Skip to Content

Different take on Initiative

10 replies [Last post]
mwlgames
mwlgames's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2017

I'm not sure if this dice mechanic is used else where, but on paper I like the way this scales.

The Player rolls 1d6 for initiative then rolls a 2nd d6, (or more as you level up) for attack. If any of the attack dice are higher than the initiative die, subtract the initiative from the total of the attack dice.

For example: the init roll is 4 and attack dice are 2 & 5; the total would be 3 (2 + 5 - 4 = 3)

My angle here is that faster initiative yields weaker attacks unless you land a lucky strike. What are your thoughts? Am I on to something here or way off base.

kpres
kpres's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
Yeah dude, that's a very cool

Yeah dude, that's a very cool mechanic. I love the way it balances speed vs. strength.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
But what does it DO?

I get your explanation that FASTER means weaker attacks... But I am using Initiative rolls in my own WIP... And we define it as "which player has the upper-hand."

But what is YOUR initiative USED FOR???

It needs to have some kind of BENEFICIAL purpose. I guess what I mean is in your game ... What does "FASTER" mean?? It has to mean more than just a negative modifier to your attack...!

In my WIP it determines which player has the upper-hand. And therefore is the attack SUCCESSFUL or NOT. The higher d6 roll, the higher the odds that this player ends up with the higher initiative. If it's the defending player, the attack stops. If it's the attacking player, the attack is successful (and a starship is destroyed). And in occasions where there are TIES, the defender gets to "strike-back" as a counter-attack. Sort of like "You live by the sword, you die by the sword"... There is real RISK involved.

So yeah, while I can agree the the negative modifier is "clever"... I don't see how it affects your game other than lowering the amount of damage which is a relative thing (for the most part).

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
It is new to me

Higher initiative goes first I presume.
Maybe a higher initiative has a better chance in landing a hit? Like there is some blocking mechanic that can block the slower but more powerful attacks to an extend?

This means that if an initiative of 1 and 2 can be blocked to, let's say -5 on the total damage. And then an initiative of 5 would do the same. The only difference is that this attack would go much sooner.

I guess, 6 is a very lucky initiative. Since it is not going to be subtracted. Maybe subtract the initiative by default instead?

McTeddy
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2012
I wouldn't like it at all,

I wouldn't like it at all, thematically nor mechanically.

Thematically, Initiative isn't "Someone attacking faster for the sake of attacking faster"... it's that they were better prepared for combat in the first place. It's only a question of who -reacts- faster prior to combat. It's generally some blend of dexterity AND intelligence.

Initiative isn't calculated per attack because isn't replicating attack speed.

Faster fighters aren't sacrificing speed for effectiveness. They see openings faster, they waste fewer movements and they making conscious decisions.

Mechanically would bother even worse because it's turning a potential tactical decision up to luck. It's added math for the sake of being clever, not because it adds anything meaningful.

If you want to have faster, less strong attacks to be a thing... make it a direct player action. Before rolling the attack dice just declare your attack speed.

Now, players use it as a push-your-luck mechanic. "I can afford to take another hit but my opponent can't, so I can attack last at full power."

But again... whether your attack goes first is generally a small deal when it slows the death of an enemy. So, I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of players just focus on high power attacks.

Mensian
Mensian's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/14/2018
I agree

McTeddy wrote:
I wouldn't like it at all, thematically nor mechanically.
...
If you want to have faster, less strong attacks to be a thing... make it a direct player action.

I agree with McTeddy - give the player choice if he wants to land a powerful blow "when the right time comes" or anything that hits the opponent, "as soon as possible".

Mechanically: roll all dices for attack and "sacrifice" any number from your attack for initiative. For example, secretly choose a side of d6 that will be subtracted from attack and added to initiative.

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Mensian wrote:McTeddy wrote:I

Mensian wrote:
McTeddy wrote:
I wouldn't like it at all, thematically nor mechanically.
...
If you want to have faster, less strong attacks to be a thing... make it a direct player action.

I agree with McTeddy - give the player choice if he wants to land a powerful blow "when the right time comes" or anything that hits the opponent, "as soon as possible".

Mechanically: roll all dices for attack and "sacrifice" any number from your attack for initiative. For example, secretly choose a side of d6 that will be subtracted from attack and added to initiative.


Yeah, I like the idea of intentionally giving something up in order to attack faster than you normally do.

I don't at all like the idea that all faster attacks result in lower attack values.

And I don't think the math really works out. I can't even tell if you're intending a "1" initiative to go first or a "6", because:

If I get a "1" for initiative, it's basically a -1 to each attack die, or no effect on a natural 1. Which is an expected change of -5/6 per die.

If I get a 5 for initiative, it's a -5 for any 6's I roll. Which is.. an expected change of -5/6.

Hmm.

It sounds like MAYBE you have the idea to just have a single negative apply, but that mostly just shuffles things around, where having more dice gives a smaller negative per die but also a higher chance of having a negative.. ugh.

But anyway, I don't like the IDEA of it. Having a mechanic where I can by choice attack faster and reduce my to-hit or damage sounds great, though.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
kpres wrote:Yeah dude, that's

kpres wrote:
Yeah dude, that's a very cool mechanic. I love the way it balances speed vs. strength.

I did some math on this concept.
The mechanic only matters with the last hit.
So there is practically no meaning during the rest of combat.

The last few posts are more accurate to the topic.

Faster is not initiative.
Faster is more like multiple hits or so?

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... I'm confused?!

If it's only a dice roll, and then it affect the last dice rolled (obviously) because it is between 1 and 6, like the other dice being rolled. But the net effect is that it's a modifier for the last dice. Like @X3M mentioned.

However the bigger problem I have with this "initiative" is that you don't explain how it is going to be used in your game. Just a negative modifier?? That seems like a complete waste of time, just roll one less dice and be done with it!

But if you "combine" the die with a deck of cards and abilities which mean that only certain cards may be played on a turn (because sufficient initiative has not been reached) well maybe it could start to make more sense.

It's like a pool of five (5) cards in your hand... And you roll a 3 initiative, means that any card with a value of 3 or less can be played. Meaning that you are "restricting" how powerful cards may be played based on the initiative roll.

Do you understand what I mean???

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
I assumed it was just turn

I assumed it was just turn order for the combat round.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
In a sense it is. However, it

In a sense it is. However, it is rolled every time when it doesn't really matter. Except for the subtracting. But in that case, I would say; have the lowest damage strike first.

I got a similar thing with Range. Without the die roll. But it is for strategic purpose of who shoots first. Dying or not is something completely different than having 1/3th of your army dying and not even being able to return fire.

A chance to strike would also be better to think of. The same goes for being able to block.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut