Every fight begins with a fast turn. After this turn, everybody takes a slow turn, and so on.
In a fast turn, you can move half your speed (round down), make half you attacks (round down), etc.
In a slow turn, you can do the same, but round up. Most actions happen in the slow turn, but, like attacks, they are subjected to "halving" if possible (if you choose to "Dash", for example, you just double your movement for both turns).
It is very likely that you have to declare your action during or after the fast turn.
Let us say a fighter has three attacks and moves 35 feet in a turn: he could move 15 feet and attack once in a fast turn, and move 20 feet and attack twice in a slow turn.
Explanation:
As I've said,the problem is not easy to solve - but easy enough to reduce by half.
For example, instead of of having a whole turn where you get up, move 15 feet, and attack you opponent three times while he DOES NOTHING, a more "organic" solution would be something like: you move 10 feet, he moves 5 feet, you attack twice, he attacks once, you attack once more, then he attacks, etc.
The inspiration for this idea is Shadow of the Demon Lord, BTW.
Weapon speed
Two guys are facing each other, 30 feet apart. One has a dagger, the other a halberd. Who hits first? Obviously, the halberd (unless you THROW the dagger, which is an interesting distinction); but most RPGs that get to this level of detail say that the dagger attacks first (this includes the 5e DMG optional rules).
Which is why I'd say weapon speed shouldn't be about who attacks FIRST, but who attacks AGAIN first. The guy with the halberd might hit first, but the guy with a dagger could stab a foe three times during one halberd swing.
Easiest way to do this: a critical hit gives you a CHANCE to attack again. The faster the weapon (an the greater the number of attack you have), the greater the chance. Or, to make things faster, the GM could roll a single dice every round: every weapon with a speed above that threshold gains an extra attack.
If you want to account for weapon reach, being approached by a foe with a shorter weapon allows you to attack first if you're not engaged with anyone else (an opportunity attack would be an appropriate alternative to this).
Spells and spell interruption
I like the idea of spell interruption, which is not an important thing in D&D 5e. In this system, you could probably choose a spell to use in your fast turn, and only "fire" it in a slow turn. Alternatively, you could only use spells of a (spell slot) level that is half your maximum in your fast turns. For example, if you can cast 9th level spells, you could cast a 4th level spell in your fast turn, OR prepare a 9th level spell to cast in your slow turn.
I'm tempted to say that, in the first case, you could ALSO cast ANOTHER 4th level spell in your slow turn - provided you didn't lose concentration between turns.
Bonus actions/reactions/object interactions
I would probably allow reaction in BOTH rounds. Seems to me that it would be a welcome addition. Same goes for object interactions.
Bonus actions are trickier; limiting to one per round seems more reasonable, but see below.
Choices
One way to make this system more tactical is allowing some choice. Usually, you can move AND attack, but if you decide not to move, maybe you can take an additional bonus action (not more than one bonus action per turn), cast an additional spell (4th+4th, as seem below), or make an attack in your fast turn, if you have a single attack. If you have multiple attacks, you could use a crossbow multiple times without moving, or a net and trident, etc.
Pros
- Shorter turns means players pay more attention.
- The "ready" action makes a bit more sense.
- Tactical choices.
- Organic movement./attacks.
- Spell interruption.
- Interesting use for low-level spells at high levels.
- Action Surge looks better.
- TWF could be "fixed" by something like this (more object interactions, more bonus actions, etc). Same goes for crossbow, net, etc.
- More straightforward than checking the DMG table.
Cons
Frankly, this level of detail isn't appreciated by many, and I'm not sure I'm willing to put up with it. "old school" initiative, with phases and all, still sound a bit simpler to me. Still, for a combat-oriented game, I feel this could be fun.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI am probably more partial to something closer to my concept of a ticking down the initiative clock every round, since (for me at least), that seems like something more easily kept track of at the table.
