|
Post by DnDPaladin on Nov 30, 2015 7:30:12 GMT
my friend and i were talking about initiatives and how to make group intiatives better as in trying to make the init on you sheet actually usefull... beware this techniques requires a calculator unless you are that good in maths.
take all of a group intives scores including their modificators... then divide by the number of participant in that group and take the middle point, thats their intiatives... then go by that order... that way someone who has like +5 intitiative may help boost the inititve by having a big number. or help himself stay in the middle by having a lower number. that way all the numbers balances themselves out, the same way we'd calculate your average note in school.
Exemple: i roll a 5 add my modifier +2 i got a 7. my three friends have 16,12 and 9. so our initiative is... (7+16+12+9) /4 = 11 ! our enemies are 6, they have 18,11,4,8,19 and 7 so their initiatives is... (18+11+4+8+19+7) /6 = 11.1 rounded down or up depending on what you preffer.
wow i put random numbers and get the same thing... incredible. but see how the 4 actually lowered their initiatives. while the 19 probably boosted it back up. so that all balances out and your group initiative still has the ability to have a usefull initiative stats. XD
i know that while many of you think its better to have the regular init and that it is faster then this... remember that some of us like to see people play their turn on the same init because it allows much more strategic things to be done. this is for those who wants a way to have a good way of making group init without sacrificing the stat for it.
|
|
|
Post by Erasmas on Nov 30, 2015 15:40:32 GMT
I use Team Initiatives (taking the average of each side in a combat, like this) when I run PBP games online. That way there is a phase during which the party acts, allowing time for people to post their turns. Then, as the GM, I post the outcomes of all of their rolls and take the baddies' turns as well.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Nov 30, 2015 18:51:03 GMT
yes, players all go at once. but there are two ways to play this, either they all take their turn one after the others. or you could let them play the way they want which is what i do. so a rogue for exemple could move forwad, hit the creature then move backward, mind you AoO still happens ! but what changes is that while the rogue does this, the fighter can go forward too and profit from the flanking bonus during that rogues attack. of course it is a tad harder on the DM as he has to manage each players who tends to do stuff in chaotic all wanna damage the creature first or kill it first.
no, the number is only to detemrine who goes first. mind you with only two groups its easy... but its cooler to have numerous groups at some point, like 3 ways or 4 ways. i like to put melee in groups and ranged in other groups when it comes to enemies. so you could say they do make their turn on init 11.
thats why i loved the game Jagged alliances back in the old days. see it like this... player turn, enemy turns, no more stuff to wonder about.
yes, you only check this once, even if the numbers changes later, once combat as started the turn structure is set in stone.
stats never really change during battle and if they do d&d do not recalculate init everytimes. its a one time deal all the time. the only time it would change on the fly is if you are playing with action changing initiatives. which by the way is thousand times longer to play with. as for the average, i do not care... the goal is just to figure out who goes first group wise. once that is set we dont use init anymore.
good point, allows for tie breakers. definitely using that on our next game.
been playing like this for the last year or so. makes combat much better and it has two upsides that are major...
1 - it keeps players from getting bored since they dont have to wait for others to move first. they just act the way they want. then the enemies act and its back to them. no more, 4 enemies have to play before you and wait for 10 minutes to have your 5 seconds of glory. combats gets much more dynamic that way.
2 - combats are much faster. while it can seem longer to move a whole turn army. it is actually less troublesome. you dont have to worry about much, you just act. there is no more anticipation either. you can actually react and not be behind. well there is a little anticipation. but you dont have to wonder what that enemy will do when its his turn or if it will come back to you once your friend will play.
just be aware when playing this though, it requires the GM attentions at all times. players often tend to want to have the last kill and often all rolls at the same time, can easily become troublesome at that point.
|
|
|
Post by ogrestamp on Dec 1, 2015 7:26:31 GMT
There is a reason why both your averages came out to 11. Because 11 is about the midpoint of a d20 dice. Individually, you will have wild variation of scores, but when you start taking averages of, say, at least 4 inputs, you will start seeing numbers of 10, 11 and 12 mostly. Statistics.
