Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I roll out of my dragonbone bed and fold back the dragonlinen sheets. My head hurts like the blazes from all the dragonwine I drank last night, but it's the last day of dragon's feast and I have things to do. Kicking a couple of empty dragonbone flagons out of the way I shuffle over to the dragonwood armoire, which squeaks when I open it. I dress in my usual black, finished with a sumptuous dragonscale cloak I won off an unsuspecting rube playing dragondice. It pays to look good when you charge what I do. I toss back the dregs of last night's dragonwine just as the bells ring third dragon. Time to go to work...
How many dragons do you have to kill to make that many dragon based products available in such large amounts?
 
I picked up the 5e Spelljammer set and I'm slowly reading through it. Starting with the first book and I'm already a little perturbed by the presentation choices. I was expecting the book to open with an overview of the setting and maybe a vignette instead we get a two-page spread of terminology introducing the astral and wildspace concepts before jumping right into new character options...
 
I've noticed that this is not a type of forum where there is a lot of rules talk, but I'll toss this in anyway.

Initiative has always been kind of a bugbear of mine, and I've never gotten it just quite right. You know the feeling don't you? I feel that the only time I've gotten it right is in a boardgame of mine that uses 1 second intervals, but I bet that there is something wrong with that too if looked at too closely. But anyway, this is my latest attempt to "fix" D&D 5e initiative. What the following rules snippet doesn't mention is that initiative bonus is determined by Intelligence, and you need a Dexterity of at least 13 to gain a feat that boosts initiative. So now it uses three different ability scores! :shock:


The Owlbeared Hackmaster Initiative
  1. Check for Surprise. If nobody tries to be stealthy, everybody automatically notices each other. Otherwise, the GM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of the combatants that are being stealthy, with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each combatant on the opposing side(s). Any combatant that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter, and can't take actions during the first round of combat.
  2. Declare Actions. Actions are declared in order from lowest, to highest Wisdom score. In case of a tie between a player and the DM, roll dice until a victor is found. In ties between players, they can work it out for themselves in whichever fashion they deem suitable. There is a chance to identify which spells are in process of being cast (see page 63). If a caster takes damage before it acts, it must succeed on a concentration check in order to not lose the spell. If a spell is lost, the spell slot is not expended.
  3. Roll Initiative. The type of dice rolled depends on the declared action in question. If a combatant takes two or more actions that use different initiative dice, use the lowest one.

    - d12 is for ranged attacks, cantrips, and dodge actions.

    - d8 is for melee attacks, leveled bonus action spells, and all other actions that are not specified.

    - d4 is for casting leveled spells that require an action.

    Any combatant may choose to take its turn on a lower initiative count, if desired.
  4. The round is complete. Go back to step 2, and repeat the process until the combat is finished. Note that that initiative is rolled separately each round.
Alternatively, use d10's, d8's and d6's, instead.

(the copypaste fucked some formatting up and I'm too lazy to go over it. Apologies)

Thoughts?

Edit: Oh, I didn't mention that in this version cantrips do not increase in damage dice (max level is 6). And now I think that the later mentioned d10/d8/d6 would be better instead..
 
Last edited:
So, what’s the goal with the different die types? Why do you think declaration before initiative rolling? Why not roll initiative then declare, lowest to highest.
 
I'm coming around to the idea that the best approach to INT in D&D is the B/X roll one die each side. It encourages the PCs to cooperate rather than tune out and wait their turn.

Alternatively there is the Base 10+Dex option in the DMG which is similar in some way to good ol' Strike Ranks.

For surprise, I'd only roll when it makes sense due to the PCs action or lack of action, rolling for every encounter is montonous and I recall even in the B/X days that surprise often led to unearned-feeling beatdowns that weren't fun nor interesting.
 
I'm coming around to the idea that the best approach to INT in D&D is the B/X roll one die each side. It encourages the PCs to cooperate rather than tune out and wait their turn.

Alternatively there is the Base 10+Dex option in the DMG which is similar in some way to good ol' Strike Ranks.

