![]() |
Initiative in 4E
Been thinking a bit about Initiative. Automatically giving the PCs higher initiative than the OPFOR kind of stacks the deck in favor of the good guys. Ref'ing 2.2, I was always a little loosey-goosey with the initiative order, almost always allowing the PCs to act first every round. With 4e's suppression rules, I think that might be game-breaking.
I agree with many of you that an initiative system should take into consideration characters' (both PCs and NPCs) competence, experience, tactical understanding, etc. Some people are just more decisive and quicker thinking than others, especially under pressure. I don't have a lot of experience with other systems, but I'm familiar with how D&D 5e handles initiative, and I think something similar could work for 4e T2k. Please note, I have not field tested this system yet. CUF scores are assigned a modifier which can be applied when drawing initiative (players have the option of not applying the modifier). PCs and NPCs draw initiative cards, as per the the rules, but PCs modify their roles up or down based on their respective CUF scores, as follows: A = -2 B = -1 C = 0 D = +1 So, for example, Zeke, with CUF score B, draws the #5 initiative card. His initiative is now 4, if he so chooses. Rawlins, with a CUF score of A, draws an 8. His initiative is 6. IIRC, most combat builds (among the archetypes, at least), start the game with CUF C. Most non-elite enemy NPCs also have CUF C. What I think this means is, early in the campaign, the odds re initiative will probably be close to even in most combat encounters. But if the PCs play smart and survive their first few firefights, they'll start to gain an edge. Thoughts? - |
All of that is part of why I really don't give much of a damn about initiative, beyond what the narrative sets up. It starts to get very fiddly.
Initiative in the first turn matters very much. After that, it certainly matters, but not as much as the ongoing effects of suppression. If you're able to take out or suppress a few guys in the first and second turns then initiative becomes a very secondary concern after that. FWIW, other FL rulesets, such as Coriolis, do have an initiative system where you get bonuses for using smaller weapons, which makes a lot of sense. It's also not my favorite system but I'm not sure why they outright abandoned it here. |
I've been chewing on this and my inclination is to do away with the card system entirely and adapt the system from Five Parsecs From Home (which, admittedly, is one of my shiny new toys, and thus biases me more favorably toward it). Here's an untested alpha draft:
Each combat round has three initiative phases. In order, these are Quick, Enemy, and Slow. At the beginning of every combat round, each PC and allied NPC makes a Coolness Under Fire check (adding unit morale if within LOS or voice/radio contact of an ally). This check receives a -1 penalty if facing enemies who predominantly have CUF A and a +1 bonus if facing enemies who predominantly have CUF D. The Combat Awareness specialty's effect becomes a +1 bonus to initiative.
In each phase, characters may act in any order. - C. |
If you meddle with initiative slot allocation, you will end up with (N)PCs occupying the same slot. How do you deal with that? Do they act at the same time or do they act in a separate order and if so, how is that determined?
I agree with the sentiment, that turn order after the first turn is largely unimportant. And if you want to make sure or more likely, you go before your enemy (especially in the first turn), then 4E gives you three options for that: Invest in Combat Awareness and draw two cards, invest in Recon to ambush your enemy or find someone who draws a lower card than you and switch turn order with them. I think that leaves a lot of choices for skill & competence as well as small unit tactics. |
Perhaps for initiative, simply roll your CUF dice and act on the value. That way higher CUF can roll higher but doesn’t always guarantee going first.
|
Quote:
- C. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
- C. |
Sounds fun -- although I imagine you're going to be seeing a lot of "zero successes." Of course there's also mishaps... cancel successes 1:1 and any excess dumps you to the bottom?
|
Quote:
|
Ah the actual die facings. I see. You'd get pretty huge variance, but that could be fun. And you can use the normal game modifiers still.
I don't personally like rolling for initiative each turn, in any game, but I can see how some exceptions for that might be possible. One that I particularly like (but would need to flesh out) would mean re-rolling only when something major happens (reinforcements arrive, somebody dies, etc). |
Quote:
- |
Quote:
Under my proposal, you start out high and count down to 1. This is due to the fact that those participants with a higher CUF would roll a bigger die size. This gives them more chances to roll a higher number than those participants rolling a smaller die size... but yet still allows the smaller die user to occasionally out roll the bigger die user and go first. It also allows the GM to impose existing game penalties which REDUCE the die size on the Initiative roll. So you wind up with a situation where the lower die CAN win but it is less likely than the guy with the larger CUF die (representing his greater experience or speed of engagement). So it makes more sense to roll high and count down. |
I really am enjoying the discussion here, but could a mod split the alternate initiative systems material into its own thread? It feels like the “all things 4e” topic may need to branch a bit.
