Altering the Initiative Order

[Figleaf23]

Personally, I favour allowing the character to choose a place in sequence anywhere up to his earliest possible time to act.

I find some support for this in the rules, though interpretation is involved.

Page B363 says rather plainly, under Turn Sequence, that you go in order of speed, period.

However, under "Your Turn" it notes that your turn:

"overlaps the turns of other characters".

Further, on page B17 it says:

"Basic Speed ... helps determine ... the order in which you act in combat (a high Basic Speed will let you "out-react" your foes)."

Help determine, not determine.
Let, not make.
Out-react, not move before.

So that's the textual analysis. But also my personal practicality analysis tells me it doesn't make much sense to insist that a quick warrior can't wait on the actions of a slower ally, especially in a structure where their 'turns overlap'.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I'm sure there has to be some way to get this effect using the rules as-is.

Well, if you think it's necessary (I don't), you could buy Speed with Switchable and Reflexive.

[seasong]

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=223057

That's the closest thing to an official statement on these forums that I am aware of, regarding the rules as written. In it, Kromm argues against re-ordering the sequence (although that doesn't mean anything as regards to deciding on a different sequence at the very beginning of the combat).

Personally, I allow players to re-order themselves in the turn sequence, but this requires skipping one turn (Do Nothing).

For example:

Knight 7
Wizard 6
Grog the Mighty Orc 5

Turn 1: Knight attacks Grog; Wizard spins Grog to face the other way; Grog turns back around.

Turn 2: Knight does nothing (move to 5.5 in turn sequence); Wizard spins Grog to face the other way; Grog turns back around.

Turn 3: Wizard spins Grog to face the other way; Knight hits Grog from behind; Grog howls, then turns back around.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by seasong

That's the closest thing to an official statement on these forums that I am aware of, regarding the rules as written. In it, Kromm argues against re-ordering the sequence (although that doesn't mean anything as regards to deciding on a different sequence at the very beginning of the combat).

That's mostly about changing the order in the middle of a fight, which is disastrous for the combat system. A house rule that allows you to act, for the entire combat, in a different order does not cause those problems. Allowing a character to skip a turn and come back in later is probably going to be fine, too. I would just be sure to require a full turn skipped, so that it doesn't render Wait redundant.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by obatron

Why couldn't the knight at least move in this situation? Is it just unclear or do the rules actually not allow you an action?

In thinking about it, in a one second round, it sort of would make sense not being able to change your action because the situation changes so fast. Coming from other systems with longer rounds, you sort of expect that you have time to change your action in a round.

It will be interesting to see how this works out in discussion, it may have me altering the way I run combats...

Id allow an evaluate or AoD, that kind of thing. Id also allow a basic attack vs an immediate theat. The Waiting character was looking for a certain result, which didnt happen.

I MIGHT allow a character with Combat Reflexes more leeway here; CR is a lite version of ETS in many ways.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Harald387

As stated previously, problems occur when the situation turns out like this:

Speed 7.25 Knight: "I Wait until the wizard casts Roundabout, and then hit the monster in the back."
Speed 7 Scout: "I shoot the monster in the eye. It dies."
Speed 6 Wizard: "Well, the thing I was planning to cast Roundabout on is dead... I'll cast a Missile spell and get ready to throw it at the enemy over there next turn."
Knight: "...well, now my turn is wasted. Thanks, Scout."

Bad teamwork? Sure. But should it really result in the Knight losing his turn (instead of being allowed to Move, or take some other useful maneuver since he no longer has an enemy in front of him)?

I'd certainly consider "I Wait until after Wizard acts or get's knocked out of the fight" to meet the specific requirement well enough. Admittedly if Wizard then takes Do Nothing or something, you'd still lose an action, but really holding your turn to later with Wait isn't going to break anything, and in some ways never resolving a Wait *does* - Act, parry, Wait (never triggers), get attacked by guy just before you in the action sequence, can you parry without a multiple parry penalty? Does it depend on the action you *would* have taken if the Wait triggered?

