D&D initiative system

>"the initiative system isn't realistic and it's very slow"

Is he seriously not able to wait six seconds for his turn because it's not realistic enough and boring?

Also judging by his other videos he seems to have a very shitty DM so instead of blaming him he blames the games.

youtube.com/watch?v=_P7iSbnd4WU

I will never watch one of his videos no matter how many times you post his shit here.

Stop looking for views you little ass nugget.

It's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to enable relatively simple gameplay.

Watched like a minute of it.
>initiative should be based on experience
Okay, yeah, making your level involved in your initiative roll is a fine plan. Though as you level, you're likely fighting against relatively equal leveled foes so your bonuses cancel each other out, really. But still, yeah, including level is probably fine.

>some characters would just freeze, while more experienced characters would act!
Argument sort of lost me here. If the player character is so taken off guard by combat starting that they freeze, circumstances should have led to a surprise round anyway. What's the point?

Well, last week, but I don't feel like making accurate picture for this shit yet again.

Lindybeige is literally autistic
Just ignore him

>What's the point?
Yet another clickbait video, of course!

4e did that. +1/2 level to init

Yeah and it was totally fair to add. Though wasn't 4e even more focused on equal leveled opponents, often rendering it a pointless bonus? It's been years since I have played 4e.

Does he not realize that you don't 'wait' around, it's just a game mechanic that you're supposed to visualize happening at roughly the same time?

Why would Lindybeige post his videos here? He has hundreds of subscribers already.

Lindybeige got fired from his position as an instructor because he published an article stating how vegetarians should be force-fed lard.

Also he rejects data about climate change.

And most of his videos are him talking out of his ass with no citations.

Lloyd is an ignorant fool. We've established this before.

But it's not realistic, everyone should be playing at the same time just like in real life.

SPANDAU
P
A
N
D
A
U

I think you might be onto something. When those orcs jump out of the bushes, I'll give you and a few strongmen some blades and get you to fight. And if you want to seduce that barmaid because you're a Bard, then we'll all go to the bar and you have to pick up a girl as hot as how I described the NPC. Or at least as close as we can find.

>Also he rejects data about climate change.
Does he deny any possibility that human behaviour is at least partially responsible or does he just reject the doomsday predictions that change every couple years after they don't come true?

Eh you could go +/- 5 without too much trouble. The main thing was 'if they get too much lower than the PCs convert them to minions'

he denies it is happening at all

it is from one of his drunken rant videos from a few years back

>Lindybeige got fired from his position as an instructor because he published an article stating how vegetarians should be force-fed lard.
How does a dance instructor lose his job because of this?

People like him are probably the second worst group of players in this hobby

>"this isn't realistic, why would my half-pixie half-centaur barbarian warlock dragonborn just wait his turn before casting Endless Oath of Eternal Suffering at the Ultra Hydrademon Robot? Greg's 3/5ths Gelatinous Ooze 1/5th Angel 1/5th Dog Paladin Sorcerer Dragonhunter Inquisitor Tailor shouldn't be faster than me!"

>1/5th Angel 1/5th Dog

He was a professor. Teaching dancing was part time.

You could make the point that BaB should be included in initiative, or in systems where there's no BaB a bonus for martial character as they're more battle-hardened.

Compared to wizard.

Would actually make a nice balance in pathfinder, in our HEAVILY MODDED campaign. Food for thoughts.

"They should use a system that makes more sense, like RuneQuest!"
>like RQ

I'll never really understand how D&D initiative devolved from its AD&D 2e state to what it has now.

In those days there were four simple steps:

1. The DM decides what the NPCs and foes are going to do in the round.
2. The players declare what each of their characters are going to do that round.
3. Both sides roll initiative, and modify on an individual basis if necessary
4. Then everything happens.

