Simultaneous combat.

[johnnybleu]

Yeah, I specifically stated that I would NOT use the rule that allowed you to attack even though you were killed (in capitals and everything )
Harym actually got it spot on. There would still be an initiative roll, it's just that both sides go through the combat phases together, rather than waiting for the winning side to be done.

My intention here is to make combat more fluid and visceral-- like both sides actually ARE acting simultaneously, as would happen in real combat.

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.

I really like that example! That's exactly what I'm shooting for. While this is a good example of how this idea would work, I'd also like to know if there's other areas where it would break apart and completely shaft the players.

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 thought spells went off before melee? You'd only need to worry about surviving the ranged phase, really. That being said, I think the biggest annoyance for casters (and ranged combatants) is the fact that your targets will move before you get to shoot. This happens if you lose initiative anyway, but now it would be all the time...

[Blood axe]

LOL. Sorry- I missed the "NOT" part.

[johnnybleu]

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'm not really looking for a no-initiative system-- I still like the unpredictability that dice rolls bring into the fray. That being said, I love the idea of weapon choice becoming a strategic decision (hence my variable speed idea), rather than everyone taking whatever does the most damage.

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.

Exactly. In case there's still some confusion as to what it is exactly I'm proposing, here's the combat sequence. Perhaps I should have done this in the first place...

1-Both sides declare intention
2-Initiative is rolled (also, morale checks)
3-Movement
a-Winning side moves (in dex order)
b-Losing side moves (in dex order)
2-Missile attacks
a-Winning side attacks (in dex order)
b-Losing side attacks (in dex order)
3-Magic (spells & magic items)
a-Winning side casts spells (in dex order)
b-Losing side casts spells (in dex order)
4-Melee attacks
a-Winning side attacks (in dex order)
b-Losing side attacks (in dex order)
5-If combat is not resolved, return to Step 1

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?

I know that my idea about weapons "speeds" isn't exactly perfect (or even close ). I'm really going for more of a "quick and dirty" way of handling things. I don't want combat to get bogged down by too many sub-rules and specific scenarios. That's why I'm playing LL rather than Pathfinder, after all. Your idea for handling position rather than initiative is certainly interesting, but I don't think it's what I'm looking for.

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.

I'm 100% with you on that one. From my experience with Classic D&D, once a melee breaks out the ranged combatants generally find themselves without much to do-- can't get a clear shot, friends are in the way, enemies are behind cover, etc etc. At leas, without all the crazy "Legolas" style Feats introduced in 3.5. In fact, in B/X you simply cannot shoot at an opponent engaged in melee. If I remember correctly. But that's another topic.

Thanks for the input, folks!