Even if the game is turn-based, this do not means that giving everyone a turn to attack is a good idea. Instead, whoever wins initiative roll has a bonus to all actions equal to the difference in initiative rolls between him and the target, and the target itself has the ability to react to the attacker's actions. This makes combats much faster, less abstract and generally more fun.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
I think calculating a speed stat would work. Some characters might be so slow, perhaps weighed down with inventory, that they only get to act once per two turns. Whereas a monster might get to act twice a turn because it's so quick.
>Hey guys do you wanna play this new game?
>In it, you don't even get to act every round of combat.
This will never not be moronic game design. It ONLY is remotely okay in solo games. Doing this shit to your players is a homosexual move and unfun. No one wants to do nothing for 20mins because they get no turn, even when it's the result of like a debilitation or something, god forbid if that's just the basic way the game functions.
It's one of those ideas that I see showing up often in things like superhero games, where it sounds like a good idea on paper to handle things like super-speed letting someone take a bunch of extra actions, but in practice is just really tedious bullshit.
Turns are already supposed to be an abstraction of everything going on in a fight.
This would increase both book keeping and volatility. It's such a horrible idea in any edition of DnD I can think of practically. Just play a different game
Test it. Theorycrafting mechanics is useless on its own. A rule lives or dies in the playing.
>captcha MM TPK
If a mage wins the initiative, will you then whine about him doing what mages should be able to do (wiping out whole squadrons at a time)?
>should be able to do
Mages aren't real. What they "should" be able to do is utter nonsense. They're able to do what I say they can do in my setting.
>no specific setting offered
>requests feedback on general mechanics
>convict vs werewolf thumbnail implies fantasy or at least horror setting
>complains anons aren't mind-readers
There's the whining.
Judging by the fact that you ignored the part about target's reaction, you either have problems with reading coprehenshion, or are just an autist arguing in a bad faith because you hate any changes. Your call.
You seem new and from the dark ages aka eastern europe so have another bit of theorycrafting to blow your polish mind.
Turns can be any length of time you want. The roll can be abstracted to a series of events rather than a direct 1-1 each dice roll is a swing or a step.
glhf
>no one mentioned Dnd
>dndron still feels insulted
Poetry. Especially if you take into account that this combat structure is standard for almost all ttrpgs.
Nooooo it isn't. Not remotely. OP blatantly has DnD as his reference, only d20 family is spoken of in these terms
What are you talking about? About initiative rolls? This is a standard for all ttrpgs. That everyone will attack in turn? Same. So what are you talking about, schizo?
Holy ESL. But also, no, it's not. The most popular RPGs in the world after DnD are Call of Cthulu which doesn't have initiative rolls, Pathfinder which is a 3.X clone, Fate family which doesn't roll, PbtA which doesn't have any form of initiative period, and I guess WH40k family which would be the one that actually isn't a d20 clone but does check initiative.
>Let me just ascribe a bunch of bullshit you didn't say to your comment so I can ignore it.
We play the game to have fun. If it's not fun, why bother? There's a difference between constantly needing a positive feedback loop like some c**t on tiktok and not wanting to engage with something that will see you literally sitting and doing nothing for half an hour while everyone else is getting to act.
If you're just fine with sitting doing nothing for that like, you genuinely have some kind of autism.
why are your turns taking so long anyway, 20 minutes, half an hour, what are you talking about?
Doesn't that make combat stupidly swingy and inconsistent in most systems?
No, because stats exist. And if you add the rule that the defender can attack if he has attacks left after all actions, then everything becomes even less random and more depending on stats.
Yes. It's a terrible idea.
If you have fun with that, go for it.
I'll stick to my player phase -> enemy phase -> other phase initiative cycle.
I don't see how that's supposed to work. Only one side actually gets to act, and the other has to just sit there and take it for some reason? I guess that would be faster, because whoever has whatever god stat governs initiative gets to just beat up helpless punching bags.
>dnd morons can't read
Let me rephrased it - defender must act, it's not your dnd shit, you can't survive by just standing and doing nothing, AC will not save your ass.
All players with a single bit of experience with the system would make high-init characters only
So basically Shadowrun, but worse?