It was neat. See, all the weapons had certain speeds and spells had cast times that could modify when the action you declared took place. Faster weapons could more reliably strike spellcasters, for example, and spoil their magic. That was the thing about daggers, their speed was 2. Most spells were around 6 or 7. If you were up against a spellcaster you had a really good chance of getting your attack in before his spell was done. Popular weapons that did more damage were higher. Two handed swords were 10. That is, they added 10 to your initiative in a system where the lowest result gets adjudicated first. More usual weapons were 5-7 or so. You'd run the risk of taking a lot of magic to the face if you ignored the faster weapons instead of using them wisely. Throwing weapons were great for this, they were usually 2-4 in speed. 'I throw my axe at the wizard' was a good and sensible option for many an adventurer.

It might seem involved but players knew thier own equipment, and a party would come to know what they could do together in a round and would act very smoothly. I think the current way is actually slower and more clunky. 'You're first. What's your character doing? Okay roll. Here are the results. You're next. Okay roll. This happens,' etc.

It makes a huge difference because at the time your players were all taking their turn together and seeing the results play out while rolling when needed. The whole round would be described by the DM in an exciting summary then you'd get organised for the next round.

I miss it, lads.

My mistake, two handed swords were fifteen.
Plus fifteen on a d10! It would take serious effort, positioning and/or magic to not go last with you were a fan of the heavy blades.

That of course, carries its own ridiculousness though.

If you've got two fighters going at it, both relatively even in things like training and speed, and one's got a two handed sword, and the other guy's got some sort of arming sword and shield arrangement, chances are, it's the guy with the longer weapon who is going to have the first chance to get a strike in, not the guy with the smaller one.

... and that's ridiculous how?

OP, here is a clue.
If you want to have discussion, don't use that ugly, Sothern English mug as your image.

It also used to be a balance system between magic and martial.

2nd ed did have a great system for initiative, and was teh first introduction of 'concentration' for spells.
it also seemed to be a bit more equipment based then our current systems.
everything but thaco man...

anyways mouse guards system is also a - declair your actions then GO !.

i like your post and i am now thinking of a homebrew for bring a system as such into 5th.

cause those systems sure do cut back on the metagaming

How the fuck is "rune quest" done then? The way he describes it, it's just imagination story time, with audience participation.

Aye there is an element of that, but it serves the romance of the 'huge sword' rather than the realism.

Also, modern D&D still has that problem (if it is a problem) in that the two handed sword won't confer a striking advantage over a smaller one. I don't really count it as an issue though.

No it's opposite problem. Two handed swords go last (highest initiative in a system where lower is better), when they should by all rights go first because they have longer reach. If speed is about who hits first, the reach is king, and the fastest weapons are the biggest ones, while the slowest are the smallest ones. The advantages of shorter weapons are mainly in how portable they are, with some specialized exceptions like maces and warhammers.

Is this Sheila?

You know it, daddy.

I though he was from northern England. Just listen to his accent.

He leaves in or near Newcastle, but he grew up in the South, like all civilised folk.

This. His accent is upper middle class northern british, he's probably from somewhere like sheffield or nottingham.

I like the way Ars Magica 5e does it. Weapons don't have speeds per se, instead they engage at a certain distance. If one fighter has a polearm and engages at "near" range, then a guy with a dagger can parry or dodge his attacks but can't make any attacks of his own until he manages to close to "reach" or "touch", which requires the equivalent of a successful attack roll. The polearm user then either fights at the new range (with a penalty for being too close) OR tries to "dodge" back out to the range his weapon suits. This results in a very dynamic combat, with fighters manoeuvring organically and mostly fighting defensively until they get into a perfect position and strike decisively.

Because the system presented gives you the opposite; that the guy with the smaller weapon, all things being equal, is more likely to get the first shot in.


That's what I was saying, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear; that the guy with the longer weapon should be able to hit first most of the time, and the system produces the opposite effect.

He's right, but for the wrong reasons

Savage Worlds initative is superior in every way.

