Altering the Initiative Order

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'm pretty sure this always going to benefit the character with the higher Basic Speed. Unless I'm missing something.

No, it's going to benefit the character that Waited, just look at the example I laid down. It is the interruption of another characters turn that gives you the advantage, and the interruption is caused by the Wait.

As has already been said before, characters going in the order (A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B) can just as easily be looked at as going in the order A-(B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A). Once the first turn has been taken it's just ***-for-tat, there is no more advantage in going "first." Or, to modify one of your examples, lets say Zed has Basic Speed 8.00 and Able has Basic Speed 7.00:

Zed (turn 1): I move towards Zed. He's 9 yards away, I'll be within a step on my next turn.
Able (turn 1): I wait for Zed to come within range, then I will attack him first!
Zed (turn 2): I move a step and Attack Able.
Able (turn 1): That triggers my Wait, so I get to attack! I hit!
Zed (turn 2): Okay, I Parry and Riposte for -4. I Succeed.
Zed (turn 2): I get to roll my attack now, but you must defend at -4! Ha!
Able (turn 1): On noes! I failed to defend. I take damage!
Able (turn 2): I get to Attack again but I have shock penalties. If you Parry though it is at a penalty because it will be your second Parry.

Same exact outcome except Zed got to "go" first, and most of Zed's noteworthy actions took place during the portion of Zed's second turn that overlaps with Able's first turn.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Same exact outcome except Zed got to "go" first, and most of Zed's noteworthy actions took place during the portion of Zed's second turn that overlaps with Able's first turn.

In that example, AFAICT, it's Able that gets to go "twice in a row". That seems to be what the objection is to.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

In that example, AFAICT, it's Able that gets to go "twice in a row". That seems to be what the objection is to.

Really, in no situation involving Wait does a character get to go "twice in a row," what does happen is that the Waiting character gets to take his Attacks from two consecutive turn during only a single turn of the non-Waiting character[1]. This does put the non-Waiting character at a disadvantage, since the more times he has to defend during a single turn the more limited his defense options become.

[1]As your example showed, the first attack happens at be beginning of the defending players turn, as an interruption, the second happens after he's taken his own actions for that same turn. My example just shows that it is not the sequence in the turn order, but the act of Waiting that creates this artifact, as can be clearly shown in my example where Able, still on his 1st turn, gets his first attack by interrupting Zed's 2nd turn, then Able gets to take his regular attack for his 2nd. Since both of Able's attacks land during Zed's 2nd turn Zed's defenses will be at a disadvantage having had to defend two times during the same turn. The fact that Zed is a Parry monster and can deal with this disadvantage not-withstanding.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Really, in no situation involving Wait does a character get to go "twice in a row," what does happen is that the Waiting character gets to take his Attacks from two consecutive turn during only a single turn of the non-Waiting character[1]. This does put the non-Waiting character at a disadvantage, since the more times he has to defend during a single turn the more limited his defense options become.

Okay, that makes sense. At any rate I don't see what the problem is. Tactical patience and good planning ought to give you tighter decision loops. It's not like the Waiting character isn't taking a risk, he's specifically gambling that events will happen as he predicts; if they don't, he's wasted a turn.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I never said it did. What I am saying is that Wait doesn't automatically cancel the foes action.
Able has Basic Speed 7, Zed has Basic Speed 5.75 but Parry-18

Able (turn 1): I wait for Zed to come within range, then I will attack him first!
Zed (turn 1): I move a step and Attack Able.
Able (turn 1): That triggers my Wait, so I get to attack! I hit!
Zed (turn 1): Okay, I Parry and Riposte for -4. I Succeed.
Zed (turn 1): I get to roll my attack now, but you must defend at -4! Ha!
Able (turn 1): On noes! I failed to defend. I take damage!
Able (turn 2): I get to Attack again but I have shock penalties. If you Parry though it is at a penalty because it will be your second Parry.

That's not the situation as described in the context of our discussion. Nobody's raising an objection to the fact that the guy who gets to go first can wait... to go before the other guy. He was going to do that anyway. What we're describing his this:

Able (turn 1): I wait for Zed to attack, and then I attack after him.
Zed (turn 1): I attack Able.
Able (turn 1): I parry and attack.
(Note that it's impossible for Zed to Riposte at this point).
Able (Turn 2): Hey, it's my turn again! I attack. Also, Zed you're at -4 to your parry, since you've already parried once on your turn.

