Sleep Spell and Chain Awakening

I always disliked monster group initiative for reasons likes this. Not exactly this situation, but being able to more effectively focus fire is the usual one for me. Yes, they could do it if they hold actions but at least that is giving up something for what I consider to be a powerful option of chaining attacks out. I understand it is to simplify running monsters but I still don't like that the NPCs get an automatic mechanical edge when initiative runs this way.

To address the original post, yes, I have seen such a situation.

Lucas Blackstone said:

I always disliked monster group initiative for reasons likes this. Not exactly this situation, but being able to more effectively focus fire is the usual one for me. Yes, they could do it if they hold actions but at least that is giving up something for what I consider to be a powerful option of chaining attacks out. I understand it is to simplify running monsters but I still don't like that the NPCs get an automatic mechanical edge when initiative runs this way.

To address the original post, yes, I have seen such a situation.

Click to expand...

Do they get an advantage? By it's very nature in most cases the monsters get a turn and then PCs get a turn. Each side can "focus fire".

If you have a system to keep combat moving while splitting up initiative, that's great. Maybe there should be another thread because people mention initiative options that I, for one, am not very clear on. Especially the "do what makes sense". Makes sense to whom? The monsters? The PCs? If the latter, why do they always have advantage?

Not that I'm picking on you Lucas, it's just that there have been several posts here long on criticism of a system that works well enough without explanation of alternatives and experiences with other systems.

For example, there are systems where you decide initiative every round by deciding what you're going to do (the Mearl's alternative). If the goblins decide they're going to wake a buddy and retreat on their turn if they can act then things could likely have gone the same way. In any case ... a different thread.

I guess, maybe, if I was feeling merciful I’d have had about half the goblins able to be woken in time. Ultimately I don’t see any issue with the ruling. The heroes pushed themselves beyond their means and chose to engage an entrenched enemy with an unknown number of reinforcements while low on resources.

Oofta said:

Do they get an advantage? By it's very nature in most cases the monsters get a turn and then PCs get a turn. Each side can "focus fire".

If you have a system to keep combat moving while splitting up initiative, that's great. Maybe there should be another thread because people mention initiative options that I, for one, am not very clear on. Especially the "do what makes sense". Makes sense to whom? The monsters? The PCs? If the latter, why do they always have advantage?

Not that I'm picking on you Lucas, it's just that there have been several posts here long on criticism of a system that works well enough without explanation of alternatives and experiences with other systems.

For example, there are systems where you decide initiative every round by deciding what you're going to do (the Mearl's alternative). If the goblins decide they're going to wake a buddy and retreat on their turn if they can act then things could likely have gone the same way. In any case ... a different thread.

Click to expand...

I forgot a key point which was my fault. I meant focus firing before someone gets a turn even. In my experience if the npcs have different initiative, then it doesn't result in PC goes on 15, PC goes on 11, 6 Orcs go on 9, PC goes on 7 PC goes on 5. Obviously just an example, but the clump of orcs going all at once just because it is easier allows for free focus firing that doesn't fit the situation in my opinion. In some instances all the orcs go last, but most of the time this would not be the case because the PCs generate 4 numbers out of the 5.

In the first round of a combat, the pcs only have the option to single out one target and chain attack it before it goes if the monsters roll dead last. But in most cases the monsters will have the chance for their whole group to position all of their side at the same time before multiple PCs go. This works offensively ( chain attacking PCs ) or defensively ( entire group can hide, run for cover, call allies and so on ).

Maybe 1 initiative roll for PCs would make more sense. A couple off cases ( barbarians with advantage on init for instance ) would allow for a pc to break the mold so to speak but I think overall I would find it more satisfactory because there would be more even footing in the sense of not just the NPCs being able to alpha strike someone most of the time.

Lucas Blackstone said:

I forgot a key point which was my fault. I meant focus firing before someone gets a turn even. In my experience if the npcs have different initiative, then it doesn't result in PC goes on 15, PC goes on 11, 6 Orcs go on 9, PC goes on 7 PC goes on 5. Obviously just an example, but the clump of orcs going all at once just because it is easier allows for free focus firing that doesn't fit the situation in my opinion. In some instances all the orcs go last, but most of the time this would not be the case because the PCs generate 4 numbers out of the 5.