>Does he deny any possibility that human behaviour is at least partially responsible or does he just reject the doomsday predictions
Honestly, the second one is almost worse imo.
If you don't think climate change is happening/don't think humans are causing it, fine, it makes sense to continue on our current path
If you think climate change is happening and caused by humans, then you pretty much HAVE to admit it's cause for concern, and that we should try to do something about it
Ignoring specific predictions for a moment: Literally every sudden, major climatic shift in the geologic record has been correlated with major die offs (not necessarily mass extinctions). This is something that we know is a huge problem, regardless of the specific current circumstances. If you think the climate is shifting, you should be very afraid.

Hey, leave lindybeige alone alright? He seems like a nice enough history teacher and makes plenty of good points.

>He seems like a nice enough history teacher
apparently not, thread tells me he got canned
>plenty of good points
apparently not, no one can seem to name any

While I wouldn't be one to judge a person's character based off the anonymous opinions of the delicately autistic chimps on tg I will admit I've never watched any of his tabletop game videos, which must surely be mostly opinion too.

I like his history myth debunking ones or when he takes the piss out of bad historical movies.

as a young person who grew up in a small village and did not play any roleplayin games until recent years this sounds very straight forward and just plain fun

Could one way to solve this be to reattribute the 'speed' number to 'reach'?

For my home brew we were trying to figure out how to do simultaneous combat and a friend suggested that there be 3 reaches, short, medium, and long, then a 4th that would be ranged. Short is fists and daggers, medium for arming swords, axes, etc. and long for spears or other longer two-handed weapons. Ranged is anything farther than long that is a projectile. Those numbers might not be spot on, but you get the idea.

We figured it would make formation fighting and spears actually useful if you could stop someone from closing distance, or even stack a spearman behind ol' sword and board for a double attack when enemies close range.

It hasn't made it past that point for lack of playing around with the idea, so we haven't figured out much beyond if you are at the right reach for your weapon and not for the other guy, you go first.

We never figured out when spells go off in relation, and when the missile weapons hit.

>Wah why doesn't my dumb dungeon pillaging simulator account for the nuanced advantages of reach in a melee situation

Just play Burning Wheel you simulationist fucks

I was looking for

Explain savage worlds initiative system to one (me) that doesnt have the pdf at hand and has never tried the system.

He'd probably like 4e more than any other style. The dude is all about war board game style stuff and 4e was focused on that.

In 1e, weapons always struck casters before their magic went off regardless of initiative and longer weapons always got first strike regardless of initiative. Also, trying to leave an engagement also made martials strike first against those trying to leave

I'm honestly not sure what he's talking about. From what I remember, it's basically D&D initiative with cards. The only difference is that you may get some special effects when drawing certain cards (drawing an Ace gives you massive bonuses for the turn IIRC).

>Enemy is 60ft away
>Higher initiative
>Charges a bow and arrow user before he can even do anything

That's one of the things I really like about the RuneQuest system. It takes both the speed and length of the weapon, as well as your character's reach, in consideration when it comes to determining who strikes first.

"Wait, what is going on? Oh shit, that guy is charging me, better loose an arrow! Damn, it missed, better pull back another and CRAP SHIT HE'S RIGHT NEXT TO ME! Ok, calm down, shoot another one and fuckshitdamn it graced his armor, I need draw another on-"

See the charging guy was ready while the archer was caught off guard and was fumbling with the arrows. During that 6 seconds the characters don't just fucking stand in place like a JRPG character.

Maybe your bowman should have had a bit of initiative and been ready to shoot before he got charged, eh?

That fucking video about pikes made me never take a damn thing he says seriously.

What did you he say to make you think that?

Sorry, he's from Sussex and moved up north during his uni years

>Burning Wheel
>As anti-simulationist game
Have you tried eating a bullet? Because you definitely should

What cunt picked that font

Please familiarize yourself with GR11.

What you are looking for is speed factor initiative, a variant rule in the 5e DMG

Noice.

>We figured it would make formation fighting and spears actually useful if you could stop someone from closing distance, or even stack a spearman behind ol' sword and board for a double attack when enemies close range.

