance over to annoyingly frustrating.
One way to simplify it would be to focus on the 1s and 6s, the rolls people expect to have big effects. Have a list of limitations for what you can do if you roll a 1 for initiative (or monsters, if they roll) and have a list of benefits you get for rolling a 6.
Will be interested to see how this works out if you try it in play.
Seems allot like the system in the First Edition DMG. Or perhaps Eldritch Wizardry.
ReplyDeleteHere are some ideas for simplification of the notion; I do think the biggest obstacles will be complexity of remembering it at the table, and wildly skewing balance issues.
ReplyDelete* A monster can use one attack or special ability per initiative total. Examples: claw claw bite would need a minimum of 3 on initiative.
* Initiative rolled is the number of people in the party that get to act.
Of course, any change you make on the scale you propose is not going to be widely accepted in the OSR.
Coming up with random charts that use existing material is okay, but from what I've seen and read, the OSR is flatly disinterested in anything that changes how the game plays.
@fictive: Your Synnibar/OD&D kitbash not get the reception you'd hoped?
ReplyDelete@John: Wow. No, not that at all. In fact, I haven't suggested any OD&D modifications that depart from the boundaries of OD&D. Most of what I'm offering goes to Old School Hack, actually.
ReplyDeleteInstead, that comes from observing that most of what I read in the OSR is about suggesting classes and monsters at most, with the occasional mini-system for things like carousing. Otherwise, working within existing systems to make adventures and such.
There seems to be a justifiable position that if people want to play a game radically different than OD&D they'll go elsewhere to do it, and not make fundamental changes to a game that many people agree is ideal for what they want to do already.
I think a community that continually revisits issues like whether or not to have variable weapon damage and the balance involved in that question is unlikely to embrace experimentation with a mechanic as fundamental as what initiative does round by round.
So yeah; I think it's cool to ruminate on the possiblities of having initiative unlock different possibilities each round. And there is surely a game system where that would work and be cool. I just don't think it's OD&D or a retroclone.
@fictive
ReplyDelete@john
"Of course, any change you make on the scale you propose is not going to be widely accepted in the OSR. "
I think this is not the aggressive statement it seems to be.
Its true that:
Pretty much everyone in the OSR hacks the rules, almost no two people hack the rules -in the same way-.
So, yeah, other than "shields shall be splintered" I don't think any single rule change has been widely accepted in the OSR. Even though change itself is accepted very widely.
Too complicated to remember at the table.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in that vein, if you re-examine the initiative rules in 1e, you'll note where Gygax points out that there are 10 six second segments in a round, and the d6 roll indicates when, logistically, those actions take place in the time scale.
From the DMG:
"Attacks directed ot spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable. (If the spell caster's side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent's losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1 st-6th segments of the round." Page 65
and
"When the attack routine may be used twice, then allow the side with this advantage to attack FIRST and LAST with those members of its group who have this advantage." page 63
In addition to all the above, it would make an already highly random combat system even more swing-y.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea that the initiative numbers mean something, but think this particular implementation may be too complicated for use. Rathewr than govern what can be done, I think I'd like to see it give small bonuses in some way, which the players may take advantage of while still choosing what they want to do as usual.
ReplyDelete@fictive: Your observations are different from mine, then, which are pretty much in line with what Zak said. We have different assumptions, I guess? You can be radically experimentative and still kibitz about variable weapon damage.
ReplyDeleteWhy not have a shorter table of results, related to how much the difference between the numbers rolled is?
ReplyDeleteSo instead of worrying about what 1 means, you just know that beating the monsters by 2 gives X advantage... and losing to them by 2 means that THEY get that same advantage.
Possible advantages
beat by 2: extra movement
beat by 3: +1 to hit
beat by 4: +1 to hit, extra movement
beat by 5: +1 to hit, extra ranged shot
it seems like that would be easier to remember, and would make the results of the rolls more memorable.
We played around with meaningful-initiative systems for AD&D in the 80s, and never got anywhere we liked with it. It always looked good on paper but failed the Work:Fun ratio test when the dice hit the table.
ReplyDeleteIf you get better results, please publish them; I'd be fascinated to read some play reports.
I'm a big fan of meaningful-initiative systems in many _other_ games (FFE combat is built on it, even) but I've never seen it fly well in D&D-style play.
(My apologies for coming out grumpy yesterday.)
ReplyDeleteHm. In the game I'm building, initiative is 1d10+[a number], and if characters have high initiative, they can trade 4 points of initiative for increased success.
Maybe the party could lower their initiative by 1 to get some advantage.
This could nod to the two handed weapon rules; hit harder, go last. A refinement of that principle.
What advantage?
* Maybe one character does a bigger die of damage.
* Some extra movement is possible.
* Let people switch out weapons for free if they drop 2 initiative.
That kind of thing.
@fictive: You were quite civil, nothing to apologise about.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds similar to my idea above about different initiative costs for different actions. I like it in concept, but I haven't tested it in play. Have you tried it with players?
The way I imagine it, the order of play would go: Roll initiative -> players declare their actions and determine their modified initiative -> DM "ticks" through each segment of the round with the players acting on their segment.
My home system has 2 ways to handle initiative, which I quite like: if you have a strong leader and agree to follow that leader (there is a Command skill) then the whole party can go as one.
ReplyDeleteThe advantage there is that you can order the party's actions as is most helpful; the wizard goes first with the fireball, THEN the elf shoots down the hall, and only THEN does the fighter charge in, for example.
If the party does not have a skilled leader, everyone generates initiative individually, and you're stuck with that order. So if the wizard goes last, after everyone is in hand to hand, fireball is out of the question. (More or less.)
So on individual initiatives, then individuals can give up 4 ranks of initiative to (helpfully) drop back in line, and they are rewarded with extra success. In a group, if the whole group drops back, everyone in the group gets extra success.
I think this accurately reflects how attacking is often more vulnerable than defending.
I've never played with round segments. I went straight from B/X to 3.0. While I think the initiative idea I've described works very well, I've not tried it in any ampersand game.
In B/X, I'd come up with a "menu" of maybe 6 items, and let people "buy" from it by spending initiative down.
Another note on group initiative: the group used the leader's initiative. This slowed some down, and sped others up. So it was in the group's best interest to have a high-initiative leader, who could spur even the slowest to act earlier in the round as part of the team.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the Advantage rules in Skyrealms of Jorune.
ReplyDeleteJeff, this is an inspired post. Thanks for putting this idea out there. I don't know if I'll implement it, but I really appreciate you sharing this kind of creativity.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that it's worth using as general party initiative, but it sounds like it could be adapted to duelling initiative pretty easily.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that if one side wins Initiative by more than X amount, that side gets to choose from a menu.
ReplyDeleteFor example:
Maneuver the battle 1d6x10' (participants remain in position relative to each other, but the whole shifts over)
Able to flee without parting attacks from enemy, and they can't move to close with you again this round.
That sort of thing. Mass-combat stuff, really, because the group initiative roll is for the whole group at once and also smaller-scale fiddling is handled by other rules already.
I think you have to ask yourself how much you want to stay with the simplicity of D&D. Throwing some kind of penalty or bonus for a 1 or a 6 might be OK but I tend towards your "don't need another chart" comment.
ReplyDeletePlus this isn't something really under the players' or characters' control so it's just another random effect thrown into the mix every single combat round. Does it really add something to the game?