In the first round of a combat, the pcs only have the option to single out one target and chain attack it before it goes if the monsters roll dead last. But in most cases the monsters will have the chance for their whole group to position all of their side at the same time before multiple PCs go. This works offensively ( chain attacking PCs ) or defensively ( entire group can hide, run for cover, call allies and so on ).

Maybe 1 initiative roll for PCs would make more sense. A couple off cases ( barbarians with advantage on init for instance ) would allow for a pc to break the mold so to speak but I think overall I would find it more satisfactory because there would be more even footing in the sense of not just the NPCs being able to alpha strike someone most of the time.

Click to expand...

On average, more than 50% of the PCs will go (they tend to have higher initiative modifiers) then the monsters and then the rest of the PCs. i get what you're saying. Initiative can be quite swingy - but in my experience it just as often goes either way. There are quite a few combats where the most threatening monster goes down before acting.

I use index cards so it wouldn't be that hard to track initiative for each monster, but then I have to roll for each monster, sort them all in order, switch gears long enough to think what orc #4 would do when it's his turn and so on.

The current default is far from perfect and I will sometimes break up groups of monsters even if they are the same type. I just don't know how to implement something significantly better.

Oofta said:

Do they get an advantage? By it's very nature in most cases the monsters get a turn and then PCs get a turn. Each side can "focus fire".

If you have a system to keep combat moving while splitting up initiative, that's great. Maybe there should be another thread because people mention initiative options that I, for one, am not very clear on. Especially the "do what makes sense". Makes sense to whom? The monsters? The PCs? If the latter, why do they always have advantage?

Not that I'm picking on you Lucas, it's just that there have been several posts here long on criticism of a system that works well enough without explanation of alternatives and experiences with other systems.

For example, there are systems where you decide initiative every round by deciding what you're going to do (the Mearl's alternative). If the goblins decide they're going to wake a buddy and retreat on their turn if they can act then things could likely have gone the same way. In any case ... a different thread.

Click to expand...

It _can_ be an edge. Group init means several NPCs go at once and with only one roll there is a reasonable chance they will go early in the round (and a reasonable chance they will go late....both of which can really effect the difficulty), while the PCs have a greater chance of splitting up. Let's say you have 6 orcs vs 4 3rd lvl PCs...so a "hard" encounter.

If zero or one PC goes before the orcs (they go early), the orcs could get 6 attacks at +5/1d12+3....if they focus fire on one PC with an AC of 16, that's a pretty good chance at about 28 hp damage (not counting crits). Easily enough to down most PCs. White rooming things like this is usually not that accurate imxp because it doesn't happen as much at the table as it does in these little discussions...but a DM determined to play his monsters at their most dangerous COULD do this.

This is why "do what makes sense" is important (to me). When group initiative rolls around I try to look at each monster and think about what each would decide to do before any of them act in a way that makes sense. Would all 6 orcs mob the halfling rogue with a dagger and none attack the AC 19 Fighter? That seems unlikely. Two or three, maybe. Certainly the two closest orcs would delight in an opportunity to kill a wimpy little creature like a halfling. But they would also see a large well armed and armored fighter as a real threat to themselves and will want to counter that or they might see a caster in the back and think that's a real threat that they need to take down. So each orc should separately prioritize targets before any of them act...Now....if the PCs screw up and put one character in reach of 6 orcs with no other viable targets, then bad things are about to happen...

EDIT: Just to add something: Another thing I do to mitigate this is I have monsters "take 10.5" on init (so they get 11 + DEX mod and lose ties). I only roll init for important NPCs or very small numbers of monsters.

Uller said:

It _can_ be an edge. Group init means several NPCs go at once and with only one roll there is a reasonable chance they will go early in the round (and a reasonable chance they will go late....both of which can really effect the difficulty), while the PCs have a greater chance of splitting up. Let's say you have 6 orcs vs 4 3rd lvl PCs...so a "hard" encounter.

If zero or one PC goes before the orcs (they go early), the orcs could get 6 attacks at +5/1d12+3....if they focus fire on one PC with an AC of 16, that's a pretty good chance at about 28 hp damage (not counting crits). Easily enough to down most PCs. White rooming things like this is usually not that accurate imxp because it doesn't happen as much at the table as it does in these little discussions...but a DM determined to play his monsters at their most dangerous COULD do this.