No what you do is you stack your spearmen so that your enemies have to go through two or three ranks of spear points before they can even attack your front rank. This is how both the ancient phalanx and the renaissance pike blocks worked. In the case of the Macedonian phalanx, the long sarissa actually allowed them to present five ranks of spears before the enemy, with trade-off that their phalanxes were a lot less manoeuvrable and more vulnerable to flanking.

>Macedonian phalanx
>Less maneuverable than earlier greek phalanxes

Do you have any idea what the fuck you're talking about?

Tits are too big.

I have yet to need any kind of rolled initiative, because I am a good GM who knows how to give everyone time to shine, and my players are all cool people who don't try to hog the spotlight.

Not that rolled initiative has ever solved spotlight hogging, or that I could not, as the GM, solve any similar problem without it.

Why not just straightup say "I'm better than you" ?

Not him, but he's right.
Phalanx was bad at maeuvering. And all Macedonians did was double the size of them, quadrupling the problem due to the square-cube law.
Shit wasn't that obvious, but the moment all the successor kingdoms started facing non-phalanx formations, they were out-maneuvered by pretty much everyone and their dog.

Pic related and we've come to the conclusion many times that he has a shit DM.

>Not him, but he's right.


No, he's incredibly wrong. Macedonian phalanxes had capabilities like "Turning around" and "breaking up into several groups", which Greek phalanxes did not.

>Phalanx was bad at maeuvering.

Yes, in comparison to lighter troops.

>. And all Macedonians did was double the size of them, quadrupling the problem due to the square-cube law.

Retard. There was no standard size of a Greek phalanx, which was part of the problem. A Macedonian phalanx was a 256 man discrete unit, and you'd arrange them, block by block, to form your line. Each formation could and did maneuver independently.

Greek phalanxes, on the other hand was 'Everyone who was fucking there from this city', and when you did have multiple cities acting in league, you had multiple phalanxes on the battlefield, some being a few hundred men, others being 10,000+ men, and all attempting to turn with all their buddies, and almost always universally failing.


And that's not even going into the fact that the Macedonians fielded professional armies, whereas the bulk of Greek phalanxes (although not all, the Spartans ring to mind, as do a number of later professional mercenary forces) were citizens militia, with limited training in something as complex as maneuvering in body.

>Shit wasn't that obvious, but the moment all the successor kingdoms started facing non-phalanx formations, they were out-maneuvered by pretty much everyone and their dog.

No, they didn't start getting outmaneuvered until the Romans showed up. Facing native revolts, smaller kingdoms at the borders of their empires, they were not getting outmaneuvered; if anything, they winded up exporting the phalanx system to other peoples.

>Calling people names will help my cause, while I'm trying to pretend unit infamously bad at maeuvering wasn't bad
>It's just all a coincidence it was routed, flanked and out-maeuvered on every given chance by non-phalanx armies

>Calling people names will help my cause, while I'm trying to pretend unit infamously bad at maeuvering wasn't bad


I'm calling you names because you're

A) Wrong

B) Mis-stating the entire premise of the statement, namely a comparison between Macedonian and Greek phalanxes, not between Macedonian phalanxes and other units.

C) You very clearly are sticking to your guns on the basis of nothing.


To be clear, since I don't think you're very bright. I am not saying that the Macedonian phalanx was a particularly nimble sort of formation. I am saying, however, that they were significantly more so than the earlier Greek phalanxes, longer spears nonwithstanding, in opposition of the statement of post>It's just all a coincidence it was routed, flanked and out-maeuvered on every given chance by non-phalanx armies

Yeah? When did this happen before running into the Romans? When did the Persian light infantry and cavalry armies outmaneuver the Macedonian phalanxes? When did the Nubians get the upper hand on Ptolemaic Egypt? When did the Thracians outmaneuver the Antigonids? Why did the Mauryans give the Selucids 500 war elephants as part of a peace deal?

Why/how is he a shit GM?