[Lord Carnifex]

Originally Posted by Harald387

As stated previously, problems occur when the situation turns out like this:

Speed 7.25 Knight: "I Wait until the wizard casts Roundabout, and then hit the monster in the back."
Speed 7 Scout: "I shoot the monster in the eye. It dies."
Speed 6 Wizard: "Well, the thing I was planning to cast Roundabout on is dead... I'll cast a Missile spell and get ready to throw it at the enemy over there next turn."
Knight: "...well, now my turn is wasted. Thanks, Scout."

Bad teamwork? Sure. But should it really result in the Knight losing his turn (instead of being allowed to Move, or take some other useful maneuver since he no longer has an enemy in front of him)?

I'm afraid that's just the way the biscuit breaks, at least under RAW. Time to get the Scout involved in your plans and co-ordinate group-wide tactics.

My reading (and that of the rest of my group) of this doesn't say that it negates the requirements outlined previously for a Wait (that you declare your maneuver ahead of time), but rather that this is just a suggestion for 'other situations in which Wait is useful'. I could be wrong!

At the end of the day, it really makes sense to me that you can simply delay your turn until an ally acts, then take your maneuver. I don't have a problem with it, fundamentally - it's probably what we're going to do in our group. It just seems to me like it's an odd hole in the rules.

I'm neither Kromm nor SJ, so I can't speak to the intent of the rules as written, but here's my interpretation. In melee combat, it's not always a question of sheer speed and who goes first. Fencing recognizes the idea of tempo, of acting when the time is right or the window of opportunity presents itself. I think this is what the Wait manuver represents: intending a certain course of action, and holding back for the split second for the opportunity to manifest. This may be waiting for the opponent to do something, or for an ally to set up your next attack.

Tempo does require you to have in mind vaguely what you want to do. You set yourself up for a lunge, (an AoA), for instance, and wait for your ally to draw the opponents blade away. Once the moment comes, you act quickly. Because you've waited, you only get a split second to act, which is why you don't get full-second maneuvers like Move or Concentrate.

So, this is probably not a hole in the rules. This is Wait working like it ought to. It's a feature, not a bug :)

Originally Posted by RyanW

A house rule that allows you to act, for the entire combat, in a different order does not cause those problems.

I can't see a problem with this. It's not RAW, but as a GM, I'd buy it. About the only problem I can forsee is if more than one character wants to pick a different place in the turn order, but won't declare it until or unless other characters declare theirs. In the worst case, you might have multiple characters stubbornly waiting for someone else to pick move order first. In which case, the simple answer would be to make everybody roll it off - lowest roll on 3D waits until everyone else decides. Alternately, if it's PCs being stubborn, the GM has carte blanche to run a round of combat where uncoperative PCs choose the Do Nothing maneuver with no active defenses. Survivors might be more co-operative.

Making it a Perk might help with that. Or finding less combative, adversarial players.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Harald387

Actually, in GURPS turn-based play explicitly does not begin until combat starts.

You missed my point entirely, but to counter your disagreement with everything I just said, add to my examples that the party is moving down the hallway with a monster chasing them.

Originally Posted by Harald387

If the ogre has NO IDEA that the halfling is about to do what he's about to do, then yes, the halfling is going to scurry out of reach before the ogre reacts, and remain out of reach until he stops moving. They move at the same speed, after all. This is pretty much how it should work.

Not so. The switch is six hexes north of the halfling. The ogre is three hexes north and one hex west of the halfling.

It's the beginning of combat. Halfling has initiative. Halfling makes it all the way past ogre, who has combat reflexes. It's not the ogre's turn, so he doesn't get to react.

Originally Posted by Harald387

Again, the offensive line is using a whole lot of Wait maneuvers to prevent this.

No, it isn't. It's taking the Do Nothing maneuver. It's the start of combat.

Defensive back took Wait ('till ball is snapped). His turn, he runs around the end and sacks the QB.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Rendu

P.B366, Under "Wait":
"Finally, you can use Wait to coordinate actions with slower friends."

That's the entire paragraph. No qualifiers about specifying what you are waiting for, or what you will do. Nice, simple, common-sensical, even.

This is how I always run things, you can always wait until after X, this changes your sequence until you wait again.
Afaik that's RAW...

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

This is how I always run things, you can always wait until after X, this changes your sequence until you wait again.
Afaik that's RAW...

Waiting doesn't change your sequence ever, AFAICT.