One question. What happens when one character in the party dies or is incapacitated? Does that change the group initiative?
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 1, 2015 9:17:48 GMT
not at all, in 5E initiatives is used only to know who goes first and then after. once that initiative is set, it is set in stone reguardless of what happens in the group or to the group.
as for the average, yes i know of the bell curve thing. but thats exactly why we want this system. we're not playing with variant numbers that change all the times. we just wanna know who go first and this is a good way to enable modifiers to be any good.
|
|
|
Post by ogrestamp on Dec 1, 2015 19:08:20 GMT
Then why not just roll one dice and add the modifiers to that? Essentially, that is what you are doing. You could chose which dice you wanted to roll (d20 for a wider number range or a d6 for a more stable number range). You could have everybody add their modifier or you could have the highest mod add theirs. What would be the difference in that system?
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 1, 2015 21:24:50 GMT
any methods great if you want. but rolling a single dice brings some problems with the players. at least i got that problem... its that players wants to have a chance at it. this way you make sure everyone rolls and make sure that each rolls have a reason to be. the highest you roll the greatest you get. while rolling low may just make you lose the initiatives. it also gives you a sense of combat speed because the numbers aren't so big. it is so satisfying to get a 12 while the enemy had an 11. it tells you next to nothing would have made them attack before you.
1 dice + modifiers brings another problem to the table. say all your players modifiers together adds up to +11. now add up all modifiers from enemies and they get only +3 because most have like 0 dexterity. the difference is much too great for the enemy to often have that chance at attacking first. the goal is to give the impression that combat is about who goes first. doing the average makes numbers much more equals. and those rolling low still adds up to the numbers and thus makes the thing much better if you ask me.
but its all up to you, if you preffer simplicity, go for the one roll. but remember that the goal is not to give the players too much of an advantage. always beginning combat is a huge advantage in group initatives.
|
|
|
Post by ogrestamp on Dec 2, 2015 21:41:25 GMT
If you use a d20, even that +11 vs a +3 can be overcome. It just doesn't seem to make sense to have everyone roll an individual roll if you are going to make it a group roll. But if you guys like it and it works for you, go for it.
When we play, we roll individually. I have a small whiteboard with the names written down and the players roll and one player records their rolls while I am rolling for the monster(s). It doesn't take too long and then I quickly figure out the order of battle and announce it. Then I have them start, and I don't give them too long, nor do I allow them to discuss strategy at this point. They go into combat with their "experience" with each other. At the beginning, they were still trying to figure out how to play with one another, but now they have learned some tactics and they kind of know what to do. One guy, he plays a dwarven fighter, likes to delay his initiative to hover around the rogue's initiative, so they can utilize flanking better.
It is always fun to announce that one guy who didn't role higher than then group of zombies attacking. That player gets heckled for the entire combat.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Dec 3, 2015 2:08:17 GMT
It seems a bit over complex to accomplish something you want to simplify. That is just me. If you're gonna roll initiative for each prrson, then add the step of averaging the results (then going further to note the decimals)...all just to get an average that hovers near to 11 anyways...
Then say that it is that team first or this team first...go...
It sounds like you can better accomplish this by giving each side a number of coin tosses equal to the acting characters/enemies on either side...add up the number of successful flips...and that team goes first.
Or average the initiative modifier for both sides, do one roll, add the averaged initiative, and then say "your team goes first."
I guess psychology has an affect, but I for one would see through this as an overly complicated way of ovrrsimplifying the initiative combat. Personally I would be more interested in making it more fair, such as using an initiayive wheel.
