17:05 - No spell coponents but roll at disadvantage 19:33 - Over-damage transfers to a new creature 21:54 - Deck of inspiration 25:20 - Inventory slots 28:10 - Removing initiative 32:20 - Goodbye 32:25 - Viscous Mockery does not work on most monsters because they cant hear 36:57 - No attunement slots 39:44 - Negative initiative makes you lose your first turn. 42:46 - Weapon speed 43:44 - Critical kill 49:36 - Staggered Initiative
31:05 in BG3 which you'll soon see when you play. There is this thing where if you and your party members are between 2 enemies initiative you can choose who goes. I.e. say the monster's initiative is 7, yours and Gale's is 6 and 3 and the next monster is 2, it means you that when it's your turn you can say, no Gale can go and I'll go after him and then the last monster can have his turn. It makes for good strategizing.
We just play dimension 20 rules of like you can choose to delay ur initiative and/or hold your action, we generally prefer delaying initiative though because it means you can control your whole turn and jump in when appropriate but you can’t do two turns in a round
Science stuff: carbonation is dissolved carbon dioxide. In cans/bottles it is under pressure, which keeps it dissolved, and when the containers are opened, it begins to come out of solution and gives you the spicy bubbles
In the ttrpg Fabula Ultima the turn order always starts with the players (unless there are two boss level enemies in which one of them goes first always) and they get to choose who goes and then it volleys back and forth Player- enemy- player - enemy so forth. That way people who need to get buffs and debuffs off can do so first. It does require a lot of coordination between players and could break down if you have a large group however.
19:35 this rule sounds like the optional rule in 2014 DMG which basically allows for what OP is saying. It's only for melees I think and the enemies all have to be in reach of the person attacking. The differences here though is that in the 2014 DMG it says that you have to slay the enemy from a state of no harm (so full HP) all the way to 0 HP and here it's saying that when you get a crit you move the extra damage over. Which I've seen this come up every now and then cause it's always a bit unfortunate when you get a crit on a 5 HP goblin and there's a full HP goblin right next to you etc.
I do think that it needs to be somewhat more detailed however. Because like you said how does it interact with ranged? (I actually do something similar though that if an enemy is in the line of fire in a 30 feet cone from the original target it goes through to the person next in line. It makes positioning matter a lot more as a ranged martial where you might get those killing blow crits. I wouldn't allow it for say an AOE spell though, especially if there is a saving throw attached to it
I think flex initiative systems fail near the fringes so often that it doesn't work as a general rule but some tables, especially with stable groups, can probably massage something that fits them better
31:15 My DM has us draw tarot cards. They get a card for each creature type in the battle (Like 1 for Goblins and 1 for Hobgoblins), and each player gets 1 card (+1 extra at +5 Initiative). The cards are shuffled and drawn every round. It's been interesting so far at Level 6, it hasn't caused any particular problems yet.
On the Vicious Mockery rule, there's a rule in pathfinder 2e where creatures with the "Mindless" trait aren't affected by spells/actions with the "Mental" trait. However, this isn't pathfinder, and the reasoning for disallowing it seems more of a case of the DM saying "I don't want my creatures to have disadvantage" That, or (and I'm gonna be that annoying person)... Maybe this DM should run pathfinder instead lmao
I would imagine "ignoring components but rolling with disadvantage" being more about verbal and somatic components. For example, you can cast a spell concealed, underwater, when restrained, or something like that. I mean, the possible reaction to this may vary from "it's unfair because there's a meta magic for it" to "it's useless because nobody cares in the first place", but on average, it makes sense
Been here since the beginning and just want to say that I am so happy you are still doing this. Love your podcast so much. I hope you continue to be successful. All the love and good vibes your way.
Rule 4: I like the idea of size limitations on items. For parties that don't have bags of holding on them, I like the idea of someone needing to have to know how much space they have in their pack or on their person to be able to fit anything they might be carrying. I understand why it isn't an official rule, because that'd just be one more number to add to encumbrance rules, but I kind of wish it was.
I often do no initiative with small combat. I generally have only one enemy or a group of enemies with those small combats. If the players manage to figure out they are being attacked in time or decide to attack themselves, they go first. If the monsters get the drop on them, the monsters go first. The players decide who of them goes first. Can only go once a round. I (as the dm) make sure all the players had a turn before the enemies go again (no matter if that is at the top or the end of the round). With bigger combat (multiple kinds of enemies or groups) we do use initiative
The biggest issue with non fixed initiative rules in DnD is that so many features rely on ending at a set point in time (usually start or finish of a creatures turn), this means anything that allows players or the DM to change initiative order can seriously affect things like stunning strike, monster reload abilities etc. So you then have to consider how you change each effect to keep it balanced. (For instance stunning strike could see a creature stunned while all other PCs get 2 rounds of combat against it).
