Topic: Melee vs Missile initiative

[RandalThor]

Without reading the thread...use a rule that states if target is farther than 10' missile user has auti init.  A player freindly version would read "if archer is more than 20% of your base rate away, he auto wins initiative."

Now that is the first common sense I've seen in this thread!

I agree, something like that could work well. Also, you can say that if the missile shooter is using a loaded and readied crossbow, and you are not in melee range already, then you are SOL.

[MariusH]

I'm not so sure. First, I'm not sure he'll always get to fire first, but let's say you want that - there's still a problem. And that problem is: Initiative is not just between two persons - it's between ALL the persons on the battlefield! So let's say your archer rolls init 8, your fighter rolls init 12. Now, ANOTHER archer rolled 10 (he's firing at the first archer), and ANOTHER fighter rolled 11 (he's attacking the first fighter). Now: Determine the course of action for this round (they all act in the same phase, ofcourse).

This is also the reason I dislike the "melee vs melee" mods to init. Sure, it seems to make sense, but the charging fighter with pole-arms rolls 10, the thief with a dagger rolls 13 and the archer, firing at the pole-arm fighter, rolls 12. HOWEVER, in "melee vs melee"-mods, charging with pole arms gives plenty of bonus (I think +5), so he should get to act before the thief. But what about the archer?

[MariusH]

Another issue with the swordsman attacking the archer: Let's say he DOES get initiative, and is allowed to close the 20 feet and attack before the archer gets to attack. Should the archer be allowed to attack at all? Ar should he be considered "in melee"? Someone wrote that he should be allowed to attack with a negative mod, which perhaps makes sense. Does it say so anywhere in the rulebook? And what if the swordsman attacked in snap and the archer wanted to fire in normal? Should he STILL get to fire with a penalty, or is he at least NOW considered "in melee", and thus prevented from using missile fire? These questions are rather important, because often you are willing to attack an archer at a very heavy penalty, just to get him "in melee", and prevent him from firing.

[Kristen Mork]

I think RMSR has a penalty for using a missile weapon while in melee (-50, IIRC).

[RandalThor]

I'm not so sure. First, I'm not sure he'll always get to fire first, but let's say you want that - there's still a problem. And that problem is: Initiative is not just between two persons - it's between ALL the persons on the battlefield! So let's say your archer rolls init 8, your fighter rolls init 12. Now, ANOTHER archer rolled 10 (he's firing at the first archer), and ANOTHER fighter rolled 11 (he's attacking the first fighter). Now: Determine the course of action for this round (they all act in the same phase, ofcourse).

This is also the reason I dislike the "melee vs melee" mods to init. Sure, it seems to make sense, but the charging fighter with pole-arms rolls 10, the thief with a dagger rolls 13 and the archer, firing at the pole-arm fighter, rolls 12. HOWEVER, in "melee vs melee"-mods, charging with pole arms gives plenty of bonus (I think +5), so he should get to act before the thief. But what about the archer?

All of this is why I tend to just go with what seems* to make sense at the time - as no 2 combats are going to be exactly the same. Just take the participants, terrain, and anything else you notice into consideration and make a judgment call. If you think the swordsman is fast enough, the bowmen unprepared enough, or whatever, then the swordsman can. If the terrain is too rough, the bowman too ready, etc... the swordsman can't.

*I surely don't expect anyone I am playing with to be perfect, and you certainly can't expect it from me, either. I will do my best (which I think is pretty-good), just as I assume you will be.

[Marc R]

I'd only apply melee vs melee mods, like longer weapon, to determine initiative between pairs. . . .like if the three fighters with spear, sword and dagger are attacking each other in a round, and all roll identical inits with identical mods. . .the mod for longer weapon will put the spear before the sword before the dagger. . . .but have no effect on order of actions vs the fourth fighter firing on the three with a crossbow.

If they all rolled a 10 and crossbow rolled better, he goes first, rolled worse, he goes last.