For surprise, I'd only roll when it makes sense due to the PCs action or lack of action, rolling for every encounter is montonous and I recall even in the B/X days that surprise often led to unearned-feeling beatdowns that weren't fun nor interesting.
I like the Fabula Ultima one, you pick a leader, then you roll a group check supporting the leader. If the roll is higher than the highest initiative stat of all the enemies, your side gets initiative if not the enemies do. Then you alternate between the side that has initiative and not initiative, and the players can decide who goes in each slot each round. Whichever side has more characters just takes all the rest of their actions at the end.

So if you win initiative and it is 3 PCs vs 5 Enemies it would go

PC, E, PC, E, PC, E, E, E

And if you lost initiative it would go

E, PC, E, PC, E, PC, E, E

It is overall simple one check, and you can work teamwork into deciding who goes when etc.
 
So, what’s the goal with the different die types? Why do you think declaration before initiative rolling? Why not roll initiative then declare, lowest to highest.
It models different types of actions and encouraging a particular flow of combat, while also being fairly simple. Mearls published his house rules about it a few years back and it felt like a good solution, but it needed a game designed to accommodate it rather than being retrofitted on to the current edition.

Personally for older D&D's I'd be inclined to try popcorn initiative (Initator's side gets first action, then can pick anyone in the fight who hasn't gone to act next. After everyone has gone the side which had the last action in the previous round gets to pick who goes first next round).
 
So, what’s the goal with the different die types? Why do you think declaration before initiative rolling? Why not roll initiative then declare, lowest to highest.
The goal with the different dice types are, for example, to give an edge to the guy with a readied bow & arrow, against another combatant charging at him with a melee weapon. Also to give the effect that big spells are slow to prepare, and the caster needs a bit of protection from the others to pull one off. That's how it often was done in the olden timey wargames, and I want to experiment with that in a more modern game system.

And the declaration before rolling initiative. That's the only way I can think of how the desired effect can be achieved. The same character could do any of the options given, and depending on the players choice, the action might take shorter or longer time during a combat round. I think that otherwise the type of dice would be dependent on the class that the player has, or the weapon that the character has readied, but I want to retain the element of surprise and uncertainness for the players and myself alike. This is why it's not: 1. Roll initiative. 2. The ranged guys go. 3. the melee guys go. 4. the big spells go. 5. Goto 1.

It is called '(Owlbeared) Hackmaster Initiative', because in the so-called 5th edition of Hackmaster, the amount of wasted seconds before you can go depends on the type of information your character has. d12 wasted seconds for a standard encounter, and the more info your character has and the more readied the combatant is, the lower dice you use. Basically d4 wasted seconds if you 'surprise' the others. I've used a similar mechanic to Hackmaster, but for different reasons.

It is called 'Owlbeared (Hackmaster) Initiative, because my son started going to a public game of D&D 5e Dark Sun, and they use a similar rule, and I liked it, but I thought it was unpolished, in a wishy-washy storytelly way, and that group's name is Owlbears.

So there, that was probably too much info already... :grin:
 
The goal with the different dice types are, for example, to give an edge to the guy with a readied bow & arrow, against another combatant charging at him with a melee weapon. Also to give the effect that big spells are slow to prepare, and the caster needs a bit of protection from the others to pull one off. That's how it often was done in the olden timey wargames, and I want to experiment with that in a more modern game system.

And the declaration before rolling initiative. That's the only way I can think of how the desired effect can be achieved. The same character could do any of the options given, and depending on the players choice, the action might take shorter or longer time during a combat round. I think that otherwise the type of dice would be dependent on the class that the player has, or the weapon that the character has readied, but I want to retain the element of surprise and uncertainness for the players and myself alike. This is why it's not: 1. Roll initiative. 2. The ranged guys go. 3. the melee guys go. 4. the big spells go. 5. Goto 1.

It is called '(Owlbeared) Hackmaster Initiative', because in the so-called 5th edition of Hackmaster, the amount of wasted seconds before you can go depends on the type of information your character has. d12 wasted seconds for a standard encounter, and the more info your character has and the more readied the combatant is, the lower dice you use. Basically d4 wasted seconds if you 'surprise' the others. I've used a similar mechanic to Hackmaster, but for different reasons.