I have with a small group of friends ran smaller combats without initiative. We basically did, all the players go and then all the monsters go. But only for small, theater of the mind combat with 3 players.
Rule 1: For the second rule, does that include party members? Like, if you overkill a creature with the same AC as a player character, and they're the nearest creature to that enemy, does that player character then also take damage? That might be the risk/reward for the rule, and if that's the case, that's a shitty rule, because it means you have to deal -exact- damage to kill any creature, or else you may hurt your friends, but the value of damage dealt is based on randomized dice rolls, so you have little control over it.
I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with initiative as it is. It’s based on dex because it’s your reaction time. It really doesn’t take that long to roll for, and if it does, just have everyone roll it once at the beginning of the session and roll your enemies ahead of time 🤷♀️
Put in a full work week worth of rivals while also working full time eeek. I’ve been playing rocket and moon knight and recently started playing groot also
On the encumbrance rules a geme I also folloew uses bulk. You have 5 + strength modifiers. Items are eother 0 3 bulk. This is a modern setting game, so maybe maybw tweak those numbers abit. Its interesting, I go "juat don't take the piss" when it comes to encumbrance.
is it useful to bring up a different game's mechanics when talking about d&d? maybe, cause a game i've played a couple times had flexible initiative that might work in d&d as well. basically the combat was handled in rounds, and the round would only end after every combatant had had their turn (i think we held up a finger to mark if we had went or not, to avoid anyone getting skipped). the gm chose which character would go first depending on the situation, then at the end of their turn they choose who goes next (like described in the homebrew rule), and the person with the last turn on the round gets to choose who starts the next round. the thing is, if everyone chooses a party member, yes that's an early upper hand for the party, but in a combat with several enemies that'd mean they're all pooled at the end of the round, and kick off the start of the next round, so in most situations you had to strategically give the next turn to the enemy. i think that worked really well in that game, enabled enough time-sensitive turn planning and cool co-operative moves with other party members, and added some fun strategy choices
17:05 - No spell coponents but roll at disadvantage
19:33 - Over-damage transfers to a new creature
21:54 - Deck of inspiration
25:20 - Inventory slots
28:10 - Removing initiative
32:20 - Goodbye
32:25 - Viscous Mockery does not work on most monsters because they cant hear
36:57 - No attunement slots
39:44 - Negative initiative makes you lose your first turn.
42:46 - Weapon speed
43:44 - Critical kill
49:36 - Staggered Initiative
THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!
31:05 in BG3 which you'll soon see when you play. There is this thing where if you and your party members are between 2 enemies initiative you can choose who goes. I.e. say the monster's initiative is 7, yours and Gale's is 6 and 3 and the next monster is 2, it means you that when it's your turn you can say, no Gale can go and I'll go after him and then the last monster can have his turn. It makes for good strategizing.
We just play dimension 20 rules of like you can choose to delay ur initiative and/or hold your action, we generally prefer delaying initiative though because it means you can control your whole turn and jump in when appropriate but you can’t do two turns in a round
Science stuff: carbonation is dissolved carbon dioxide. In cans/bottles it is under pressure, which keeps it dissolved, and when the containers are opened, it begins to come out of solution and gives you the spicy bubbles
Professor Tula to the rescue 😊
In the ttrpg Fabula Ultima the turn order always starts with the players (unless there are two boss level enemies in which one of them goes first always) and they get to choose who goes and then it volleys back and forth Player- enemy- player - enemy so forth. That way people who need to get buffs and debuffs off can do so first. It does require a lot of coordination between players and could break down if you have a large group however.
19:35 this rule sounds like the optional rule in 2014 DMG which basically allows for what OP is saying. It's only for melees I think and the enemies all have to be in reach of the person attacking. The differences here though is that in the 2014 DMG it says that you have to slay the enemy from a state of no harm (so full HP) all the way to 0 HP and here it's saying that when you get a crit you move the extra damage over. Which I've seen this come up every now and then cause it's always a bit unfortunate when you get a crit on a 5 HP goblin and there's a full HP goblin right next to you etc.
I do think that it needs to be somewhat more detailed however. Because like you said how does it interact with ranged? (I actually do something similar though that if an enemy is in the line of fire in a 30 feet cone from the original target it goes through to the person next in line. It makes positioning matter a lot more as a ranged martial where you might get those killing blow crits. I wouldn't allow it for say an AOE spell though, especially if there is a saving throw attached to it
I think flex initiative systems fail near the fringes so often that it doesn't work as a general rule but some tables, especially with stable groups, can probably massage something that fits them better
31:15 My DM has us draw tarot cards. They get a card for each creature type in the battle (Like 1 for Goblins and 1 for Hobgoblins), and each player gets 1 card (+1 extra at +5 Initiative). The cards are shuffled and drawn every round. It's been interesting so far at Level 6, it hasn't caused any particular problems yet.