[MariusH]

But what if the crossbowman rolled better than the spear-man, but poorer than the guy with the dagger? However, due to the mods in "melee vs melee", the spearman still gets to attack the guy with the dagger before he attacks him back. When does the crossbowman fire? The daggerguy says "I rolled higher then the crossbowman, so I get to attack before him". However, the crossbowman says "Well, I rolled higher than the spearman, so I get to attack before him".

In my opinion, making something like "melee vs melee" mods to initiative was very poorly thought through. Initiative is NOT between two combattants, it is to determine the course of actions for EVERYONE on the battlefield. Thus, having a modifier "against that opponent" just doesn't make any sense. Either you GET a modifier, or you DON'T.

[mightypawn]

a far more common sense approach would be to go back to the reason for the initiative roll in the first place....

The initiative roll helps determine who Started their action first!

That's it!  That's all!  No more, no less!

if the swordsman Started first, awesome.... but guess what...  he has to move into range!  in the example he's moving 20 feet.  That's the full 20% move action at a running pace.  The distance MUST be closed PRIOR to his attack.  Since it will take 2 seconds (20% of the 10 second round) then the initiative for the attack MUST be adjusted accordingly, IMHO, 1 sec should count as 10 initiative (IE -20 to initiative).  We are talking about small chunks of time when we are counting initiative! but their value is great! 

If, the swordsman rolls an 11 and the Bowman rolls a 9, doing the math reveals that the bowman began at the 2.1 second mark, while the Swordsman began at the 0.9 second mark, and began running (for 2 seconds!). 

IMHO, common sense MUST be applied to the rules! 

Time warps are the jurisdiction of Mages, not Fighters!

The archer only has one advantage, and that is distance.  if you take that away, the only thing that bow is good for is firewood!

[mightypawn]

I will clarify some of my reasoning....

The initiative roll is 2d10.  Thus, if we are considering a 2 second period of time, we are cutting it up into 20 pieces or 0.1 seconds each. (some would argue 19, but I would answer that No-one has a reaction time of ZERO, and yes we are ignoring bonuses and penalties).

This changes from phase to phase obviously.for Normal Actions (5 seconds or 50%, this goes up to 0.25 seconds per initiative) and for Deliberate actions (8 seconds or 80%, we land at 0.4 seconds).

This view is bolstered by the rule in RMSS Under Sequencing Actions in a Round/Initiative Determination Phase.  Declared Movement gives -1 per 10% of maximum activity (based on declared pace).  This should be -2 per 10% in my opinion.

A post above took this as a -2 modifier to initiative. BY THE RULE...  20 Feet is 100% of the 20% Action allowed for Snap Action Phase. (assuming 50'/round normal pace and a declared pace of Running)

Thus BY THE RULEBOOK, the fighter in this example is -10 to Initiative. 

IMHO, the rule is far too understated and should be -2 per 10% of maximum activity (based on declared pace) because initiative is not based on d10, it is based on 2d10.

Thus this is the rule in my campaign.  I strongly suggest this adaptation to all!

[mightypawn]

If, the swordsman rolls an 11 and the Bowman rolls a 9, doing the math reveals that the bowman began at the 2.1 second mark, while the Swordsman began at the 0.9 second mark, and began running (for 2 seconds!). 

Pardon the typo!  The Archer begins his action at 1.1 seconds....  Sorry...  If it was more than 2 seconds he would be in 'Normal Action Phase'

[MariusH]

[/color]Thus this is the rule in my campaign.  I strongly suggest this adaptation to all!

