Pro: it makes the Superior Inspiration, Perfect Self, and Relentless features better, and they're among the worst features in the game normally. ???: it boosts things that affect ability checks in combat, like Enhance Ability, Hex, and Jack of All Trades.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Pushing back on "reduces tactical complexity" for a couple reasons. First, this point is directly negated by (cons) point 1, if tactical complexity is reduced there shouldn't be a marked change in combat speed as tactical decision making and therefor the tactical decision making process, allegedly, has been 'simplified' (read: become less complex). Second, this point is directly negated by (cons) point 4, having an unknowable amount of time to think about your characters decisions means you have to think outside the box of your typical "I go BEFORE the cleric therefor...".
With this in mind I want to reiterate that I am not advocating for or against dynamic initiative. I am not saying static or dynamic is best. I am merely disagreeing with this notion that tactics somehow stop being tactics because the battlefield space (D&D combat) has changed (dynamic initiative).
Here's another con: if an enemy has a debuff ability like imposing disadvantage on attacks or reducing the amount of damage someone can deal that lasts until the start of their next turn, if they have a high initiative when they use it then roll the next round, that causes it to effectively last two rounds instead of one, which can have a disproportionate affect on the way the battle goes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Pushing back on "reduces tactical complexity" for a couple reasons. First, this point is directly negated by (cons) point 1, if tactical complexity is reduced there shouldn't be a marked change in combat speed as tactical decision making and therefor the tactical decision making process, allegedly, has been 'simplified' (read: become less complex).
I don't think you understand why it takes longer. It's not because there is more tactical complexity or even related to it, but bookkeeping. Everyone has to roll, work out their Initiative, report it and then the DM has to calculate the order. Once that is done and only when that is done, the combat can start, and it takes quite a bit of time. Under standard rules, that happens once and then combat is pretty continuous. With variant rules, Intiative has to be repeated each round, significantly inflating time taken per round, and therefore combat. This is without taking into account the effects it will have on player's ability to be prepared.
Second, this point is directly negated by (cons) point 4, having an unknowable amount of time to think about your characters decisions means you have to think outside the box of your typical "I go BEFORE the cleric therefor...".
Sure, but you can think outside the box anyway...and that doesn't mean that what you come up with is any more ingenious, complex, or quality. Having an unknowable amount of time actually adds pressure which is generally reduces ingenuity. ChoirofFire and I had a discussion on the effects of variant Intiative rules on tactical complexity earlier in the thread, I invite you to read it. Not being able to say "Well, I know that player X will take their turn after me so I can do X or Y and rely on that player to take advantage of the set up that I thereby create" increases pressure for more individualistic options, rather than higher tactical ones.
With this in mind I want to reiterate that I am not advocating for or against dynamic initiative. I am not saying static or dynamic is best. I am merely disagreeing with this notion that tactics somehow stop being tactics because the battlefield space (D&D combat) has changed (dynamic initiative).
No one said tactics stop being tactics, which is a nonsensical statement. The point is that they generally become less complex because complex tactics are dependent on information, which is reduced under the variant rules. At the change of a round, you can't rely on initiative order and so certain options, mostly the team based ones, become less viable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Here's another con: if an enemy has a debuff ability like imposing disadvantage on attacks or reducing the amount of damage someone can deal that lasts until the start of their next turn, if they have a high initiative when they use it then roll the next round, that causes it to effectively last two rounds instead of one, which can have a disproportionate affect on the way the battle goes.
Added.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
(Also in some cases we do not only use dynamic init but actually dynamic hidden init. so you don't know who will act next.)
Wow, you can't get much worse for slowing the game down.
Each time a player finds out it is their turn, they have to then look at the current situation and decide the best thing to use at that particular time.
With advance notice of turn order, the player can be planning what their most likely action is going to be, but this definitely won't work with hidden "dynamic" initiative.
SO, you mean in a battle players should be able to plan, know when things are going to happen, and plot out all their moves? Very unrealistic to me.
(Also in some cases we do not only use dynamic init but actually dynamic hidden init. so you don't know who will act next.)
Wow, you can't get much worse for slowing the game down.
Each time a player finds out it is their turn, they have to then look at the current situation and decide the best thing to use at that particular time.
With advance notice of turn order, the player can be planning what their most likely action is going to be, but this definitely won't work with hidden "dynamic" initiative.
SO, you mean in a battle players should be able to plan, know when things are going to happen, and plot out all their moves? Very unrealistic to me.