But to each their own.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 3, 2015 12:07:14 GMT
but then your players initiatives isn't used anymore and that rogue with tons of initiatives serves no purpose anymore.
rolling (aka dm scotty style) each people and then rolling the same amount of time for the monsters gives you a bigger problem, what monster are you taking to roll. because if you want initiatives modifiers to matter then you have to make that choice between monsters who have more init then others. most people remove the modifier entirely. but i think that just remove the entire fun of saying, you were too slow to react. having the modifier applies is what makes the players happy to have it. even in group initiatives they will like the idea of having a chance at better stuff having a chance at having the first hit. while removing the modifier only makes the game unbalanced and random so your players will feel like they were lucky and skill had nothing to do with it.
with this method the modifier actually has a use, your players will not care if they win by a margin of .001 % or not. all they will care about is that they won initiatives thanks to their incredible reactions. just see how often a player interrupts the DM trying to gain advantage on the enemy when they feel a fight breaking out. that alone should tell you how much they wanna hit first. being random doesn't satisfy that. it only makes them feel lucky. now another problem arrises with the D20 method... its that if the opponent has a 18-20 and you get like a 3-5 you feel like, yeah thats too much of a difference, really your opponent was lucky again. reguardless of your modifier. when this situation arrives you just feel like they were lucky and expecting the impossible to happen.
with this method which isn't hard at all to do (except if you try to do it by heart) will make the whole thing pertinent and not just to know who goes first, but at what speed your group averaged the start. having much closer numbers gives the players the impression that they did react faster.
now let's go into why initiative group is better at realism, i know you love realism... so heres my case into why you'd preffer to use group initiatives...
- Time scaling this is important in realism. because if we take the 6 second rules of turns. then why would your first enemy take literally 30 seconds to act in combat without a good reason to do so. 30 seconds is a long time. and just because they ran a lower initiatives they took that much time to act.... thats really unrealistic. in group initiatives, the 6 seconds applies to the whole group, not just an individuals. meaning your opponent have waited maximum 6 seconds to act. which is much less then the guy who hit a 3 or 4 init and had to wait next to a minute to act.
as mentionned before, if you remove the modifier a lot of problems will arises. so the formula solves all those problems.
|
|
|
Post by adamsouza on Dec 3, 2015 13:45:32 GMT
The most realistic way to achieve group initiative is to roll them all seperate and then all act on the lowest initiative. Yes, the slowest member of the group holds them back, but that it the consequence of them waiting to act together. That's why it's been done that way for the last 30+ years.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Dec 4, 2015 4:36:43 GMT
You've misinterpreted the rules. Each round takes 6 seconds. Each turn takes up to 6 seconds.
What this means is that THE ENTIRETY of a round is 6 seconds long. What initiative means is that you are fighting for the split second worth of time to determine if you strike first.
Your turn envelops that 6 second period just as your friends turn envelops those SAME 6 seconds...and the enemy's turn ALSO uses those same 6 seconds. It is all happening simultaneously.
It is not a very good abstraction to represent this. Partially because turn order systems allow strategy and planning based on what occured before your turn. In "real time" translation, it makes you able to determine things only a master strategist could with careful planning and understanding of possible battle outcomes over the course of days of thought to prepare for a potential combat outcome...
...in less than 2 seconds.
Consider this: I, as the DM, move in and attack. You, as a fighter, determine before my attack resolution that you can take a solid attack. You declare as much to the healer druid who is doing health checks.
Then I crit, bringing you really low. Suddenly you decide that you need that healing.
The healer, having heard your declaration of being healthy, had no intention of healing you. Until you yell out for help. Suddenly he intends to execute a plan that he would not realistically be able to execute.
Because from the time of the start of the turn to the end, he has heard not just you, but also that rogue, the ranger, and the wizard call out actions, some oriented towards cries for help...all while hearing the cacaphony of battle, and would not be able to truly determine who needs the most help because everything happened simultaneously (save split hairs worth of difference)...and his decision to heal the rogue BEFORE you called for help due to a more severe wound can not happen simultaneous to a thought that you need help.
