next »

[corruptone]

I think, in the end, we need AS to finalize this. There are things speaking for and against both interpretations.

We don't need AS to repeat himself. An official character in an official book has negative initiative, so officially, initiative can be negative. Period.

I agree that there are things speaking for and against houseruling that it can't, but there's no more reason to discuss what the official rules say about it.

A negative initiative MODIFIER is not the same thing as a negative final initiative. As pointed out in the defence question, you can have a negative defence modifier and it still bottoms out at zero...

To the comment about them being different types of open roll, where in the rules does it say initiative is treated differently? If you have a standard rule, then the assumption is that the rules apply the same UNLESS there is a specific rule telling you to treat it differently. I think (don't have my book in front of me) there is something about crit. Fumbles and init. in the rules, but nothing specific about final init.

In the end it will come down to how the individual gm wants to handle it.

[Cathar the Great]

I'm not talking about modifiers. The base initiative of the character in the GM toolkit book is -15. Please look it up so you understand what I am talking about (I realize that might have been unclear to you).

Now if the base initiative is negative, I don't see how, after you roll a d100, the initiative must be at least 0.

Example:
My base Init with a Broadsword is -20. I roll on a d100 and roll 3, which is a fumble of course. The rules for fumbles with initiative say that I don't have to roll the fumble result, my roll of 3 gives me a modifier of -75 (big rulebook, page 91, table 49).

By your logic, my final initiative would be 0, 20 points better than my base init even though I fumbled.

By my logic, my final initiative would be -95.

In the end, the character would probably always roll last, but you don't have any method to determine who acts first if there is another character with 0 final initiative.

Tell me which example makes more sense.

To the comment about them being different types of open roll, where in the rules does it say initiative is treated differently? If you have a standard rule, then the assumption is that the rules apply the same UNLESS there is a specific rule telling you to treat it differently. I think (don't have my book in front of me) there is something about crit. Fumbles and init. in the rules, but nothing specific about final init.

I'm not going to argue on this. "Where does it say it does, where does it say it doesn't" is not a valid starting point for any discussion.

In the end it will come down to how the individual gm wants to handle it.

Always. I just want to clear up what the official stand point is, by using an official PC from an official book as an example for my theory.

[corruptone]

I'm not talking about modifiers. The base initiative of the character in the GM toolkit book is -15. Please look it up so you understand what I am talking about (I realize that might have been unclear to you).

Now if the base initiative is negative, I don't see how, after you roll a d100, the initiative must be at least 0.

And yet if I have a BASE defence roll that is negative, ie 0 dp spent on Dodge and a 4 agility nets you a BASE Dodge of -5...IT is raised to 0 on the final result per the game designers comment.  So pretty easy to see how it would be the same.

Example:
My base Init with a Broadsword is -20. I roll on a d100 and roll 3, which is a fumble of course. The rules for fumbles with initiative say that I don't have to roll the fumble result, my roll of 3 gives me a modifier of -75 (big rulebook, page 91, table 49).

By your logic, my final initiative would be 0, 20 points better than my base init even though I fumbled.

By my logic, my final initiative would be -95.

No, by MY logic...ie the word of the game designer You'd be at -95 BECAUSE you fumbled and his comment was zero is the lowest UNLESS you fumble...

In the end, the character would probably always roll last, but you don't have any method to determine who acts first if there is another character with 0 final initiative.

Tell me which example makes more sense.

The one that is based on the designers word and not trying to make every open roll different.  The open roll is a standard of the game every percentile roll in the game EXCEPT resistance rolls are open rolls.  Resistance rolls specifically state in the rules that they are different.  The others do not.  If the game designer told us how he interprets the rule for one aspect of an open roll then common sense would say that ALL open rolls follow that same rule not some arbitrary one I'm wanting to make up cause I like it better.

To the comment about them being different types of open roll, where in the rules does it say initiative is treated differently? If you have a standard rule, then the assumption is that the rules apply the same UNLESS there is a specific rule telling you to treat it differently. I think (don't have my book in front of me) there is something about crit. Fumbles and init. in the rules, but nothing specific about final init.

I'm not going to argue on this. "Where does it say it does, where does it say it doesn't" is not a valid starting point for any discussion.

Then you've obviously never done game design or play-testing since looking to the rules is the first option you should take in any issue.  If you have a standard rule then in all instances you use that rule UNLESS it states you don't.  It states that resistance rolls are different...it doesn't state anywhere that initiative, secondary skills, magic projection, psychic projection, and combat rolls do not conform to the same set of rules.

Multiple comments have been made to make it sound "unfair" to raise the initiative roll to zero and yet no one has an issue with AS's saying you can raise a defence roll to zero.  Whether or not you are in negative initiative is a small thing compared to losing the benefits of a tactically superior position.  I mean seriously, I can have a guy tied up and attacking him from behind (-280 to his block or dodge) and he'll still end up at 0 which is keeping me from doing a lot more damage to him than me being surprised would allow an opponent to do to me. :-)

[Spirit_Crusher]

I agree with corruptone on this matter.