It is called 'Owlbeared (Hackmaster) Initiative, because my son started going to a public game of D&D 5e Dark Sun, and they use a similar rule, and I liked it, but I thought it was unpolished, in a wishy-washy storytelly way, and that group's name is Owlbears.

So there, that was probably too much info already... :grin:
I think there is some genius in the Hackmaster initiative and countup system, but Hackmaster itself is too bloated. Someone joked in another thread about me making a retroclone. Maybe what I really want to make is streamlined Hackmaster...
 
I think there is some genius in the Hackmaster initiative and countup system, but Hackmaster itself is too bloated. Someone joked in another thread about me making a retroclone. Maybe what I really want to make is streamlined Hackmaster...
I'm all for that, go for it! :thumbsup:
 
The goal with the different dice types are, for example, to give an edge to the guy with a readied bow & arrow, against another combatant charging at him with a melee weapon. Also to give the effect that big spells are slow to prepare, and the caster needs a bit of protection from the others to pull one off. That's how it often was done in the olden timey wargames, and I want to experiment with that in a more modern game system.
I think the second example gives more what I’m looking for. In the first one, I’d ask why ranged guys should have the advantage, if there is something you are trying to emulate or steer towards. The latter does that - encourage protect the mage and emulate that it takes a bit longer, without adding in extra turns to cast.

my concern with ranged die being higher is that they already tend to be high dex, so they will very regularly be going first, much more than a simple die step would indicate.

I think movement should probably get a larger die, assuming you are declaring what you are doing with your standard action. You aren’t manipulating or waiting for the right moment to strike. It also has the least direct impact.

There is some interesting design space that comes in if you allow move actions a higher die and allow shifting of move actions to standard.
And the declaration before rolling initiative. That's the only way I can think of how the desired effect can be achieved. The same character could do any of the options given, and depending on the players choice, the action might take shorter or longer time during a combat round. I think that otherwise the type of dice would be dependent on the class that the player has, or the weapon that the character has readied, but I want to retain the element of surprise and uncertainness for the players and myself alike. This is why it's not: 1. Roll initiative. 2. The ranged guys go. 3. the melee guys go. 4. the big spells go. 5. Goto 1.
My thinking with shifting it to after the roll is that you might alter what you are doing based on what others are doing. I suspect a “light declare”, like declaring I’m moving or melee attacking or ranged attacking, but not the specifics, would work just as well and is functionally the same as what you have there
 
I worked out a similar variant on Greyhawk Initiative a while back.

This was the gist of it.

Initiative is based on counting up from 1 - so lowest number goes first.

Dice Limit - 2 - you may not roll more than 2 dice.

Attacks of Opportunity: Ranged attacks in melee now provoke attacks of opportunity.

Spell interruption: a spell can be interrupted if the caster takes damage before their initiative.

Movement note: A character can move up to 15 feet for free, but they must roll a movement die to move more or take a different move action (such as run or disengage). They also can not split their movement around other actions (eg move before or after an attack) unless they roll a movement die.

Ranged Attack: - D4
Melee Attack: D8
Move: more than 15 ft or more than once - or to a different zone (or take another move action eg disengage) - D6
Cast a spell: D12+Spell level
Reload Crossbow: D6

Take Damage for an extra action. If you only rolled one dice for initiative but wish to take an additional action. (Eg. you made an attack but didn’t intend to move) you may choose to roll an extra die on your turn. This may not exceed your usual limit on dice. You take damage equal to this additional die roll.


The key thing here is the declaration is basic. You don't need to declare that you will attack a specific person, you just need to say you make a melee attack.
 
When I last ran B/X, I made one roll for the bad guys, and everyone that beat that roll went as a group, then the bad guys went, then everyone that rolled under went as a group. It gave that sense of team work that group initiative provides, but still let the high-Dex players feel special.
 