On the Vicious Mockery rule, there's a rule in pathfinder 2e where creatures with the "Mindless" trait aren't affected by spells/actions with the "Mental" trait.
However, this isn't pathfinder, and the reasoning for disallowing it seems more of a case of the DM saying "I don't want my creatures to have disadvantage"
That, or (and I'm gonna be that annoying person)... Maybe this DM should run pathfinder instead lmao
I loved the pakman one giving such creative lore to such a simple game. The dnd one would be a horror story if it was an actual campaign
I would imagine "ignoring components but rolling with disadvantage" being more about verbal and somatic components. For example, you can cast a spell concealed, underwater, when restrained, or something like that. I mean, the possible reaction to this may vary from "it's unfair because there's a meta magic for it" to "it's useless because nobody cares in the first place", but on average, it makes sense
Been here since the beginning and just want to say that I am so happy you are still doing this. Love your podcast so much. I hope you continue to be successful. All the love and good vibes your way.
Rule 4: I like the idea of size limitations on items. For parties that don't have bags of holding on them, I like the idea of someone needing to have to know how much space they have in their pack or on their person to be able to fit anything they might be carrying. I understand why it isn't an official rule, because that'd just be one more number to add to encumbrance rules, but I kind of wish it was.
I often do no initiative with small combat. I generally have only one enemy or a group of enemies with those small combats. If the players manage to figure out they are being attacked in time or decide to attack themselves, they go first. If the monsters get the drop on them, the monsters go first. The players decide who of them goes first. Can only go once a round. I (as the dm) make sure all the players had a turn before the enemies go again (no matter if that is at the top or the end of the round). With bigger combat (multiple kinds of enemies or groups) we do use initiative
The biggest issue with non fixed initiative rules in DnD is that so many features rely on ending at a set point in time (usually start or finish of a creatures turn), this means anything that allows players or the DM to change initiative order can seriously affect things like stunning strike, monster reload abilities etc. So you then have to consider how you change each effect to keep it balanced. (For instance stunning strike could see a creature stunned while all other PCs get 2 rounds of combat against it).
I have with a small group of friends ran smaller combats without initiative. We basically did, all the players go and then all the monsters go. But only for small, theater of the mind combat with 3 players.
Rule 1: For the second rule, does that include party members? Like, if you overkill a creature with the same AC as a player character, and they're the nearest creature to that enemy, does that player character then also take damage? That might be the risk/reward for the rule, and if that's the case, that's a shitty rule, because it means you have to deal -exact- damage to kill any creature, or else you may hurt your friends, but the value of damage dealt is based on randomized dice rolls, so you have little control over it.
I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with initiative as it is. It’s based on dex because it’s your reaction time. It really doesn’t take that long to roll for, and if it does, just have everyone roll it once at the beginning of the session and roll your enemies ahead of time 🤷♀️
Cloak and Dagger main here. Really a Dagger main but Cloak comes along for the ride.
Put in a full work week worth of rivals while also working full time eeek. I’ve been playing rocket and moon knight and recently started playing groot also
Those blankets looks amazingly soft... Makes me want to buy some new blankets xD
Listening while writing a program for a CNC. Im totally stealing the Deck of Inspiration idea!
On the encumbrance rules a geme I also folloew uses bulk.
You have 5 + strength modifiers. Items are eother 0 3 bulk. This is a modern setting game, so maybe maybw tweak those numbers abit.
Its interesting, I go "juat don't take the piss" when it comes to encumbrance.
is it useful to bring up a different game's mechanics when talking about d&d? maybe, cause a game i've played a couple times had flexible initiative that might work in d&d as well.
basically the combat was handled in rounds, and the round would only end after every combatant had had their turn (i think we held up a finger to mark if we had went or not, to avoid anyone getting skipped). the gm chose which character would go first depending on the situation, then at the end of their turn they choose who goes next (like described in the homebrew rule), and the person with the last turn on the round gets to choose who starts the next round. the thing is, if everyone chooses a party member, yes that's an early upper hand for the party, but in a combat with several enemies that'd mean they're all pooled at the end of the round, and kick off the start of the next round, so in most situations you had to strategically give the next turn to the enemy.
i think that worked really well in that game, enabled enough time-sensitive turn planning and cool co-operative moves with other party members, and added some fun strategy choices
I hate loose initiatives changes. Just let me roll and I’ll take my turn but I hate someone else deciding when I take my turn
Freaking love marvel rivals
Cloak and Dagger, Mantis, and Luna
If it takes over an hour to go through two rounds of combat, that’s a DM skill issue… combat is slow, but it shouldn’t be that slow…