- C. |
Initiative in 4E
Yes. Start High and count down was my thinking also
|
Quote:
|
I’m considering the following homebrew V4 Initiative system and I’m keen to get people’s thoughts. Please note that this is a first draft so please be kind:
For example, Alex (CUF B and wearing a backpack) and Ben (CUF C and wearing a backpack) encounter two enemy soldiers on patrol (both CUF C and not wearing backpacks). Everyone rolls their CUF for round 1:
For ease let’s presume that no one was hit by any fire or was suppressed in round 1 and that Alex and Ben dropped their backpacks during the round. We now have the declaration phase at the end of round 1. Let’s presume that that Enemy soldier #1 decided to Hold for some reason while the others all decided to Press. The combat continues for another round and the initiative rolls for round 2 would be made. Let’s presume that they are as follows:
How does that sound as an initiative system? Constructive criticism please. From my perspective, the major negative with this homebrew system is that it involves rolling initiative every round but as it includes the Press/Hold mechanic from the V3 rules, which seems to create an interesting flow in an engagement, I think that it might be worth the extra dice rolling. I'm also not sure how the V4 rule that allows you to swap initiative with another PC you are in communication with would work with this homebrew system. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If someone has dropped their pack then a modifier can just be applied to their original die roll to generate a revised total. Thanks for this feedback. I will ponder on it further. |
I really like this idea in general. I'd have to playtest it to see how it actually feels.
But, conceptually, it achieves two things I really like. One, the press/hold thing allows for the lulls that most real combat consists of where their guys are over there and your guys are over here and as long as you don't poke your head up too much or run around or get spotted doing something stupid probably not much is going to happen for a while. Trying to adjudicate that sort of thing while sticking to the action based system made it almost a real-time endeavor. My solution was usually just like "it looks like they're not eager to make any more moves unless you are," but this makes it a clean, fair mechanic. The +4 modifier for pushing kinda contradicts it, though, since there's no penalty otherwise. Unless you're hit bad and just need to lay down, why is anyone incentivized to do anything other than push most of the time? The other thing I like is that it plays nicely with other stuff in the game, but in an even easier fashion. Got the Combat Senses perk (or whatever it's called, I forget)? Roll all initiative checks with advantage. Ambushing? Get advantage. Being ambushed? Take disadvantage. (I'm not sure if I would pile on both of those modifiers on top of each other, maybe only the players' side is modified). I don't love how a successful ambush gives you automatic first action as it is RAW (among other reasons because it's a player-killer), but it should still be powerful. The other thing I'd say is that, maybe on the first round only, I'd include unit morale. Maybe just a single unit die roll applies to everyone equally. This gives you a whole other tool to play with that can even pass forward from engagement to engagement. It's easier to beat an enemy that is beaten! |
It's tricky. Seems like attempts to add realism also end up adding complexity. The more steps added to the process, the slower combat goes, I imagine. One of good things about 4e rules that I keep hearing is how it speeds up combat, compared to earlier versions.
- |
That's true... and a reason why I prefer to avoid "roll for initiative every round" and, really, limit die rolls as much as possible.
