Simultaneous combat.

[johnnybleu]

I love the group initiative idea, as well as the flow of combat in LL (and thus, Classic D&D). I think it feels much more fluid and visceral than the "everyone takes a turn in order" approach of more recent versions. However, I still don't really like the idea that one side goes down the list while the other side waits for their turn. In fact, one of my favourite scenarios in combat is a tie in the initiative roll, where both sides get to act simultaneously. I know I'm being knit-picky here, but I've toyed with the idea of an alternate initiative method that would give me that chaotic, brutal feel I'm looking for in combat.

Basically, all I was thinking of doing is having all combatants perform their actions in the appropriate phase. Simply put, both sides move (in initiative order), both sides shoot (again, as per initiative), both sides cast spells, and so on. I understand that this is essentially treating combat as though a tie were always rolled, but I would NOT use the "simultaneous action" rule from the RC, which states that in case of a tie, all sides get to attack even if killed-- unless an actual tie is rolled, of course. I think that would make things insanely hard on the PCs, and make initiative nearly pointless.

On top of that, I would also add a few distinctions between melee weapons as far as speed. Essentially, a two-handed weapon always loses initiative to a one-handed weapon, and a pole arm always wins initiative against an opponent moving in. I think this would be a simple way to factor in the different speeds and maneuverability of different weapons. The guy with a halberd is going to get an attack before his foe with a short-sword closes in, but once he's within striking distance the short-sword will be way faster.

Any ideas? Possible problems I may have missed? I'm actually afraid that this will make combat extremely deadly, and especially difficult for those with ranged weapons and spells. While it will certainly drive home the importance of sound tactics in combat, as well as the necessity of a "front wall" of fighters, it may also put the party at a severe disadvantage too often (such as declaring that you will shoot, or target a monster with a spell, and having them move out of the way).

Thoughts?

[Blood axe]

How would you stop a Wizard from casting a spell?

How would you stop an enemy from delivering a death blow to your friend?

How would you stop the villain from pulling the lever setting off the trap?

Interesting idea- but Im sticking with initiative. Id even go with individual initiative instead of party initiative in small groups.

[greyarea]

In the past, I've done simultaneous combat when using individual initiative and combatants roll the same number. It's messy, partly for the reasons Blood axe mentions. In general I prefer party initiative to avoid those.

Individual initiative reminds me too much of Champions from back in the day (first edition, baby!) with Speed and combat. Interesting idea but I hated running it as a GM. Hence I tend to avoid it now.

Simultaneous combat seems even more nightmareish.

[johnnybleu]

Well, this is where the intention phase becomes even more important. As the PCs state their intended action for the round, I would also describe what the other side is up to. "The robed figure begins chanting and waving his hands around, the 2 armed guards rush in to attack, etc." To me, the intention phase is the split-second pause at the beginning of a round where everyone starts running, swinging, shooting, and casting; where you take a breath and ask yourself "ok, what do I do?".

But I fully understand that it could quickly become a deadly mess. Initiative would still count for something though-- you could still potentially kill a foe before he finishes off a party member. Perhaps not as significant as winning initiative and taking out 3 opponents before they get a chance to move, let alone retaliate.

Thanks for the input!

[harmyn]

I've never tried this but have considered it on multiple occasions. I really do think it could work well but it also depends on the size of your group and the declarations phase is an important thing to keep in place. You still roll for initiative and that plays out in each phase of combat. The one thing I like about this is it allows for the chase. neither PC nor NPC can simply run across the room and attack the enemy who had planned to retreat that round as well. Now it would be like PC thief scouting ahead sees two orc guards. Orc guards win initiative. Movement phase comes and the orcs go to close but before the melee phase the thief who had declared a retreat takes off running away. Becomes a bit more fluid to me.

[Dyson Logos]

How would you stop a Wizard from casting a spell?

Actually, it becomes a question of how you manage to get a wizard to actually cast a spell - after all, both sides get to make missile and melee attacks before the spell is cast, so all it takes is a good archer or two to keep the spellcaster pinned and unable to cast since the wizard will never have the benefit of winning initiative.

[Blood axe]

How would you stop a Wizard from casting a spell?

Actually, it becomes a question of how you manage to get a wizard to actually cast a spell - after all, both sides get to make missile and melee attacks before the spell is cast, so all it takes is a good archer or two to keep the spellcaster pinned and unable to cast since the wizard will never have the benefit of winning initiative.