Turn based combat of any stripe is unrealistic because of player metagaming...which will occur regardless.
If I had my way I would opt for a Burning Wheel style combat, where everyone writes down three actions before combat resolves...in secret. Then all actions are revealed simultaneously. Changing a later action mid round actually costs combat effectiveness.
|
|
sotf
Advice Guru
Posts: 1,084
|
Post by sotf on Dec 4, 2015 6:05:31 GMT
I tend to like the setup from Spycraft 1.0's fluid initiative system they had as a variant. Different actions taken could alter a characters initiative on the chart. It let things get interesting between rounds.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 4, 2015 12:39:02 GMT
onethatswas... the way the initiatives work is that everything happens att he same time... but thats not even close to what thegame in time should be... actually most fights ends after like 30 seconds. and thats a long fight... sorry but in real life, a fight will last much longer then 30 seconds. but while i dont like realism, i dislike too few realism... its impossible for someone to talk like 1 full minute and have the game thinks its 6 seconds along with his actions and the rest.
as such i preffer the rules of the old times... where 6 seconds was a turn and that the rounds were the additions of all the 6 seconds. that was as close as it could get to a real fight. unfortunately the fault of that is that everyone waits on the others... but thats what turn based fights are.
this is why i love this vision instead... it takes both worlds and makes a coherent fight. so the whole group plays 6 seconds, then the opponent takes 6 seconds. now i just have to tell my players that they do not have 10 minutes to figure out their moves.
SOTF the old first and second edition used to work like that. i hated that because it took much much more time a whole combat could be done in an hour and often it was not enough. also it involved a lot of anticipation from the players, players would have to anticipate the move of the enemy, it was next to impossible to react to something, you had to be proactive at all times. that made killing players much easier. and tipped the balance on whoever was first int he initiatives. not to mention someone could play faster and get 2-3 turns in a row in a single round. playing a mage back then was bullshit, because while your spells were strong, they took fuck tons of time to cast and in that time people had time to shot you down because back then, you had next to no life. thanks to D4 lifes and how many times you rolled a fucking 1.
also... while by todays standard its easier, thanks to softwares designed for it... back then we didn't have all that technological stuff to back us up. so it was a hell to calculate and in the end you needed like a whole block note to calculate that.
overall im not a fan of that one... too much anticipation and not enough reaction and as mentionned in time the game can allow people to do 2-3 things before anybody else can act. but with the current tech to help with it. if you do like that, then go for it. aside form all its drawbacks, there was some fun to gain from it.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Dec 4, 2015 16:12:07 GMT
Combats that take 30 seconds or more are meant to be reflected in fights between comparable opponents. In an unfair fight (one side clearly outmatching the other) 6 seconds is about accurate. It takes about that long to cleave a kobold to death with a greatsword from a barbarian. And if each character cleaves their Kobold, dispatching a comparable 1 to 1 group of them should be done in 6 seconds, give or take a couple.
If it takes 30 seconds or longer, then you have a highly inept party (or an incredibly devious GM who can proficiently make kobolds deadly).
In an epic combat, 30 seconds seems to short. But realistically, either the dragon is going to kill the party in 30 seconds, or the party is going to do the same to the dragon. I would be more inclined to give the party a greater timeframe for realistic representation. But generally, killing or maiming a thing takes very little time. That is why armor was invented, to slow down the inevitable slaughter to allow strategies to work...now you have to think about how to kill someone and overcome their protection...and combat becomes a new ball game.
But strangely, in this regard, 6 seconds is about accurate for 1 round. Because everything does, in fact, happen simultaneously.
Television is responsable for dramatizing combats and making them seem longer. If you want to see how DnD combat would work if you factored in how long it takes for players to respond, watch Dragon Ball Z. Each combat takes at least 5 episodes.
You seem to be having an issue with real time/game time dissonance. The reason there is a discrepancy is because of the computing processes involved in combat...calculating numbers, rolling dice, etc...which in a video game are proccessed instantly. Meaning the game focuses on the cinematics (which, in terms of certain enemies, is largely skewed to favor the awesome).