I thought a combat round in dnd happened near simultaniously and the initiative order was mainly for organization and effect spells

Everyone draws cards from the same deck, some players have abilities that let them draw more than one card, they use the highest. s

Jokers give bonuses but cause the deck to be reshuffled. Aces high, down from there.

Players can hold their turn off, and try to interrupt (opposed agility roll) anyone who goes after them. If they have a joker, they automatically succeed.

You would be correct.

>Yeah? When did this happen before running into the Romans? When did the Persian light infantry and cavalry armies outmaneuver the Macedonian phalanxes? When did the Nubians get the upper hand on Ptolemaic Egypt? When did the Thracians outmaneuver the Antigonids? Why did the Mauryans give the Selucids 500 war elephants as part of a peace deal?

What a fucking pillock. The Macedonians and the Successor States weren't outmanoeuvred by all those you mentioned because of the manoeuvrability of the phalanx but because they also had good skirmishers and heavy cavalry to protect their flanks.

What page is this on?

>Damn, it missed
>shoot another one and fuckshitdamn it graced his armor
Except that doesn't happen because the guy doesn't even get to fire his bow, that's the whole complaint.

>>It's just all a coincidence it was routed, flanked and out-maeuvered on every given chance by non-phalanx armies

Show me some examples, user.

Nevermind, found it. Page 271 in case anybody else was wondering.

What's Veeky Forums's opinion of Lindybeige? Veeky Forums seems to hate him outright.

Once again 5e fixes what 3.5 broke.

I liked all 3 videos I watched. He didn't say any stupid shit in them, but he acted like he was about to.

>Subtract Spell Level
But muh super quick Power Word Kill

He's an idiot who takes the shit that random strangers in pubs say as gospel.

Literally. In his scimitar video, he concludes that medieval warriors fought with the weapon a certain way based solely on what a friend of a friend said. He didn't bother looking up any training manuals for the weapons, or any historical records of battles in which scimitars were used.

No, he took a third-hand account of an event that happened decades ago, and instead of using it as an interesting jumping-off point for more thorough research, he just presented it as absolute truth.

He's an idiot, and not a trustworthy source of historical facts.

I do't know what the fuck you mean, I'm not the same user

>Veeky Forums seems to hate him outright.
They have threads about him every single day that get a lot of replies so I wouldn't say they hate him

>t.frog
That video was from years ago when there wasn't that much information available so it's understandable. Yes even today he says a lot of bullshit but he never claimed to be an expert. The only reason people think what he says he considers it as undeniable fact is because of his British voice and his choice of clothing. They see a wacky British professor when he never claimed to be one and he says a lot of the times in his videos that these are just his theories. And also from time to time he makes really good ones that actual experts like Matt Easton agree with.

>They have threads about him every single day that get a lot of replies so I wouldn't say they hate him

That's not really a good indicator of whether they like him or not.

Well, so how are you supposed to know which of his videos are worthless and which ones are useful?

I used to like him a lot for a few of his videos that turned out to be wrong, so now I'm wary of watching his videos in the first place now. Which is a shame, because a few of them were pretty entertaining.

>Well, so how are you supposed to know which of his videos are worthless and which ones are useful?
Very simple guide
>Direct demonstration video
Roughtly 10% of it is shit, like the torch series or demonstration of crossbow mechanism
>Visits in museum
Roughtly 25% of it is shit made on the fly to fit in narrative
>Standing in his flat and talking about any given subject
It's 60% or higher shit content
>It involves Brits or uses Brits or Brit related stuff as the point of reference
It's 95% crap

>Roughtly 10% of it is shit, like the torch series
Wait, are you serious? I thought that video was legit. Wasn't the general gist of it that "it's hard to see if you hold the torch in front of your face"? Or are you using that as an example of what wasn't shit?

HUNDREDS WOW THATS SO MANY

AMAZING

>torch series
>series
Have you watch the last, 4th part, when he started sperging around again?

it's actually 345 000
no idea why that user wrote hundreds