Initiative based on weapon length and hit points

[tibbius]

I thought it might be interesting to make engagement range more important in melee.

Accordingly, consider the following experiment for initiative:
- the combatant with a weapon sized appropriately for the current fighting distance gets initiative;
- in case of a tie, the combatant with more hit points gets initiative.

So at missile range, the combatant with the longer range missile weapon gets initiative.

Then when the combatants close to pole-arm distance, the combatant with a pole-arm gets initiative.

Then if a combatant with a two-handed sword makes a successful attack, they close to that distance, and the zweihander gets initiative until the pole-arm wielder makes a successful attack.

If a guy with a dagger gets involved, the longer weapon has initiative until the dagger-wielder makes a successful attack, which represents closing distance - then the dagger has initiative until the longer weapon makes a successful attack, which represents opening distance.

A combatant with a shorter weapon can forego their attack to retreat from their weapon's range to outside the range of the longer weapon (the longer weapon gets to attack during the retreat). A combatant with a longer weapon can give up their own attack to retreat, and the shorter weapon can't attack them.

This would result in initiative switching back and forth as attacks hit or missed and distance closed and opened.

The hit points are a proxy for health and fighting experience. More powerful combatants should get the first shot, and opponents weakened by wounds should act later. But the weapon length should be more important.

[Rex]

If you are just trying to mix it up, its fine. If you are trying to be more realistic, who goes first is more dependent on who decides to act first than anything else. The individual reacting losses almost every time. It has been demonstrated in several trials that an individual with a knife can strike someone with a gun pointed at them before the individual with the gun can pull the trigger as long as they are within about 20-25 feet. The brain simply can't process the information fast enough to react quick enough.

[tibbius]

That's interesting. Thank you.

[AsenRG]

I thought it might be interesting to make engagement range more important in melee.

Accordingly, consider the following experiment for initiative:
- the combatant with a weapon sized appropriately for the current fighting distance gets initiative;
- in case of a tie, the combatant with more hit points gets initiative.

So at missile range, the combatant with the longer range missile weapon gets initiative.

Then when the combatants close to pole-arm distance, the combatant with a pole-arm gets initiative.

Then if a combatant with a two-handed sword makes a successful attack, they close to that distance, and the zweihander gets initiative until the pole-arm wielder makes a successful attack.

If a guy with a dagger gets involved, the longer weapon has initiative until the dagger-wielder makes a successful attack, which represents closing distance - then the dagger has initiative until the longer weapon makes a successful attack, which represents opening distance.

A combatant with a shorter weapon can forego their attack to retreat from their weapon's range to outside the range of the longer weapon (the longer weapon gets to attack during the retreat). A combatant with a longer weapon can give up their own attack to retreat, and the shorter weapon can't attack them.

This would result in initiative switching back and forth as attacks hit or missed and distance closed and opened.

The hit points are a proxy for health and fighting experience. More powerful combatants should get the first shot, and opponents weakened by wounds should act later. But the weapon length should be more important.

Sounds good to me. You can also point out that HP represents feeling secure in your own success...though to be honest, I'd make combatants with equal weapons act at the same time, unless one of the weapons has an enchantment (or bigger enchantment:)). Then that guy gets initiative, period.

Also, this is more or less the system that's been in use in various games, like TRoS, since at least the first decade of this century, probably earlier (though in TRoS it's actually an attack-and-defence penalty, since initiative is determined differently).
So we know it works. You just have to decide whether you like how it works;).

The only part I don't like is the idea that "the guy with the shorter weapon can't attack if the guy with the longer one decides to cover and break the distance". Now, there are probably other reasons not to break the distance if the other guy is deploying a superior (for the situation) weapon, but let's just say that losing initiative is bad enough in a D&D-based system.

If you are just trying to mix it up, its fine. If you are trying to be more realistic, who goes first is more dependent on who decides to act first than anything else. The individual reacting losses almost every time. It has been demonstrated in several trials that an individual with a knife can strike someone with a gun pointed at them before the individual with the gun can pull the trigger as long as they are within about 20-25 feet. The brain simply can't process the information fast enough to react quick enough.

Wrong conclusion, because the data isn't about guns being "pointed at them". The Tueller Drill(which is basically what you're referring to) was about measuring the reaction time of average cops with their guns in the holsters.
For the record, the "gap" for (most?) police officers is 21 feet.

Range helps. Being able to close in safely helps a lot more. If I've got even a target shield, not to mention a legionary one, good luck stopping me from closing and stabbing you with a shortsword.
For a game, though, I see nothing wrong with making range a bit more important than it currently is !
IME, more experienced combatants basically get the initiative no matter what you do, but in D&D terms, there's no need to give them further advantage!

As a matter of fact, I'd recommend comparing weapon enchantments, too. A superior enchantment on your weapon allows it to count as one step "longer". So that Dagger+2 is a sword for you (but still counts as a dagger if someone with a shortsword closes in on you...surprise !)

[Zhym]

I read this and thought, "But wait—didn't Gary have rules where weapon length is a factor? Sure, no one uses them, but they're there, right?"