I do realise that things are rough with the spell-casting, but that could probably be done as "Take the time to gather up the power for a spell slot, and can burn that power or less on a spell". So while spell casters have some tactics with spell casting, it's not so choice paralysing. Maybe if you choose after the fact to cast a lower level spell after you gather all the power, you have to roll below the difference on a 1d10 or cause a Wild Magic Surge from the bleed off (so the die in this case is the difference of 1-9 (cantrip), with a 0 representing the equivalent to a "perfect cast").
Anyways, I'll muse on this post a bit more and see if I come up with anything else more concrete than this to find a middle ground. Not sure if this would hit the tone I want, even though it is more organic.
To clarify with the spell idea, you would not lose the higher level spell slot, but you get a chance of rolling a Wild Magic Surge.
DeleteIt's been a while, but coming back to this briefly, would just having "Fast", "Medium", and "Slow" weapons work instead of a more detailed Weapon Speed? So all actions are sorted into 3 different categories.
ReplyDeleteI still like the idea of Lesser and Greater actions. What if it becomes Fast and Slow actions, with an exchange of blows (two people in meelee) is perhaps decided based on differences in attack bonuses, and instead of a set initiative for action, the roll dictates who is able to start an exchange? So when one character attacks another, their initiatve doesn't matter, as they react to their attacker.
So if a Rogue with +8 attacks goes after a Glaive Fighter with +4, he takes an oppourtunity attack closing in, and then has two attacks before the fighter can get another strike off (since the rogue has double the attack bonus of the Fighter). If the Fighter had a +5 bonus, he and the rogue are exchanging blows 1:1, but the rogue gets a lead in. If TWF is used, it allows the rogue to get two blows in by spending a Slow and Fast action. If the Rogue was a TWF Fighter with multiattack, they would get their two attacks in on a Slower action, the Glaive Fighter swings, and then the Fighter follows up with an offhand attack. After this exchange you move on to other people in combat. Perhaps to allow others to interact with an exchange, the counter still goes on for everyone else.
I also wonder about imposing disadvantage on oppourtunity attacks if you are flanked, but that might be too much.
On the topic of opportunity attacks, I do wonder if there are any ideas of making them more threatening to break past the frontline. Perhaps advantage for trying to move past to attack someone else, regular attack for moving into and out of an otherwise unengaged opponent, or no attack on a full retreat.
While I like your idea for spell casting, I think using 1 levelled spell and cantrip would work better, with Spells perhaps giving the old -level to initiatve and Cantrips acting as maybe super fast actions (If Fast counts as -2, cantrips are at -1). This is rough a rough patch, but phone typed rambles tend to be.
Once again a lot to unpack I know, but I hope it may help in finding a new initiative system.
An addendum to this: This system would only have the initial initiative roll, as everything else cycles from there. I would also keep the 1/3 movement per initiative point.
DeleteWhile it would mess with people, this might be the place of adding 1d10 treat '0' as zero and flip how initiatve is counted, then count up. Spell duration is established as "ends on X timeslot.
You could do the above with 1d20, but if your cleaving from unified mechanics, might as well do so completely.
Sorry for adding to this chain (no real edit function for this), but as I think about it, converting 1d10 to 0-9 and then making initiative bonus negative is probably better, since it keeps the "break out" phase of combat smaller, and you are not going to have faster character who rolled a -4 (1-5) run laps around the 24 initiative character that doesn't get engaged in combat. Using 1d10 puts a ~15 point spread between all combatants in the breakout, which will go by quickly.
ReplyDeleteYou still may have to divide this into "rounds" of a sort, to minimise conversion difficulties. If we want these rounds to be 6 seconds, this works with movement speeds to put each initiative point as 1 second. So running the count as 1-30, so "top of the initiatve" effects can go off every count of 30.
I think you've over complicated things. It would be much easier to just reduce the amount of things you can do in a turn, but allow you to pick what that is.
ReplyDeleteIn your turn you can do one of the following. You choose first then gain the actions once chosen.
