ghul
Enchanter
Posts: 272
|
Post by ghul on Nov 1, 2007 7:07:03 GMT -5
In the DMG, Gary entertains the possibility of using individual initiative for PCs, something that became more of a standard in later editions of the game. Gary seems to discourage it, however. I'm wondering if anyone here has used this option in their AD&D game, and to what effect.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 1, 2007 7:19:28 GMT -5
Never used it in AD&D. Used it while playing 3E, and it's one of the worst features of the D20 system.
|
|
ghul
Enchanter
Posts: 272
|
Post by ghul on Nov 1, 2007 7:29:00 GMT -5
Seems like it would be a nightmare in 1e, what with the use of segments for spell casters and multiple attacks for fighter-type PCs. I found the allusion in the DMG interesting, though.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 1, 2007 7:37:15 GMT -5
I might give it a try during a play by post or e-mail game, but not real time.
|
|
ghul
Enchanter
Posts: 272
|
Post by ghul on Nov 1, 2007 9:06:43 GMT -5
I've been taking a real close look at initiative lately, in all the D&D incarnations. I would say that 3e is among my least favorite due to the d20 roll. Too many numbers to count off if you roll a new initiative every round; not fair for spell casters if they roll poorly and are stuck at the same # every round if you opt to not re-roll every round as those rules suggest. Conversely, spell casters are too powerful if they go first and can never be interrupted.
The one I like the least, however, might be Holmes. Checking dex scores for all the PCs and monsters is not conducive to a game that has more than 3 or 4 participants. C&C and 2e are nearly identical with their use of a d10 and rolling every round, but even that can be a bit of a pain in the arse -- especially the weapon speeds of 2e. A straight d10 per participant is what I'm using right now (my game is a C&C/AD&D hybrid), and spell casters must announce if they are casting.
1e initiative might illicit some groans from my players, as they seem to enjoy the individuality of determining each their own fates per round. What I really like is the Moldvay initiative, and I think it works best to facilitate quicker combat. But it does not take into account the AD&D multiple attacks possibility, nor the segment counts for spells.
Long story short, I'm considering change in how I run initiative in my game (1 DM, 7 players).
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 1, 2007 9:14:26 GMT -5
I use 1E, but drop speed factor, adjudicating some of the loose ends on the fly.
|
|
ghul
Enchanter
Posts: 272
|
Post by ghul on Nov 1, 2007 14:54:17 GMT -5
The speed factor of 1e is even more of a mess than the 2e version, what with the determination of multiple attacks when simultaneous action occurs. I think it slows down the action too much. I'm considering a system that is sort of a Moldvay/1e blend, incorporating what, IMO, are the finest aspects of both.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 3, 2007 19:26:31 GMT -5
I think Scott did some detailed posts on this a while back, when he got his Ph.D. in 1st edition initiative rules, but I just couldn't wrap my head around it. The only rules with speed factors that I sort of liked were in 2nd edition... I didn't agree with all the details, but I liked the basic concept. It was usable in actual games, without slowing the game down too much, as well.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 5, 2007 10:33:49 GMT -5
My case for speed factor is that it is blurred out with anomalies in mass fighting unless a "cold duel" is at hand that is 2 combatants isolated from others. Thats the way I do it. Plus, spell duels can't be done in a room full of flying weaponry. Period. You're lucky if you can cast a spell in general within a combat. Its hard to explain the way that I play sometimes. I give the MU characters borrowed items at early levels to make them "almost wizards" (a unique wand, etc.) and they use their spells to "fill up" the item (or other general casting) when they're not fighting. If you start casting a spell in a room full of orcs when you're low in level you're as good as dead in my campaign.
|
|