So I looked it up and...not really. The only place I could find in 1e where weapon length makes a difference in who strikes first is when setting a weapon to charge (DMG p. 66). There are lots of rules involving weapon speed that come into play with simultaneous initiative. Then there's the rule that someone with a fast weapon might be able to strike multiple times at someone with a slower weapon...but only if there's simultaneous initiative? Oh, and weapon speed may affect whether a hit interrupts a spell caster. It's all kind of complex, and I'm not sure I've ever played in a game that used these rules.

That all seems to be a conscious design decision, at least for AD&D1e, that initiative is more important than weapon speed, which is more important than weapon length. I'm not sure what I think about that. It seems like someone with only a pen knife would have trouble against someone with a sword, but having wielded neither a sword nor a pen knife in anger (or in fun, for that matter), I have no idea how it would work in real life.

[Rex]

Actually I wasn't referring to the Tueller drill. I was referring to demonstrations in trials of police officers who had shot individuals armed with a knife. In every case I know of the handgun was already drawn since the officer was attempting to apprehend the individual. I actually was present in the court room for one demonstration, I had already given testimony as an expert witness (I am an analytical chemist) and had asked if I could watch the demonstration and the Judge allowed it since it was unrelated to my testimony. In this case they were 19 feet apart since that was the distance they had determined they were apart in the actual shooting. It wasn't even close, both participants were experts in their fields and the knife clearly struck before the handgun could be fired. As far as shields they are way under rated in combat for sure, one of the advantages is they don't need to be actively used to function as cover, so in that use the larger the better.

[AsenRG]

Actually I wasn't referring to the Tueller drill. I was referring to demonstrations in trials of police officers who had shot individuals armed with a knife. In every case I know of the handgun was already drawn since the officer was attempting to apprehend the individual.
I actually was present in the court room for one demonstration, I had already given testimony as an expert witness (I am an analytical chemist) and had asked if I could watch the demonstration and the Judge allowed it since it was unrelated to my testimony. In this case they were 19 feet apart since that was the distance they had determined they were apart in the actual shooting. It wasn't even close, both participants were experts in their fields and the knife clearly struck before the handgun could be fired. As far as shields they are way under rated in combat for sure, one of the advantages is they don't need to be actively used to function as cover, so in that use the larger the better.

OK...I wouldn't doubt your words, but the math doesn't add up.

Basically, you're telling me that an officer (that according to the Tueller Drill should be able to shoot you with his gun in the holster, if you have to pass 21 feet) can't shoot someone when his gun is already out? The only difference being that the distance is 2 feet less?
That means that drawing his gun out happens in less time than the attacker moves two feet, but the decision-making-pointing gap (along with pointing and shooting) takes up more than that.

Again, I can't speak about handguns with any kind of authority, but it seems like a surprising result. (What I can tell with some amount of authority is that a long melee weapon makes it awfully hard for a guy with a short weapon to close in...but that's apples and oranges, since a melee weapon can also defend and keep at bay).

Officer________________Knifeman
Decision_______________Close 19/21 feet
Drawing (optional*)_______Stabbing
Aiming
Shooting

*I.e. doesn't happen in the "move 19 feet and stab a guy with his gun out" situation.


Let me reiterate that I don't doubt your words. I'm just curious how that result was obtained as it clashes with my previous information.

[Leitz]

As you know, I tend to prefer Morale. Hit Points can make a good substitute, in class based games.

So, how long are you combat rounds? Initiative isn't about which weapon is longest, but about who goes first. With a minute long combat round, the ebb and flow of battle is more determined by the person who best controls that flow. An experienced (high Morale, high Hit Points) character has more chance to control the flow of battle. Controlling the distance is a part of that flow. If a pole arm's effective space is between three and six feet, a person can close that distance faster than the pole arm person can strike and reset. So a feint move that draws attack would let the shorter weaponed person win.

[tibbius]

thanks!

[tibbius]

I'm thinking this could be made more abstract (using my current favorite rules): longer weapon gets advantage / shorter weapon gets disadvantage until longer weapon loses / shorter weapon wins; then advantage switches because distance has closed. Once distance opens again, advantage switches again.

A shield (but not an off-hand weapon) could be used to "fend off" so that a longer weapon + shield against a shorter weapon without shield, or a shorter weapon + shield against a longer weapon without shield, would maintain advantage once established.

A shorter off-hand weapon would negate an opponent's advantage from closing distance, so longer weapon + shorter weapon vs. shorter weapon would have initial advantage, then no advantage either way if shorter weapon wins and closes distance.

[beniliusbob]

I read this and thought, "But wait—didn't Gary have rules where weapon length is a factor? Sure, no one uses them, but they're there, right?"

So I looked it up and...not really.

Actually, this rang a big ol' bell and I found the video where Hedge Hobbit gives a history lesson on initiative. Apparently Gary wrote an article that said to resolve attacks in order of longest to shortest length sometime in the '70s, and Judges' Guild later expanded on it in the Ready Ref Sheets:

https://youtu.be/Zj0MGjuGADA

Personally, I grew up on 2E speed factors and have retreated into d6 group initiative because I hate all the bookkeeping...