- One Action
- One Move
- Limited Action and a half move.
Limited action would be one attack only (like hasted action), a disengage, dodge or use an object. NO FREE OBJECT INTERACTION.
If you use a bonus action you can't use one on your next turn.
Spell casting requires a full action. When casting spells you take the combined levels of any spells cast in your previous turn off your maximum spell slot level. The result is the maximum spell level you can cast this turn. Also important, round times are 3 seconds now.
You would also need to allow the use of grapple and shove when you use an opportunity attack so enemies can't just run.
It would also probably be good for people to skip their turn to set their initiative to what they want. I don't like this normally but it would be good here.
As to interrupting spells. This is emulated in 5th edition to some degree by concentration. It's not perfect, but I personally like it this way. Interrupting fast spells only works if you have an opportunity attack to them being cast which you can't in 5e. Everything else is covered by concentration.
So that's my suggested way of doing what you are aiming for. I will say that I think reducing the turn time doesn't really work well for 5e but as a mental exercise it's interesting.
The question I have with the bonus action every other turn is that it negatively impacts Two Weapon Fighting, as well as spells that require bonus action upkeep.
DeleteI am aware that my overhaul to initiative posted above probably results in a mess where you have fast actions going off multiple times before your melee atacks go. I still like the idea of a true timer vs. cyclical round. It likely results in too much shouting and shennanigans to be easily implemented.
Things that are round based like Sneak Attack would need a set up phase, otherwise your Rogue is turning everything into mushy pincushions, resistance or no.
I am looking forward to any other revisions that may come out of this, as it may cut down the lull for other players that I find problematic.
Well, the bonus action is the real issue with splitting the turn full stop. Things that are OP with bonus actions every turn:
ReplyDelete- Cunning action
- Gunsmith Artificer
- Ranger/Paladin bonus action spells
- Monk
- Bigby's Hand
- Charge feat
Things that are hurt by bonus action every second round.
- Crossbow Expert/Two weapon fighting/Great weapon master/Polearm master
- Animate Dead/Animate Object
- Healing Word
- Monk
- Paladin/Ranger bonus spells
The issue is that 5e combat system is integrated with bonus actions in mind, but bonus actions don't fit into a shorter combat round. Ultimately if you wanted to pull off half turns it would require a rewrite of 5e to remove bonus actions from the game, much like Mike Mearls has been playing around with.
If you wanted to this, I see four broad approaches to getting rid of bonus action.
1. Integrated actions - When you make an attack action using a weapon wielded in two hands and one of those attacks is a critical hit or kills a creature you get an extra attack as a part of the action. Can only happen once a turn. (Great Weapon Master)
2. Free actions - On your turn, before your turn, you can rage as a free action. (Rage)
3. "Cheap" spells - Heal 1d4 + spellcasting modifier at range. This spell can be cast with a limited action and doesn't limit spellcasting next turn.
4. Shifting the bonus action onto the reaction - Whilst wielding a light weapon in both hands, if you are attacked by someone within 5 feet of you and they miss you may make an opportunity attack with your offhand weapon.
As for the rogue and sneak attack. I think this can be fixed (mostly) by requiring ALL instances of sneak attack have advantage. The swashbuckler might be an exception.
The changes to bonus action spells would require the option of doing 2 Limited actions a turn.
Also, it occurred to me that you would have to allow Free object interaction on the first turn or no one could draw their weapons.
As for cyclical initiative, I will get back to you on that.
Cyclical initiative. I am running with the assumption that we are using the half turn rules in my previous posts. There are a couple of exceptions but I will explain as I go.
DeleteFirst, how initiative works. Every character will have an initiative dice from that could be a 1d12 to a 1d4. This is determined by a their class and dexterity primarily. Classes are either Fast or Slow. Fast use a d10 slow use a d12.