[vytzka]

Then you've obviously never done game design or play-testing since looking to the rules is the first option you should take in any issue.  If you have a standard rule then in all instances you use that rule UNLESS it states you don't.  It states that resistance rolls are different...it doesn't state anywhere that initiative, secondary skills, magic projection, psychic projection, and combat rolls do not conform to the same set of rules.

I'm sorry, does it say that open rolls can never have negative results? Or only defense? Because if it's the latter, which is my understanding of it, then applying it in all cases where it's unclear is not applying standard rules, it's extrapolation. Which is often good practice but not really an ironclad case on its own.

(I hate discussing rules at work with no books :p )

And there was justification given in the thread why defense is special. Total defense 0 thing is standing still like a statue. It's pretty much impossible to be easier to hit than that (unless they have zen?). Whereas initiative 0 dude/dudette is still actively participating in combat, they're just being a slowpoke about it.

Multiple comments have been made to make it sound "unfair" to raise the initiative roll to zero and yet no one has an issue with AS's saying you can raise a defence roll to zero.

Because you can't really abuse defense rolls like that as it's hard to get into negative defense and pretty much no point to do it intentionally (really you want a lot more than 0 defense if you intend to be anywhere near combat unless you have DR and it's inapplicable). Whereas it is possible to get initiative into negatives and derive a benefit from that (heavy armor + oversized weapons).

I think if you get a benefit you should pay a price. So penalizing heavy equipment further definitely sounds fair to me. Unless you want your giant sword for style and not mechanical benefits then you should ask your GM to apply standard rules to it ^^

[Cathar the Great]

Vytzka has thankfully repeated my opinions on the matter much more eloquently than I could.

Corruptone, I actually don't really understand what you are trying to prove to me? Maybe this is the language barrier on my part.

For clarification, all I want is for someone to acknowledge that there is evidence in one of the books that officially, you can have negative Initiative. If an official character has negative Initiative, that is enough evidence for me that you can have negative Initiative.

And to end the Initiative=Defense argument, big rulebook, page 91, The Initiative Fumble, clearly states that "Initiative is not an ability". It also doesn't say that your Initiative if you fumble is 0, it says that the character will automatically act last, which is not the same.

[FearlessElbow]

If you do not allow for Negative Final Initiative (as the listed character seems to suggest you should), you can end up in a situation as follows:

A 1st Level Warrior (25) with Dexterity 7(+5) and Agility 7(+5), who uses a Bastard Sword (-30) and wears Partial Plate armour (-20), and who rolls a 15 (Final Initiative score of zero)

Has the same final initiative as:

A 1st Level Warrior of Enormous Size (5) with Dexterity 4(-5) and Agility 4(-5), with a 2CP Slow Reactions Disadvantage (-60), who uses a Giant Cannon (-140) and wears Full Field Plate (-70) over Chainmail (-15) (Special penalty for additional layer -20), and who rolls a 1  (Final Initiative of -435, arbitrarily uplifted to zero).

How is that a fair system?  The latter should be Surprised by a mace-wielding tortoise with a limp, let alone having the same initiative as the Dex7,Agi7 Warrior!

(Mind you, I'll admit that I'd be surprised to see a tortoise carrying a mace.)

[vytzka]

(Mind you, I'll admit that I'd be surprised to see a tortoise carrying a mace.)

Heh.

A somewhat famous random fumble result from Rolemaster if you're using a two handed weapon reads "you trip over an imaginary dead turtle and are stunned for 2 (?) rounds"

[Spirit_Crusher]

If you do not allow for Negative Final Initiative (as the listed character seems to suggest you should), you can end up in a situation as follows:

A 1st Level Warrior (25) with Dexterity 7(+5) and Agility 7(+5), who uses a Bastard Sword (-30) and wears Partial Plate armour (-20), and who rolls a 15 (Final Initiative score of zero)

Has the same final initiative as:

A 1st Level Warrior of Enormous Size (5) with Dexterity 4(-5) and Agility 4(-5), with a 2CP Slow Reactions Disadvantage (-60), who uses a Giant Cannon (-140) and wears Full Field Plate (-70) over Chainmail (-15) (Special penalty for additional layer -20), and who rolls a 1  (Final Initiative of -435, arbitrarily uplifted to zero).

How is that a fair system?  The latter should be Surprised by a mace-wielding tortoise with a limp, let alone having the same initiative as the Dex7,Agi7 Warrior!

(Mind you, I'll admit that I'd be surprised to see a tortoise carrying a mace.)

You could make the exact same argument about the defense of someone surprised and attacked from behind by an invisible opponent. How is it fair that his defense is risen to 0?
But it is.

And about the "standing still as a statue" bit, that same situation applies exactly to the concept of 0 initiative. How can you be slower than standing still?

As a nitpick, you can do far worse than standing still while trying to actively defend yourself: ever heard of diving into a knee or uppercut trying to dodge a hook?
If someone's ever sparred, expecially with mma rules, knows what I'm talking about.
But still, this does NOT matter. The rules are an abstraction that facilitate the narrative and flow of the game, they're not made to resemble reality first and be fun second, but viceversa.

[FearlessElbow]

You could make the exact same argument about the defense of someone surprised and attacked from behind by an invisible opponent. How is it fair that his defense is risen to 0?
But it is.