I am again not sure how making initiative essentially become a team turn based affair (which I still think would be as easily accomplished if not more by a coin flip. I would also suggest that as a rogue with high initiative, I would feel marginalized by the changed approach) makes the whole thing more elegant, fair, or realistic.
But that is just my opinion. If your group has agreed to it, and others find this approach handy, have fun with it.
|
|
sotf
Advice Guru
Posts: 1,084
|
Post by sotf on Dec 5, 2015 3:35:14 GMT
One other interesting option would be to essentially have each player declare what they're doing and have the npcs preplanned and things happen in initiative order, but no one knows what the rest are going to do.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 5, 2015 8:14:11 GMT
sotf, same problem, your team still has to do their stuff on people that may not be there. the problem with initiatives that is planned up front is that you always have to antipate stuff, you cannot react to stuff.
onethatwas, that would be true if you consider your kobolds aren't smart enough to know strategies as well. or that your players are just too strong for the kobolds. but if a combat breaks out between 2 opponents supposed to be the same skills or as intelligent as you are. there is no way your combat should be about 30 seconds. take fighters from different schools. take them out for the first time, doesn'T matter if they are on different levels. i can tell you, that fight wont hold 6 seconds... it will probably last more then 30 seconds. in real life, if you want realism... its strickly impossible for anybody with even limited knowledge of fighting to be done for in 30 seconds. that person would have to be totally brain dead with no instincts at all.
thats a problem with most DMs, they look at the stats of monsters and thinks, this thing is dumb, or play their monsters really dumbs out of nowhere. i've seen often DMs throwing goblins into their doom without even thinking. or goblins throwings themselves onto a dragon as if they were undead being commanded to. and i've seen often players tell me that goblins cannot flank cause they are dumb shit, and then i showed them the stats and the goblins had like 10 intellect. if 8 is the normality for people and at 8 they have strategies in mind. then by all means goblins with 10 intellect will not rush out if they know an AoO is coming their way. going further, if 3 is the minimum to e able to talk, that means 12+intellect is a fucking einstein ! compare that to a goblin with 10 intellect. hes not einstein for sure, but hes far from not knowing what a strategy is.
i've seen this way too often, not to say that DMs who do this really gives too much chances to their players, and that may just be why those players love to think of themselves as gods.
the one problem with group initiatives is that it is still turn based. and as such the first group that starts can burst out a boss in no time. and with everything i learn from 5E (aka rogues who can sneak attack during the opponents turn) a boss definitely can go out in less then 6 seconds. but thats not because the group thing is bad, its because the game is still turn based and there is no way for us to make live action. in all cases i wouldn't want it to be live action... most of my players would be getting killed without even hitting once... too much thinkers.
|
|
|
Post by skunkape on Dec 7, 2015 17:11:58 GMT
What I have been doing as a GM is rolling 1 die for the NPCs, then modifying the roll by adding the relevant initiative modifier. The players still roll and get normal initiatives, but that allows me to make fewer rolls.
|
|
|
Post by ironwolf on Jun 10, 2016 1:57:27 GMT
My group has everyone declare their intended actions, dm declares for monsters/npcs, then initiative is rolled to see who acts first.
|
|
|
Post by adamsouza on Jun 10, 2016 14:39:12 GMT
My group has everyone declare their intended actions, dm declares for monsters/npcs, then initiative is rolled to see who acts first. That's the same way WEG's Star Wars resolves initiative. I really like the concept, but in practice I find it is harder on the players. In Star Wars I would let them change their intended action if it was no longer feasable when their initiative came up at a -1D per action penalty. How were you resolving this in D&D ? Say there was a Wizard and his apprentice, and everyone declared to attack the Wizard. Two actions into the round the Wizard poofs away. Do the other players who declared they are attacking the wizard just automatically fail their action ?
|
|