Fast classes:
Barbarian
Bard (Levels 9-20)
Fighter
Monk
Mystic (Order of Immortal)
Ranger
Rogue
Warlock
Slow Classes:
Artificer
Bard (Levels 1-8)
Cleric
Druid
Mystic (All but Order of Immortal)
Paladin
Sorcerer
Wizard
In terms of multiclassing there initiative die is determined by their 1st level character unless they level another class to lv 3 or higher. In that case you use the higher.
Having a dexterity modifier of +3 or higher reduces the die type down one, +6 or higher by two, +9 by three. ie. A ranger (fast) with Dex 18 (+4) would get a d8 instead of a d10.
The basic turn structure is as so. At the beginning of combat every creature rolls their initiative dice. A surprised creature adds 10 to the roll (might need to be +15 or +20) and is surprised as per the normal rules. From this point combat progresses. Ties in initiative are decided by the DM. On every creatures first turn (second for surprised creatures.) they get a free object interaction. Apart from this turn, actions no longer give you a free object interaction.
Once a players turn comes around they declare what actions they are going to takes (listed below). The declared action will have a certain number of initiative ticks. This indicates how long it will take to do the actions in question and is called initiative speed. Any creature who's next turn will be in that many ticks or less may choose, if they are able, to declare an intercept (covered later). The creature whose turn it is then completes their turn. Once their turn is complete they take the roll their initiative dice, add the initiative tick cost of the action on top, then add this to the old initiative to make their new one.
20 initiative ticks is 6 seconds.
The actions that can be taken and their cost.
- Action
+ Attack (5 ticks)
+ Spell (6 ticks)
+ Other (8 ticks)
(Help, Hide, Search, Use an Object)
- Limited Action
+ Single Attack (4 ticks) (Units with extra attack only)
+ Disengage (3 ticks)
+ Dodge (3 ticks)
- Move (6 ticks)
- Half Move (3 ticks)
- Bonus Action (2 ticks)
- Limited Action + Half Move
- Action + Bonus Action
- Move + Bonus Action
- Limited Action + Half Move + Bonus Action
- Delay (player specifies number of ticks, may need extra rules)
These modifiers also apply
For attacks (weapon types) (Only applies to the first attack of the attack action.)
- Heavy weapon, Melee +1
- Light or Finesse Weapon -1
- Two-Handed weapon, Melee +1
- Loading +3
- Each extra attack +1
Spells
- Lv 0-1 +1
- Lv 2-3 +2
- Lv 4-5 +3
- Lv 6-7 +4
- Lv 8-9 +5
Size (Size of creature)
- Tiny, Small -1
- Large +1
- Huge, Gargantuan +2
Other - The DM should use their discretion to edit these numbers for non-standard actions.
INTERCEPTING rules. I'll get back to these. They need some thought.
Reactions: All players get them back at the 10th initiative tick and every 10 ticks there after.
New Haste rules: Haste no longer gives you the extra action. It now lowers your initiative dice by two (ie. d8 to a d4) to a minimum of a d4. Also, when determining your turns initiative speed you reduce the total number by 2. (maybe more)
Thank you for your detailed response.
DeleteWhile I like the idea of changing initiative dice based on Dex (maybe average Dex and Intelligence for reflexes and quick thinking), I am not sure if going back to multiple bonuses is going to make a better trade off than just regular speed factor. Making actions cost time could end up being reliable way to allow for tactical maneuvers without andding more categories than Greater (Slow), Lesser (Fast), and Reaction (Really Fast) for the Martial and Skills system. Perhaps casting takes your suggested modified table of +1-5 to the action being used, with Reactions being unaffected.
I like the idea I developed about attack bonuses differences allowing for a much stronger opponent to get multiple attacks in an exchange before a weaker opponent gets attack, but that's probably something that would hsve to be greatly refined with the idea of Extra Attack, since that ability is a force multiplier on such a system. What I like about such a system is that it provides a solid response to "horde of archers shooting at a Dragon" scenario. If you are drumming up an army with an average of +3 to hit, and the Dragon has +12ish, they can get Breath Weapon and other attacks as well as fly away before the army can respond.