Because he's providing NO defence.  None.  The fact that the opponent is invisible is, for most characters, irrelevant when he's got Surprise and is attacking from behind.  So there is a bottom limit (zero) to the defence that a character can provide.  Without fumbling, he can't actually make the situation worse for himself than doing literally nothing.

It's not the same with Initiative, because, as Cathar mentioned, it's not an ability.  It's just a sliding scale for reaction time, and zero is just a point on that scale.

And about the "standing still as a statue" bit, that same situation applies exactly to the concept of 0 initiative. How can you be slower than standing still?

Zero initiative is NOT standing still.  I go back to the sliding scale argument again.

If you took my example of the Level 1 Warrior with zero final initiative from earlier, the guy is not standing still.  Unless he is put on the defensive, he will have the chance to act at some point in that 3-second round.  So he's definitely not standing still.

It's just that his actions are slower than those of others.

But since he is moving at a quantifiable speed, even if that speed is very slow, it is still possible for others to be slower.

As a nitpick, you can do far worse than standing still while trying to actively defend yourself: ever heard of diving into a knee or uppercut trying to dodge a hook?
If someone's ever sparred, expecially with mma rules, knows what I'm talking about.

This is basically covered in the Defensive Fumble rules.  Doing something that ends up actually making the situation worse.

But still, this does NOT matter. The rules are an abstraction that facilitate the narrative and flow of the game, they're not made to resemble reality first and be fun second, but viceversa.

Agreed on that.   

[Smilingknight]

I can see not having less than 0 base defense (you can't have less training than none) but negative final defenses completely make sense and it would really hurt large combats to take it away. If you is making their 13th defense a round where they are project and surprised by ll the opponents, they should be far in the negative or final defenses

[Dynaes]

I think a big difference to consider in defense vs initiative is as follows: on defense, the more the attacker wins by, the more damage they do (up to 400%, less with armor)  On initiative, you only have two benefits at distinct values: having higher initiative and acting first, and having 150 higher to achieve surprise.  This is pertinent because having massively negative initiative can at worst give the opponent surprise (resulting in up to 90% more damage IF they hit you).  Having a massively negative defense can give the opponent a much, much more fatal advantage, so I think that in and of itself is a good reason to give final defense a floor of zero.  I agree with the sliding scale of reaction time discussed above, but I do think my further expounding it adds anything to the discussion.

Also, I do not believe that the fact that resistances are specifically treated as different than open rolls means that anything listed under one open roll (floor in defense) automatically applies to all open rolls.  If something like that applied to everything, it would be listed under the description of open rolls.  Anything listed under a specific type should only apply to that specific type.

Finally, in response to the -280 penalty capping on the bonus damage, I don't think that's a problem.  If the attacker is well-trained, they will do MASSIVE damage against someone with zero defense.  If they aren't well-trained, well, killing someone in a single attack, even if tied up and from behind isn't as easy as poking a sword in their direction.  It would take an unskilled person a couple of tries to hit something vital assuming the defender is conscious and moving in response (or some luck, i.e. open roll).  If you fail the first time, the defender is possibly going to be able to maneuver to have fewer penalties and it will become a bit harder to further damage them, though they still might have zero defense.  I think this is absolutely fair and a much more fun model to combat than assuming a child with a sword walks up to a guy tied to a chair and gets something like a few hundred percent extra damage even though he doesn't know the first thing about combat.  The defense floor requires the attacker to have some prowess or extreme luck to do massive damage, and they will still generally do some damage, unless the defender is in inhuman levels.  And I think that makes perfect sense.  That's purely my opinion on combat, though.

[Smilingknight]

But it does mean that riding a hundred knights at a giant will be the same as sending 4. If it can't go below 0 defense. So should attack only go down to 0 too? So throwing a knife at hummingbird while blindfolded and tied up isn't that big of a deal

[Dynaes]

But it does mean that riding a hundred knights at a giant will be the same as sending 4. If it can't go below 0 defense. So should attack only go down to 0 too? So throwing a knife at hummingbird while blindfolded and tied up isn't that big of a deal

Firstly, I have no idea what you are trying to say in the first sentence.  On your second point, it would still be a big deal.  In that scenario, your attack is still a 0.  If your opponent is completely unarmored, you still couldn't damage them since their defense couldn't go below zero.  Again, I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but I don't believe you've provided a good counterpoint.

[vytzka]

But it does mean that riding a hundred knights at a giant will be the same as sending 4. If it can't go below 0 defense. So should attack only go down to 0 too? So throwing a knife at hummingbird while blindfolded and tied up isn't that big of a deal

Really now. Every additional attack versus defense 0 is going to hurt like a... a female dog. Next time you're playing, try going "my character will not defend, they will have defense 0 and you can't hurt me", against one attack and see how well it goes.

Capping attack at 0, well you can do that I guess but it's totally pointless. You will not hit ANYTHING with a final attack of 0 (yes, even things with 0 final defense). So your hummingbird is safe. Well except for counterattacks but those are melee only and if you go into a knife fight blindfolded you're going to get carved up but good whichever way.