I think the second example gives more what I’m looking for. In the first one, I’d ask why ranged guys should have the advantage, if there is something you are trying to emulate or steer towards. The latter does that - encourage protect the mage and emulate that it takes a bit longer, without adding in extra turns to cast.

my concern with ranged die being higher is that they already tend to be high dex, so they will very regularly be going first, much more than a simple die step would indicate.

I think movement should probably get a larger die, assuming you are declaring what you are doing with your standard action. You aren’t manipulating or waiting for the right moment to strike. It also has the least direct impact.

There is some interesting design space that comes in if you allow move actions a higher die and allow shifting of move actions to standard.

My thinking with shifting it to after the roll is that you might alter what you are doing based on what others are doing. I suspect a “light declare”, like declaring I’m moving or melee attacking or ranged attacking, but not the specifics, would work just as well and is functionally the same as what you have there
In that website where the Owlbears Dark Sun houserules are, there was a mention about those who just dash, getting a higher initiative die, but I didn't think it was important. Now I'm thinking that I should include that one too...

In my houserules initiative bonus is based on Intelligence rather than Dexterity, although a high Dex score opens up the possibility of a getting a feat that gives advantage to initiative rolls.

About the 'light declare' variant, I think that might bog up gameplay somewhat, but the points that you make are very valid, and I think that I'd have to playtest first, before making a decision. Luckily I'll be able to do so next week.
 
About the aforementioned initiative houserules. We managed to do only one combat, because the rest of the time went to making characters and exploration, but I noticed that the declaration phase became quite redundant for the players after the first round.

They declared in whichever way they felt like it , and it was okay. It was pretty self-evident that the archer guys gonna archer, and the melee guys are going to melee. The only time I as a DM switched initiative dice from d12 to d10 was when the zombies finally came to contact with the melee guys after wading through swamp for at least 4 combat rounds, hehe. The players could've easily 'kited' them, but I gave the zombies a resistance to piercing weapons, and the archers were worried that they'll run out of shots.
 
Heh.

I found another mistakenly written optional rule from dungeon master guide. On page 249, under Adjudicating Areas of Effect, it is stated that an effect that is a cube or square has the same number of possible targets that an effect that has a spherical, circular or cylindrical effect with the same radius. For example, an effect that is a cube 10 feet wide has the same number of targets that a circle with a radius of 10 feet, while in reality, the circle would have a surface area that is 3,14 times larger than the square that is 10 feet on a side... :hmmm:
 
Heh.

I found another mistakenly written optional rule from dungeon master guide. On page 249, under Adjudicating Areas of Effect, it is stated that an effect that is a cube or square has the same number of possible targets that an effect that has a spherical, circular or cylindrical effect with the same radius. For example, an effect that is a cube 10 feet wide has the same number of targets that a circle with a radius of 10 feet, while in reality, the circle would have a surface area that is 3,14 times larger than the square that is 10 feet on a side... :hmmm:
Ah, but is the number of targets dependent on surface area, or on volume? And which of these two are we talking about:shade:?

main-qimg-15494f248c9bd24d49149664d2378043-pjlq


cube_in_sphere_1.jpg


I mean, either one can count as a "3 meters (10 feet) radius", but it's kinda different:grin:!
 
AsenRG AsenRG :thumbsup: Yeah, the optional rule is meant to ease eyeballing things when playing in theatre of the mind, but in reality it brings up more questions, especially when using the height dimension too. That's why I wrote a full page addition to my set of houserules yesterday...
 
Ah, but is the number of targets dependent on surface area, or on volume? And which of these two are we talking about:shade:?

I mean, either one can count as a "3 meters (10 feet) radius", but it's kinda different:grin:!
I haven't looked at the "rule" itself but... there's a bit more difference on a 10 foot across cube and a 10 foot radius sphere than those pics show. That's the sort of editing I 3xpect from WotC, screwing up between diameter & radius.
 
