Actually, I use something similar in my game and it works really well.<br>I have 3 SR ratings: Reach, Quickness, Reaction<br>Reach: SIZ/10 (round 5's down).<br>Quickness: DEX/6 (round 3's down).<br>Reaction: 8 minus (average of Int & Dex, divided by 6)
<br>And 2 values for each weapon, reflecting length & speed<br><br>Init is d20 + Reach + weapon length. Highest goes first (yes, this tends to mean that people with weapons tend to react quicker; personally, I like this)
<br><br>People with quick weapons generally want to close, which then means both combatants substitute quickness for reach, and weapon speed for length. (Essentially, attackers can declare a 'closing' action, giving the defender an automatic 1 category improvement on their attack roll (misses become hits, etc.); defenders can declare 'fending' which REDUCES the category of their hit by 1, and keeps the fighting at 'reach' as long as they can step back one hex. More to it, but that's the simple version.)
<br><br>Want to change an action from what you declared? Declare your new action, and subtract (reaction + 1d6) from your current init. That's your new init. If it's <0, you don't act this round. I use rolling rounds, so you can change your action for free for the next round, or continue and act immediately on 20+(your negative init number).
<br>I've even toyed with using different initiative dice (d20's out in the open, and going lower as the space is more constricted, d12 in a tavern, for example, d8 in a tight little cave where there's very little moving about). The players seemed to like it. Init became more important than luck, so (in the couple of times we've done it) seen more 'closing' in tight little fights.
<br>And yes, this also means that spells tend to go off near the ends of rounds, which both fits mine and my players' expectations.<br><br>I have a whiteboard behind me when I DM, so it's an easy matter to keep track of:<br>
statement of intent order (reverse by INT)<br>inits for everyone (I don't usually put up the enemy's however)<br><br>YMMV of course.<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Bruce Mason
</b> <<a href="mailto:mason.bruce@gmail.com">mason.bruce@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I wasn't involved in playtesting but looking at the proposed rules,
<br>I'm not surprised they dropped them because they fall apart the minute<br>you think about them. If a character has 3 different strike rank<br>modifiers then what happens if he uses a magic action for his first<br>action and then a combat one for the next one. What about delays or
<br>changes of mind? At the very least you have to remember what the d10<br>roll was so that you can recalculate each time. That and consider<br>having to write three numbers where one can do. There is a niche of<br>roleplayer who looks that level of detail in the rules but it is only
<br>a small minority.<br>_______________________________________________<br>RQ-Rules mailing list<br><a href="mailto:RQ-Rules@crashbox.com">RQ-Rules@crashbox.com</a><br><a href="http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules">
http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules</a><br></blockquote></div><br>