I do think there are some worthwhile tradeoffs in something like the system Mahatatain proposed. Getting rid of "dead" rounds of combat being a big one, potentially, which all by itself could compensate for any amount of speed lost to adding the initiative roll. I play online, so initiative is automatic, which is hard to beat... but with a little work it could be automatic using something like this system, too. |
Quote:
- C. |
Quote:
About 4e's system, as-written, has anyone had a bad experience with the optional rule by which a group of enemy draw one initiative card as a collective, and all act on the same initiative turn? It strikes me that using that streamlining feature could potentially give an enemy force a huge tactical advantage. For example, imagine a 6 v 6 engagement. Let's say one of the six PCs draws the one card, and then the OPFOR draws the two. That means the bad guys get six turns before the PCs get a second one. That seems game breaking to me. Am I missing something? - |
Quote:
The modifier for Pressing was included based on the idea that if you Hold you are hesitating slightly and therefore not being as aggressively in combat. Initially, I had a negative modifier to the Initiative total for those participants declaring Hold but that potentially ends up with a negative initiative total so, for easy-to-understand maths, I flipped it around and made the modifier a positive one for declaring Press. Does the concept of someone Pressing generally acting earlier in the combat round than someone Holding make sense though? What do people think? Quote:
Quote:
This suggestion may well be a good solution to that though: Quote:
Quote:
I think that the major issue with the 4E rules to resolve for PbP games is the Push mechanic for skill checks. That’s probably best discussed in the 4E rules thread though. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I transitioned to 6-second rounds and made each Phase basically a "mini-round." I then had everyone roll a 1D6 and add that to their Initiative then divide by 2 (rounding up). So a 7 Initiative (the highest RAW score) can begin to act from Phase 7 (high) down to Phase 4 (low). A 1 Initiative can act from Phase 4 (high) down to Phase 1 (low). The mini-Round... Each Phase represents 1 SECOND OF TIME, so I allow ONE ATTACK per Phase. This means that 7 Initiative shooter is going to fire SEVEN TIMES in 6 seconds, BUT he is going to fire at ONLY ONE TARGET, OR FIRE A SINGLE BURST PER PHASE. That means the 7 Initiative shooter will most likely be trading shots with slower combatants throughout the ROUND. Therefore, one must pick one's targets carefully, since ALL ACTIONS IN A SINGLE PHASE ARE SIMULTANEOUS. That means two shooters can kill each other in a single phase. Movement is done the same way. Sprinting is 8m per Phase/Second. Running is 6m per Phase/Second. Trotting is 4m per Phase/Second, Walking is 2m per Phase/Second, and Crawling is 1m per Phase/Second. Since Phases are 1 fixed second. Any action can be counted out in 1-second intervals and performed in that many Phases. Clear a Jam? 2 1-second phases. Drawing? 1 second/phase. It is easy and pretty fast to use. |
I like phased actions like that in concept. In practice? Not so much.
@Raellus -- you're not entirely wrong with your question about initiative, but your example doesn't seem to play. In this case, the PC has drawn the worst card. It doesn't matter whether the NPCs act all on the same initiative, or individually, they're all going to go before him anyway. (personally, I recommend grouping NPCs in no more than fireteam size, and usually no more than pairs, and at the price/convenience that they all move and fight in the same hex unless numbers are whittled down so much that I decide to split them) Quote:
That's why I said I liked that aspect of your system, which could instead just grant advantage/disadvantage on initiative rolls. An ambusher has a much better chance of acting first, but it's not guaranteed. And a very experienced target of an ambush might have their spidey sense go off just that half second before it all goes to shit... |
My question remains in this Press/Hold system (I'll buy a new copy of 2013! I cannot find it anywhere and I'd like to support the lads!) though...
What advantage is there ever to Holding? Essentially you've got a prisoner's dilemma except why would I ever not choose Push? |
Quote:
Participants act in order from lowest to highest number, beginning with card #1, until everyone has taken their turn. Quote:
Maybe my wording was unclear, or perhaps you were referring to one of the proffered house rules, where the high number goes first? - |
Quote:
Rules corresponding with this idea are Managing NPCs (p. 54), NPC Group Actions (p. 57), NPC Movement (p. 58), NPC Melee Attacks (p. 63), NPC Ranged Attacks (p. 66) and NPC Ammo Dice and Suppression and NPCs (p. 67) plus Explosions & NPCs (p. 68). This allows for combined movement, but also bundles attacks and ammo consumption. Also, remember that per p. 47 NPCs and Skills, NPCs should not push rolls regularly, unless they're key NPCs in important situations. Combined attacks ease the administrative burden on the referee, allowing for only one roll to be made, but with a +1 per per additional NPC involved (up to a maximum +3), as they use the "helping" rule. Ammunition is not tracked, but one or more 1s rolled on an ammo dice results in empty magazines after the attack, making a reload action necessary; reloading always counts as a slow action for NPCs under this rule. Key NPCs are advised to be handled separately, however, giving them a special status. I would also recommend to follow this idea. In essence, this makes it possible for groups of up to four NPCs in one hex to be grouped together, while each NPC still adds something to the whole. An infantry squad (nine soldiers) could e. g. then be grouped into two rifle teams of up to four NPCs and a single special weapons user, such as a light machine gun operator, an anti-tank specialist or a grenade launcher operator. Only three roles would be made for those three "groups". Other options include special weapons to be employed with more support, e. g. two light machine-gun teams of two persons, one anti-tank team of two persons and three riflemen for only four rolls needed. |
Quote:
However, I do agree with everything Ursus posted... some of these optional rules probably do not work best unless you're using them with other optional rules, and I would never group more than 4 NPCs (even that is a lot... a +3 to an attack is very significant in the harm it can cause). But that question also comes down to how many NPCs there are to begin with. If there's only 6 in total then I'd probably run them as individuals, or pairs at the most. If there's 20... then yeah maybe some fireteams, and the PCs deserve what they get for trying to fight 20 guys at once. :P |
Another One
Here's another idea for a simple mod to 4e initiative rules. Start by drawing initiative, as described in the rules.