Not a wise statement. Everyone should adapt the rules to fit the way THEY want to play, not the way YOU want to play. I very much disagree with your interpretation of the initiative penalty, and would take moving 20' as a -2 penalty, RAW. However, I dislike this rule, as I don't understand why movement should be penalized compared to other activity (loading a bow, making a melee attack, drawing a weapon), and will probably not use it at all. It MIGHT make sense in "react and melee", but I'm not sure. I disagree with firing a bow being "instant". Even more, I think mixing a round and phase based system with a second system, like you do (claiming that 10% equals 1 sec, which makes little sense if I make a 100% action in snap, you make a 100% action in normal and Johnny makes a 100% action in deliberate, for example) is a very bad idea. But of course, if it works for you, then that's how you should play it

Most importantly, I have different preferences than you, and accordingly I'll adapt the rules differently than you do - and everybody will be happier that way :-)

[RandalThor]

I will clarify some of my reasoning....

The initiative roll is 2d10.  Thus, if we are considering a 2 second period of time, we are cutting it up into 20 pieces or 0.1 seconds each. (some would argue 19, but I would answer that No-one has a reaction time of ZERO, and yes we are ignoring bonuses and penalties).

Well, you are already using a house rule in that, by RAW, the RM combat round is 10-seconds long, not 2-seconds. I would go with the every 10% action = -1 in a 10-second combat round. Now, if I was going with a 2-second combat round (and I could do that, though I prefer 3-6 seconds) the -1 per 10% is way to low; I could see going to a -1 per 5% or even 2%, which would mean that a 20% action will impose up to a -10 to the character's initiative.

However, I dislike this rule, as I don't understand why movement should be penalized compared to other activity (loading a bow, making a melee attack, drawing a weapon), and will probably not use it at all.

But, if the character starts out with no weapon drawn/readied, they do get an initiative penalty, it is just that most of the time we are assuming they have them out and ready. Drawing a weapon is a 20% action, so by RAW it should have a -2 initiative penalty. Right?

Melee Attack: 60-100%
Missile Attack: 30-60%

Those numbers tell me, that it is more complicated and time consuming to make a melee attack, so in most cases, if 2 combatants are starting off at 20' apart, one is using a sword and the other a bow, the bowman is much more likely to get a shot off before the swordsman can attack him. This is where I believe GM judgement comes into play: they determine if the difference in initiatives is enough to warrant the swordsman getting to and attacking first. Of course, this is also why there is snap, normal, and deliberate action phases (which I just modify initiatives by +/-10 instead of having an entirely new round structure). If you are the swordsmen, you had better call a snap rush - at the very least you can make it so the archer is getting the -50 shooting while in melee modifier.

[MariusH]

But, if the character starts out with no weapon drawn/readied, they do get an initiative penalty, it is just that most of the time we are assuming they have them out and ready. Drawing a weapon is a 20% action, so by RAW it should have a -2 initiative penalty. Right?

I think that is wrong. The ONLY initiative penalty, as I see RAW, is due to movement. Not any other action. So, drawing a weapon gives no penalty, whereas moving 20' gives a -2 penalty.

As for the two combatants starting 20' apart, one with melee and one with missile, the one with melee would have to first use movement in a phase (giving the bowman an opportunity to fire), OR he'd have to use react and melee. Now, for the react and melee situation, I can see the justification in giving the melee-person a penalty to initiative, based on how much he had to move. But certainly not if he moved in snap and attacked in normal, while the bowman decided to just attack in normal, doing nothing in snap phase.

[RandalThor]

I think that is wrong. The ONLY initiative penalty, as I see RAW, is due to movement. Not any other action. So, drawing a weapon gives no penalty, whereas moving 20' gives a -2 penalty.

And I think this is where my disconnect is: I don't see the reasoning in penalizing one type of movement and not another: It takes time to move a distance, and it takes time to draw a weapon. (Though, you can go for a quick-draw, of course.)

As for the two combatants starting 20' apart, one with melee and one with missile, the one with melee would have to first use movement in a phase (giving the bowman an opportunity to fire), OR he'd have to use react and melee. Now, for the react and melee situation, I can see the justification in giving the melee-person a penalty to initiative, based on how much he had to move. But certainly not if he moved in snap and attacked in normal, while the bowman decided to just attack in normal, doing nothing in snap phase.