Dungeons and Dragons is a game. It's not intended to be a realistic simulation. And even if it was, in real combat people do coordinate their actions: one person will lay down cover fire while two more advance, then somebody fires a grenade launcher or whatever. They know who's going first before they do any of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think you understand why it takes longer. It's not because there is more tactical complexity or even related to it, but bookkeeping. Everyone has to roll, work out their Initiative, report it and then the DM has to calculate the order. Once that is done and only when that is done, the combat can start, and it takes quite a bit of time. Under standard rules, that happens once and then combat is pretty continuous. With variant rules, Intiative has to be repeated each round, significantly inflating time taken per round, and therefore combat. This is without taking into account the effects it will have on player's ability to be prepared.
I guess if you had a really large party shuffling the initiative would take quite a bit of time.
Sure, but you can think outside the box anyway...and that doesn't mean that what you come up with is any more ingenious, complex, or quality. Having an unknowable amount of time actually adds pressure which is generally reduces ingenuity. ChoirofFire and I had a discussion on the effects of variant Intiative rules on tactical complexity earlier in the thread, I invite you to read it. Not being able to say "Well, I know that player X will take their turn after me so I can do X or Y and rely on that player to take advantage of the set up that I thereby create" increases pressure for more individualistic options, rather than higher tactical ones.
Again, just takes practice. Like most things. With more practice comes more competence and less pressure when high-stress situations arise in the future. However, if your tactical thinking is never challenged because you are permitted to follow the same methodology in every (not literally) encounter than you are never forced TO think outside the box because your box has been working.
No one said tactics stop being tactics, which is a nonsensical statement. The point is that they generally become less complex because complex tactics are dependent on information, which is reduced under the variant rules. At the change of a round, you can't rely on initiative order and so certain options, mostly the team based ones, become less viable.
No, OPTIMAL tactics are based on having as much information as possible. Complex tactical/strategic decisions are made all the time without having ALL or even appreciable amounts of information. (ask me how I know...)
Again, I am not advocating one way or the other on which rule is better (static vs dynamic). But in my experience, getting people out of their comfort zones (with some appropriately applied pressure) builds greater competence, confidence and skill. It's why us military folk get trained the way we do so that when the plan inevitably goes off the rail we can react efficiently.
I will emphasize again, I am not telling you or anyone else how they should run their tables. No at all. I will concede that it is likely most D&D enjoyers don't take a lot of time to think about tactical decision making or the decision making process beyond what they do surrounding any given D&D combat session. I'm a bit more invested in it but that just comes from IRL experience.
And even if it was, in real combat people do coordinate their actions: one person will lay down cover fire while two more advance, then somebody fires a grenade launcher or whatever. They know who's going first before they do any of that.
Changing initiative doesn't mean party members are no longer coordinating their actions, only that the tactical environment is not static. Your example, a fire team (assumed) moving under (assumed, direct) enemy fire, conducting a movement to contact is basic tactical maneuvering. That said the tactical situation dictates how they conduct said maneuver. It's possible that cover fire from team member A and B are effective initially but become less effective as the enemy adjusts to the situation themselves (because most enemy combatants aren't robots with a singular directive). This would necessitate the team adjusting their movement to account for the dynamic that shifted. It takes practice to recognize the shift in the tactical environment and react accordingly and efficiently to complete your task. We account for this in training by changing the tactical situation and practicing various methods to accomplish the task (in the case of your example, again an assumption on my part, movement to contact for a fire team under direct enemy fire) because IRL combat situations almost never follow A-->B-->C. However, with enough practice and trust in your team you can get to a place where you are able to say; IF A then B, If D then E, If G then H, etc.
(Also in some cases we do not only use dynamic init but actually dynamic hidden init. so you don't know who will act next.)
Wow, you can't get much worse for slowing the game down.
Each time a player finds out it is their turn, they have to then look at the current situation and decide the best thing to use at that particular time.
With advance notice of turn order, the player can be planning what their most likely action is going to be, but this definitely won't work with hidden "dynamic" initiative.
SO, you mean in a battle players should be able to plan, know when things are going to happen, and plot out all their moves? Very unrealistic to me.
I think you misunderstand what initiative dictates, it is not a series of consecutive 6 second periods of time, it all happens almost simultaneously with the order dictating that someone gets to go a split second ahead. And yes that supports your argument but, this is also a game that needs to flow in some kind of way, when at a table you are limiting the time players have to make choices that means you need to give them a heads up that they are coming in 2 players go. That allows magic users to confirm and check spell effects, it allows players to think another what they will do in there turn. It means your not sat there for 5-10 mins for every player to work out what they want to do.
DnD is not a real life simulator, if you want that there are plenty of other great TTRPGs to play. It does frustrate me that people criticize DnD without goi by out and trying some of the other great games out there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pro: it makes the Superior Inspiration, Perfect Self, and Relentless features better, and they're among the worst features in the game normally.
