Post by Dead Greyhawk on Jan 24, 2005 22:27:04 GMT -5
There's been some thought about changing the initiative system away from the current, simplistic d6 to a slightly more realistic d10 segment system. My understanding of how to run this type of initiative is to have each character and humanoid grouping roll d10. The number rolled, modified downwards by any DEX modifiers, is the segment on which the character can begin to take their action. In this manner, PCs can build off each other's actions.
There are a couple of pluses and a couple of minuses to this as I see it.
Pluses:
It becomes clearer who can do what when.
It provides an added bonus for those characters with high DEX.
Multiple attacks become more realistic. (more on this later)
Minuses:
It is more paperwork.
Spell casting times should be used again.
It become more complicated with interrupting casters.
In terms of multiple attacks, my understanding of a d10 initiative system (and for that matter a strict construction of the 1E rules) is that creatures that attack using the same attack more than once a round act during their initiative and then half a round later. For example, Otto attacks with his bow and would take a shot on segment 4 (his initiative roll) and segment 9 (half a round later). Raven attacks with his bow (Raven gets 3 attacks a round with a bow) on segment 4, his initiative roll, segment 7 and segment 10.
The reason I think we have to use casting times is to have the equivalency with attacks and to bring back the granularity for interruptions that we are washing over with the current initiative. Consequently, Winthrop would cast a 1 segment spell on segment 5 if he rolled a 4, but a 5 segment spell on segment 9. This also differentiates more clearly the faster casting mage versus slower casting cleric spells.
Creatures with an attack sequence, such as the golden lion attack on their initiative roll with all of their attacks. In the case of the lion, I would expect the rake attacks to occur half a round later if they are possible.
Where I see a potential logjam is "holding your action." Archers, dagger and dart throwers have a massive interrupting ability if they "hold their action" until the segment that someone starts casting. Currently, this isn't possible, but I see it as a potential problem.
What are you guys thoughts on the subject?
There are a couple of pluses and a couple of minuses to this as I see it.
Pluses:
It becomes clearer who can do what when.
It provides an added bonus for those characters with high DEX.
Multiple attacks become more realistic. (more on this later)
Minuses:
It is more paperwork.
Spell casting times should be used again.
It become more complicated with interrupting casters.
In terms of multiple attacks, my understanding of a d10 initiative system (and for that matter a strict construction of the 1E rules) is that creatures that attack using the same attack more than once a round act during their initiative and then half a round later. For example, Otto attacks with his bow and would take a shot on segment 4 (his initiative roll) and segment 9 (half a round later). Raven attacks with his bow (Raven gets 3 attacks a round with a bow) on segment 4, his initiative roll, segment 7 and segment 10.
The reason I think we have to use casting times is to have the equivalency with attacks and to bring back the granularity for interruptions that we are washing over with the current initiative. Consequently, Winthrop would cast a 1 segment spell on segment 5 if he rolled a 4, but a 5 segment spell on segment 9. This also differentiates more clearly the faster casting mage versus slower casting cleric spells.
Creatures with an attack sequence, such as the golden lion attack on their initiative roll with all of their attacks. In the case of the lion, I would expect the rake attacks to occur half a round later if they are possible.
Where I see a potential logjam is "holding your action." Archers, dagger and dart throwers have a massive interrupting ability if they "hold their action" until the segment that someone starts casting. Currently, this isn't possible, but I see it as a potential problem.
What are you guys thoughts on the subject?