This is what we mean by "Attacking twice in a row due to wait."

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

That's not the situation as described in the context of our discussion. Nobody's raising an objection to the fact that the guy who gets to go first can wait... to go before the other guy. He was going to do that anyway. What we're describing his this:

Able (turn 1): I wait for Zed to attack, and then I attack after him.
Zed (turn 1): I attack Able.
Able (turn 1): I parry and attack.
(Note that it's impossible for Zed to Riposte at this point).
Able (Turn 2): Hey, it's my turn again! I attack. Also, Zed you're at -4 to your parry, since you've already parried once on your turn.

This is what we mean by "Attacking twice in a row due to wait."

Able was gambling that Zed was going to Attack, that he could successfully defend. Zed can completely sabotage Able's plan by not doing as expected. Able took a risk by Waiting; Zed could have done something different. He took a risk by letting Zed attack first; Zed could have injured or killed him. Risk should be rewarded, shouldn't it?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Able was gambling that Zed was going to Attack, that he could successfully defend. Zed can completely sabotage Able's plan by not doing as expected. Able took a risk by Waiting; Zed could have done something different. He took a risk by letting Zed attack first; Zed could have injured or killed him. Risk should be rewarded, shouldn't it?

I think the ability to grant someone a -4 by exploiting weird artifacts of the system is messy... but whatever abstraction your going to apply to reality is going to create weird artifacts. It would be nice if this particular one didn't exist, but in my experience, other initiative systems have other issues, like greater complexity, or other weirdness.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I think the ability to grant someone a -4 by exploiting weird artifacts of the system is messy...

Note that this penalty only applies when:

1. You wait for your opponent to attack and he does so (real combat is often a long series of Waits followed by a short flurry of blows)
2. Your opponent doesn't injure you in the meantime
3. You successfully attack your opponent twice (one successful attack and he doesn't have to "burn" one of his defenses)
4. Your opponent has only one Block/Parry. If he has two separate defenses he can use each without penalty; also if his Dodge is high enough the effective penalty may not be -4 (e.g. if his Dodge is 8 and his Parry is 10 his effective penalty is only -2).

That's an awful lot of risk to get a possible -4 penalty

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Note that this penalty only applies when:

1. You wait for your opponent to attack and he does so (real combat is often a long series of Waits followed by a short flurry of blows)
2. Your opponent doesn't injure you in the meantime
3. You successfully attack your opponent twice (one successful attack and he doesn't have to "burn" one of his defenses)
4. Your opponent has only one Block/Parry. If he has two separate defenses he can use each without penalty; also if his Dodge is high enough the effective penalty may not be -4 (e.g. if his Dodge is 8 and his Parry is 10 his effective penalty is only -2).

That's an awful lot of risk to get a possible -4 penalty

In most fights that I've seen, the first three aren't really an issue. I would presume that one wouldn't try to pull this kind of move unless he expected his opponent to attack, and if it boils down to two people waiting, that's not unrealistic or inappropriate. As for the second or third, most competent fighters are sufficiently good that this isn't "gambling." On the contrary, while it's not a sure thing, you'd be the one gambling to think these are reasons your skill 18 opponent isn't going to try it. The final one is a good point, and emphasizes the benefits of fencing weapons, two-weapon fighting, and generally using multiple defense strategies to keep yourself alive.

I'd also add that the waiting character will make better use of tricks like Judo throws, Ripostes and Counter Attacks, so waiting for your opponent to attack, parrying, and then attacking back is far from a poor tactical choice. In fact, I see that sort of thing all the time, though not explicitly to exploit the multi-parry rule (in general, when you have such skilled characters, incompetent opponents against whom you could use such a tactic can simply be defeated by simpler tactics, and competent opponents against whom you'd need such a tactic cannot be exploited in this fashion).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

In most fights that I've seen, the first three aren't really an issue.

It seems that you are assuming that the players are using a lot of metagame information to make tactical decisions, and they are usually better at outguessing their opponents. I don't see a lot of risky Waits in my games (Wait generally gets used for less speculative uses like Opportunity Fire to cover a choke-point, or Waiting for another PC's action with a preplanned response); players seem to think that I'm pretty good at having the NPCs behave tactically when I want.