???: it boosts things that affect ability checks in combat, like Enhance Ability, Hex, and Jack of All Trades.
Added!
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Pushing back on "reduces tactical complexity" for a couple reasons. First, this point is directly negated by (cons) point 1, if tactical complexity is reduced there shouldn't be a marked change in combat speed as tactical decision making and therefor the tactical decision making process, allegedly, has been 'simplified' (read: become less complex). Second, this point is directly negated by (cons) point 4, having an unknowable amount of time to think about your characters decisions means you have to think outside the box of your typical "I go BEFORE the cleric therefor...".
With this in mind I want to reiterate that I am not advocating for or against dynamic initiative. I am not saying static or dynamic is best. I am merely disagreeing with this notion that tactics somehow stop being tactics because the battlefield space (D&D combat) has changed (dynamic initiative).
Here's another con: if an enemy has a debuff ability like imposing disadvantage on attacks or reducing the amount of damage someone can deal that lasts until the start of their next turn, if they have a high initiative when they use it then roll the next round, that causes it to effectively last two rounds instead of one, which can have a disproportionate affect on the way the battle goes.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think you understand why it takes longer. It's not because there is more tactical complexity or even related to it, but bookkeeping. Everyone has to roll, work out their Initiative, report it and then the DM has to calculate the order. Once that is done and only when that is done, the combat can start, and it takes quite a bit of time. Under standard rules, that happens once and then combat is pretty continuous. With variant rules, Intiative has to be repeated each round, significantly inflating time taken per round, and therefore combat. This is without taking into account the effects it will have on player's ability to be prepared.
Sure, but you can think outside the box anyway...and that doesn't mean that what you come up with is any more ingenious, complex, or quality. Having an unknowable amount of time actually adds pressure which is generally reduces ingenuity. ChoirofFire and I had a discussion on the effects of variant Intiative rules on tactical complexity earlier in the thread, I invite you to read it. Not being able to say "Well, I know that player X will take their turn after me so I can do X or Y and rely on that player to take advantage of the set up that I thereby create" increases pressure for more individualistic options, rather than higher tactical ones.
No one said tactics stop being tactics, which is a nonsensical statement. The point is that they generally become less complex because complex tactics are dependent on information, which is reduced under the variant rules. At the change of a round, you can't rely on initiative order and so certain options, mostly the team based ones, become less viable.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Added.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
SO, you mean in a battle players should be able to plan, know when things are going to happen, and plot out all their moves? Very unrealistic to me.
Dungeons and Dragons is a game. It's not intended to be a realistic simulation. And even if it was, in real combat people do coordinate their actions: one person will lay down cover fire while two more advance, then somebody fires a grenade launcher or whatever. They know who's going first before they do any of that.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I guess if you had a really large party shuffling the initiative would take quite a bit of time.
Again, just takes practice. Like most things. With more practice comes more competence and less pressure when high-stress situations arise in the future. However, if your tactical thinking is never challenged because you are permitted to follow the same methodology in every (not literally) encounter than you are never forced TO think outside the box because your box has been working.
Changing initiative doesn't mean party members are no longer coordinating their actions, only that the tactical environment is not static. Your example, a fire team (assumed) moving under (assumed, direct) enemy fire, conducting a movement to contact is basic tactical maneuvering. That said the tactical situation dictates how they conduct said maneuver. It's possible that cover fire from team member A and B are effective initially but become less effective as the enemy adjusts to the situation themselves (because most enemy combatants aren't robots with a singular directive). This would necessitate the team adjusting their movement to account for the dynamic that shifted. It takes practice to recognize the shift in the tactical environment and react accordingly and efficiently to complete your task. We account for this in training by changing the tactical situation and practicing various methods to accomplish the task (in the case of your example, again an assumption on my part, movement to contact for a fire team under direct enemy fire) because IRL combat situations almost never follow A-->B-->C. However, with enough practice and trust in your team you can get to a place where you are able to say; IF A then B, If D then E, If G then H, etc.
I think you misunderstand what initiative dictates, it is not a series of consecutive 6 second periods of time, it all happens almost simultaneously with the order dictating that someone gets to go a split second ahead. And yes that supports your argument but, this is also a game that needs to flow in some kind of way, when at a table you are limiting the time players have to make choices that means you need to give them a heads up that they are coming in 2 players go. That allows magic users to confirm and check spell effects, it allows players to think another what they will do in there turn. It means your not sat there for 5-10 mins for every player to work out what they want to do.
DnD is not a real life simulator, if you want that there are plenty of other great TTRPGs to play. It does frustrate me that people criticize DnD without goi by out and trying some of the other great games out there.