After the draw, when an enemy turn immediately precedes that of a PC (i.e. the enemy would act right before the PC in the turn order), the PC can choose to make a CUF roll v said enemy's CUF. If the PC wins the roll, he/she can exchange places with the enemy (i.e. swap turns, essentially). If not, there's no change to the drawn initiative turn order. This process only occurs once, immediately after drawing initiative. PCs may only attempt one swap, if the afore mentioned conditions apply. Any resulting changes to turn order last throughout the remainder of the combat encounter. This rule only applies to PCs. Enemy NPCs do not get an opportunity to swap with PCs whose drawn initiative places them earlier in the turn queue. Example: Enemy A draws a 2; Ruiz draws a 5; Teller draws a 7; Enemy B draws the 10. Ruiz can roll CUF v Enemy A. If Ruiz wins the roll, she can swap initiative/turn order with Enemy A. Ruiz chooses to roll CUF, and wins. She opts to swap with Enemy A and now acts before same. Since Teller's turn did not initially follow Enemy A, he can not roll CUF for a chance to swap with same. He still acts after Enemy A. Enemy B does not get an opportunity to swap turn order with Teller. --- This simple system will allow CUF to have some impact on turn order, but not too much. It could improve the tactical situation somewhat for the PCs, but not for the OPFOR. That doesn't seem game-breaking to me. It also doesn't add too many steps to the process, so it shouldn't significantly slow down combat. Is that clear? What do y'all think? - |
It's very straightforward and clear (in this example, more on that below though).
It's not my cup of tea because (a) I don't really like the default initiative system anyway and (b) the CUF roll isn't actually a choice. There's no downside so there's no reason you wouldn't roll it every single time. My big question about the simplicity is what do you do when you have 5 PCs, and 5 NPCs, and their initiative is scattered all over the place? Say: NPC, PC, PC, NPC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC, PC |
Quote:
Sometimes it's a tactical choice. For instance, you are hiding from a group of attackers and you knife the only guy who detected you. The HOLD option might be a good choice to avoid detection by additional attackers. |
I love the idea, I just don't know how you bring it in in a mechanical sense in a way that makes sense and flows well.
I feel that you almost want some time of counter or "timer" that is representing loss of group cohesion and short-term morale over time during a battle and as this starts going down then things start to become harder etc ("attrition"). It would happen on both sides and lead to a situation where the sides want to HOLD and regain and then the side that is losing when HOLDing is happening simply says - stuff this - we're out of here, and retreats or at least re-positions. [edit] - specifically for holding I think I need to answer 1) why would a side want to hold? What's the benefit? 2) does a side need to hold or is it individuals that hold? 3) Why would a side not want to hold? What is the downside of holding? With these I could start getting my head around what the intention is and then what the best way to implement might be. An easy way could be to link it to CUF team morale - at some point unit cohesion and communication has suffered enough that everyone just needs to reground and work out wtf to do next?? Also situations where seriously wounded people need to be dealt with. I don't know, as an armchair soldier I'm not in the best place to judge here. I guess you do see the equivalent in team (ball) sports where you have many HOLDs between plays. |
Quote:
Quote:
I had a hard time phrasing this in the OP, but to clarify (I hope), one would only roll v an adjacent enemy in the queue. So, in this case, D only rolls against 4, not 4 and 3. And, again, enemy NPCs can't initiate a roll against a PC ahead of them in the queue. It's a PC only perk. - |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.