The last sentence is why I mentioned the swordsman calling the snap action. But, beyond all that, I prefer to go a bit more on "feel". I will feel out the situation (including the players emotional state) and make a judgment call on how to rule it. The rules are there to give me a framework, and to help me think of things I might have otherwise missed, but in the end it is the GM (me, in this case  ) that should use their imagination to determine how it goes. IMO.

[markc]

 I would like to point out that I hope you are both using the same set of combat rules as sometimes they can vary from edition to edition.
MDC

[Kristen Mork]

... However, I dislike this rule, as I don't understand why movement should be penalized compared to other activity (loading a bow, making a melee attack, drawing a weapon), and will probably not use it at all. It MIGHT make sense in "react and melee", but I'm not sure. I disagree with firing a bow being "instant". Even more, I think mixing a round and phase based system with a second system, like you do (claiming that 10% equals 1 sec, which makes little sense if I make a 100% action in snap, you make a 100% action in normal and Johnny makes a 100% action in deliberate, for example) is a very bad idea. But of course, if it works for you, then that's how you should play it

Most importantly, I have different preferences than you, and accordingly I'll adapt the rules differently than you do - and everybody will be happier that way :-)

I'm with Marius on this one.  There are two initiative systems I've found palatable over the years: abstract, round-based systems and concrete, second-by-second systems.  In RM2, for example, we used a (heavily modified) version of CEATS, in which every action took time, so your attack was resolved 10 seconds after it started (on average).  In that system there was no need for initiative penalties for movement because movement was just another action that took time.

In RMSS, we largely use the rules as written.  And, they work quite well, especially if you ignore initiative modifiers for a) movement and b) melee v melee.

What I have found is that mixing a round system with a tactical (elapsed time) system is a headache.  Personally, I would recommend never going that route, but I'm glad you (mightpawn) found a hybrid that works for you.

[MariusH]

in the end it is the GM (me, in this case  ) that should use their imagination to determine how it goes. IMO.

I most whole-heartedly agree!

Also, I agree that penalizing movement, but not other actions (like drawing a weapon) seems like a bad idea. That is why I think the only situation I would apply the penalty to initiative would be in "react and melee", if at all.

Markc: I hope we do, too :-)

Peter Mork: I think we are very much in agreement here!

[goron]

I don't like the penalizing of movement either and belive that it's not needed, as you have to
spend a phase for movement. The only action where you don't spend a phase for movement
is "react and melee", but IHMO a penalty to initiative for "react and melee" does not work .

The purpos of "react and melee" is that you can choose your target when it's your turn to act
in that phase or to react on movement of your target. But the target you choose and the
movement that this target has made  affect how much you have to move and therefor the
penalty you would have recieved to your initiative.

[rdanhenry]

I think that is wrong. The ONLY initiative penalty, as I see RAW, is due to movement. Not any other action. So, drawing a weapon gives no penalty, whereas moving 20' gives a -2 penalty.

And I think this is where my disconnect is: I don't see the reasoning in penalizing one type of movement and not another: It takes time to move a distance, and it takes time to draw a weapon. (Though, you can go for a quick-draw, of course.)

Because movement is the only action not abstracted to the level that others are. It is the only action that has a % activity limit per phase. I actually don't think this is necessary and you could run RMSS/FRP without treating movement as a special case, but even the existing level of abstraction is hard for some people to grasp.

Also, someone said initiative indicates order in which actions begin. This is incorrect: it indicates the order in which actions are resolved. This is not the same as the order they happen in as various actions overlap in reality, but for game-mechanical reasons you need some abstraction that will allow you to determine conflicting actions.

[MariusH]

I agree; initiative does not determine when an action starts, but rather when it "takes effect".

Anyway: How do people who use the "melee vs melee" bonuses to initiativ solve the cases mentioned earlier, where A and B uses melee, and C uses missile. A rolls 12 for initiative, B rolls 10 for initiative, and C rolls 11 for initiative, but B gets a +5 "melee vs melee" bonus to initiative?