I read it as you would get your actions no matter what. He stated you would get to attack back - even if you were killed. So you would always get the spell off. Or maybe I just misunderstood- either way- Im sticking with initiative.

[harmyn]

How would you stop a Wizard from casting a spell?

Actually, it becomes a question of how you manage to get a wizard to actually cast a spell - after all, both sides get to make missile and melee attacks before the spell is cast, so all it takes is a good archer or two to keep the spellcaster pinned and unable to cast since the wizard will never have the benefit of winning initiative.

I read it as you would get your actions no matter what. He stated you would get to attack back - even if you were killed. So you would always get the spell off. Or maybe I just misunderstood- either way- Im sticking with initiative.

The way I am taking what he said, you still have initiative, but the actions are staggered now.

You resolve Missile Combat for the winning side, then the losing side,
Then you resolve spells for the winning side, then the losing side,
Then you resolve melee for the winning side, then the losing side.

So archers are important because they can spoil spells. If your side wins initiative your fighter can't run across the room and stop the spellcaster now. He would need a ranged weapon to pull it off.

[Blood axe]

Ok, gotcha. Thanks.

[Irda Ranger]

In fact, one of my favourite scenarios in combat is a tie in the initiative roll, where both sides get to act simultaneously. I know I'm being knit-picky here, but I've toyed with the idea of an alternate initiative method that would give me that chaotic, brutal feel I'm looking for in combat. Basically, all I was thinking of doing is having all combatants perform their actions in the appropriate phase.

I love this too, precisely because it's a big awful mess. Combat should be chaotic and unpredictable; that's the nature of it.

But it's also predictable in other ways. If you charge a line of pikeman you know that you're going to get cut up before you can do any harm, but you also know that if you can get inside his reach your shortsword will cut him to shreds.

Standard D&D combat relies a lot of the chance of initiative. A no-initiative game that relies on movement and weapon choice to determine first action is much more strategic.

I would NOT use the "simultaneous action" rule from the RC, which states that in case of a tie, all sides get to attack even if killed-- unless an actual tie is rolled, of course. I think that would make things insanely hard on the PCs, and make initiative nearly pointless.

What does initiative actually do then? Just resolve who goes first within a particular phase? (e.g., swordsman vs. swordsman)? That's how I'd use it.

A two-handed weapon always loses initiative to a one-handed weapon, and a pole arm always wins initiative against an opponent moving in.

These are different concepts - reach and speed. A two-handed sword has reach vs. a short-sword, so why wouldn't he win intiative if the opponent is moving in? Moreover, how do you resolve that a two-handed sword fighter might step backwards from a dagger-fighter in order to gain the advantage of reach?

Here's an idea from another RPG I'll just throw out there. Get rid of Initiative except when two perfectly matched opponents are facing each other (e.g., two guys with longswords). When you have a zweihander v. a dagger-guy, don't roll for Initiative - roll for Position. "Position" means that you're in the right position to use your weapon (and the other guy isn't). If a dagger-guy wins Position, he's in close (and attacks), while if the zweihander wins Position he's further back (and attacks). Use a d6. The results will be a lot like winning or losing initiative, but it's logically consistent with your ideas about archers and halberdiers and allows the players to better understand "what's actually happening" in the game world.

I'm actually afraid that this will make combat extremely deadly, and especially difficult for those with ranged weapons and spells. While it will certainly drive home the importance of sound tactics in combat, as well as the necessity of a "front wall" of fighters, it may also put the party at a severe disadvantage too often (such as declaring that you will shoot, or target a monster with a spell, and having them move out of the way).

It will change the tactics, but that's not a bad thing. Archers and spellcasters will make better use of cover; melee fighters will have to act more like the "wall" protecting the soft squishy characters, etc. It's all good.

One thing you can tell your players is "Look, love the longbow all you want, but it's not an ideal weapon for all combats any more than the longsword or mace is. You have to be smart about knowing when to use your longbow and when to put it away and take out the melee weapons. And remember that everything that applies to you also applies to the orcs and goblins - so use these rules to your advantage to negate their missile weapons or melee weapons."

There's a reason that longbows are associate with hunting and massed formation warfare, not with close-action small-team fighting. A good dungeon delver will have a loaded crossbow to get off one shot when surprised, and then drop it and go to melee. That's all that really makes sense in a 10x10 room.

You might want to consider some rules that make Fighters better at defending the squishy PCs. D&D 4E has some great rules for this, such as the ability to get an extra attack on an enemy that tries to bypass him.