I haven't looked at the "rule" itself but... there's a bit more difference on a 10 foot across cube and a 10 foot radius sphere than those pics show. That's the sort of editing I 3xpect from WotC, screwing up between diameter & radius.
I thought it might be a misreading, but Moracai's right. The guidance as written treats a square with 30' sides as equivalent in size of a circle with 30' radius.

Prior to making this egregious error, it notes that "(t)he easiest way to address such uncertainty is to go with your gut and make a call." This is certainly better advice than continuing to read the rest of that section.
 
I thought it might be a misreading, but Moracai's right. The guidance as written treats a square with 30' sides as equivalent in size of a circle with 30' radius.

Prior to making this egregious error, it notes that "(t)he easiest way to address such uncertainty is to go with your gut and make a call." This is certainly better advice than continuing to read the rest of that section.
I almost always default to the square measurement rather than the round as my rule of thumb. It makes blowing shit up in dungeon environments easy-peasy rather than an exercise in higher mathematics.
 
I almost always default to the square measurement rather than the round as my rule of thumb. It makes blowing shit up in dungeon environments easy-peasy rather than an exercise in higher mathematics.
It's also easy enough to explain away diagetically. Why the hell would magic conform to the laws of physics anyway, when it's usually all about breaking those laws in the first place?
 
It's also easy enough to explain away diagetically. Why the hell would magic conform to the laws of physics anyway, when it's usually all about breaking those laws in the first place?
Yeah and really an awful lot of dungeon areas are going to be filled by the fireball unless it's a big room, and even then since a lot of people use grid squares and minis, counting squares is still easier.
 
Heh.

I found another mistakenly written optional rule from dungeon master guide. On page 249, under Adjudicating Areas of Effect, it is stated that an effect that is a cube or square has the same number of possible targets that an effect that has a spherical, circular or cylindrical effect with the same radius. For example, an effect that is a cube 10 feet wide has the same number of targets that a circle with a radius of 10 feet, while in reality, the circle would have a surface area that is 3,14 times larger than the square that is 10 feet on a side... :hmmm:
Isn’t that just due to the limitations of playing on a battle grid?
 
Isn’t that just due to the limitations of playing on a battle grid?
This optional rule is specifically for playing in the theatre of the mind. Lemme quote the book:

"Many spells and other game features create areas of
effect, such as the cone and the sphere. If you're not
using miniatures or another visual aid, it can sometimes
be difficult to determine who's in an area of effect and
who isn't. The easiest way to address such uncertainty
is to go with your gut and make a call.
If you would like more guidance, consider using
the Targets in Areas of Effect table. To use the table,
imagine which combatants are near one another, and
let the table guide you in determining the number of
those combatants that are caught in an area of effect.
Add or subtract targets based on how bunched up the
potential targets are. Consider rolling 1d3 to determine
the amount to add or subtract.


THEN THERE'S THE TABLE WHERE CUBE OR SQUARE HITS NO. OF TARGETS EQUAL TO ITS SIZE DIVIDED BY FIVE

AND

A SPHERE, CYLINDER OR CIRCLE THAT HITS NO. OF TARGETS EQUAL TO ITS RADIUS DIVIDED BY FIVE.


This approach aims at simplicity instead of spatial
precision. If you prefer more tactical nuance, consider
using miniatures."
 
Saw the alt cover for the new Phandelver book at the FLGS and I can't deny I was tempted. It looks better in person than this online pic.

But I already have the original Phandelver and no plans to play D&D in the near future so I was able to resist.

image.png
 
Saw the alt cover for the new Phandelver book at the FLGS and I can't deny I was tempted. It looks better in person than this online pic.

But I already have the original Phandelver and no plans to play D&D in the near future so I was able to resist.

View attachment 78047
Yeah I felt the same when I saw it at the local game shop. it's really cool looking but I don't need another 5e book. ::makes saving throw::
 
Yeah I felt the same when I saw it at the local game shop. it's really cool looking but I don't need another 5e book. ::makes saving throw::

I picked up Vaesen instead as it was well priced, has a cool concept that isn't more pseudo-medieval fantasy and I'd like to have a hardcopy alternative to CoC.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top