I would use dex or int, it fits into the 5e style more. I also thins that's a fine idea and would be a good alternative for base 5e. My ethos when making modifications is to try and stick to the spirit of the system your modifying. Make the changes you intend to make but keep them minimal.
DeleteI used speed factor as a rough blueprint for this system. Getting rid of the the modifications for for weapon properties and size is neither here nor there. If you feel it needs to be gotten rid of bump up the cost of the attack and single attack by 1.
An important point I'd like to make is the math is more condensed then the math involved in speed factor so I'm confident that they wouldn't have the same feel.
As for increased number of attacks for higher attack bonuses. I can't agree with this at all. 5th edition isn't 3rd edition. The math of the system is designed with extra attacks not being attached to the attack bonus. This really comes down to the concept of bounded accuracy which 5e was built around. Proficiency modifier replaces all the various bonuses (BAB, Class fort/will/reflex) and increases at a much slower rate.
As for the dragon, frightful presence and high AC is going to make most of those archers miss on the one round it's in range.
Fair point on both the attack bonus and the dragon. Plus, shooting at a dragon flying overhead is likely to cause some friendly fire.
DeleteI guess the speed factor could be simplified by giving each weapon an "Initiative score" which makes for faster reference that is easier for a player to track than using a properties table to "build" an action every time.
I think that's a good idea. If you are doing that you can ignore using the properties at all and make a bespoke list for each weapon. Also, it occurred to me that if you are already giving different speed factors (Better term than initiative ticks) to the different subactions of the main action there is no point in having listing it as that at all.
DeleteRevising that list in such a fashion could work. Maybe slight reorder of Spell Casting Speed Factor to add Half Spell level, round up? Cantrips become comparable to quick actions, with the spell becoming progressively slower. 9th level sits all on it's own, which I like. I would have to muse a bit on spell casting to get a framework out for specific mechanics.
DeleteMy rough write up on spell casting changes. It may be flawed as I do not have books with me.
DeleteA spell caster can only cast 1 leveled spell and a cantrip in any given round, with a few exceptions, since a magic user must gather the power to fuel the spell. Reaction based spells are spells that can absorb magic from the environment while cast, so Shield and Absorb Elements for example are powered by the very attacks they are preventing. The reaction spells do not count against the 1 lvled spells and cantrip limit.
During combat, a spell caster decides on which spell and spell level they wish to cast, and start to draw power to cast this spell. Three cases generally occur in combat:
1) The spell caster is uninterrupted in drawing the required power. At this point they can cast any spell they have prepared at that level of power. If the nature of combat has changed from when the spell caster had decided on what spell they were going to cast, they can switch to a different spell at the same level without consequence.
2) The spell caster is not interrupted, but the nature of combat is such that a different spell at a different level is more appropriate. If the spell is of higher level, they must continue drawing power until the new spell level is reached. If it is of lower level, the spell caster can cast the lower level spell, but risks a wild magic surge. Take the difference in spell levels between the spell power gathered, and the spell being cast and roll 1d10. If you roll below this number, roll on the Wild Magic Table.
As an extension of the above, a magic user can avoid a Wild magic Surge by taking the time to release the power equal to the time it took to gather it.
3) The spell caster is interrupted: If a spell caster is interrupted while drawing power they must make a Concentration check. The DC is 10+the current spell level they have or half the damage taken, which ever is greater. So if they are attacked 1 initiative point after starting to cast a 5th level spell for 8 points of damage, the DC is 10+1 or 11. IF they succeed and are attacked the following initiative point, that is a DC 12.
===
This is all for now. It's probably rough around the edges, and may need refinement, but I think it's a good starting point.
Even tough I'm not posting detailed responses to all this (I must have some ADD when writing this blog...), I am enjoying the conversation... Lots of food for thought!
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I'd favor something simple, so getting rid of bonus actions altogether might be a good start.