This is why "do what makes sense" is important (to me). When group initiative rolls around I try to look at each monster and think about what each would decide to do before any of them act in a way that makes sense. Would all 6 orcs mob the halfling rogue with a dagger and none attack the AC 19 Fighter? That seems unlikely. Two or three, maybe. Certainly the two closest orcs would delight in an opportunity to kill a wimpy little creature like a halfling. But they would also see a large well armed and armored fighter as a real threat to themselves and will want to counter that or they might see a caster in the back and think that's a real threat that they need to take down. So each orc should separately prioritize targets before any of them act...Now....if the PCs screw up and put one character in reach of 6 orcs with no other viable targets, then bad things are about to happen...

EDIT: Just to add something: Another thing I do to mitigate this is I have monsters "take 10.5" on init (so they get 11 + DEX mod and lose ties). I only roll init for important NPCs or very small numbers of monsters.

Click to expand...

"Been a fortnight since we et a halfling..." growls the biggest of the orcs, drooling on himself as he looks to his comrades. "The orc what lands the killing blow gets to suck the eyes out 'er skull!" The ranging scavengers all begin staring hungrily at the halfling rogue before making a move as one toward her. Let's roll some initiative."

So here, once again, we have a reasonable fictional justification for why all the orcs attack the rogue. Further, since we've telegraphed what the orcs are planning to do in a flavorful way, the players have some details they can use to inform their tactics. Does the rogue do her best to keep ahead of aggressive orcs as long as her little legs can manage while the other PCs pick them off with ranged weapons? Do the rest of the characters form a defensive line in front of the halfling to protect her? If the initiative goes badly for the halfling but better for the wizard, does the mage burn that last 2nd-level slot to try to save the rogue before it's too late? If the orcs go first and take down the halfling straight away, do the characters play keep-away with her dying or unconscious body to distract the ravenous orcs while they take them down?

This is an interesting situation both fictionally and tactically. Are the players going to remember the time when the orcs split up to fight different members of the party based on the DM's notion of how an orc makes a threat assessment? Or will they remember better that one time the orcs had a hankering for some halfling and the rogue led them on a harrowing chase while the rest of the PCs tried to save her? Hard to say with certainty in the abstract, but my money's on the latter.

In a fantasy world, almost anything can be made to make sense. It's not what a monster will, would, or should do; rather, it's what it might, could, or may do. I would say the chief underlying concern for the DM are the choices he or she can make that are fun for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable tale. A good way to achieve that in my experience is to be focused on the might, could and may of the situation and be prepared to spin up some fiction to have it make sense.

iserith said:

So here, once again, we have a reasonable fictional justification for why all the orcs attack the rogue....

Click to expand...

Yes...In a fantasy setting, we can come up with all manner of rp justifications for the DM having the monsters doing just about anything...we get it.

But could != should. Having the monster act on knowledge he shouldn't have just because he can and then retroactively coming up with an RP reason for it is, imo, not going to be much fun for anyone. It just leaves players feeling like the DM is trying to win.

But that is not really what I was talking about. The question was asked why is it an edge for the monsters to have group initiative while the PCs have individual initiative. The answer is there is a non-trivial chance the monsters will get to all go before the PCs can do anything just by dumb luck of the dice (or the PCs can all go before the monsters can do anything...if the monsters roll poorly). Since the monsters are only rolling one die while the PCs are rolling several, it increases the chances of the monsters all going first or all going last and that can significantly increase or decrease the difficulty of the encounter. I mainly mitigate this by having the monsters have an init score of 11+Dex mod and monsters lose ties. That way usually about half the PCs go first, then the monsters then the rest of the PCs. If the party all rolls really well or really badly things turn out differently but that isn't very often.

The example I gave (6 orcs vs 4 3rd level PCs) was intended to show how a "hard" encounter can suddenly turn deadly before the players even get a chance to act. My suggestion is that in that circumstance the DM blunt that edge just a bit by not having the monsters focus fire on one hapless PC while all 3 other PCs stand around with their thumbs up their butts. The RP justification is the monsters are acting as if the PCs CAN intervene...because as far as the monsters know, the big guy with the sword will probably object to them tearing apart his little friend.

If you would like to do otherwise, go for it. But as a DM that his been playing for a very long time (going on 40 years), I wouldn't recommend making a habit of that sort of thing. I don't think players generally find it interesting to have their PC chopped to bits without being able to do anything about it.

This is an interesting situation both fictionally and tactically. Are the players going to remember the time when the orcs split up to fight different members of the party based on the DM's notion of how an orc makes a threat assessment? Or will they remember better that one time the orcs had a hankering for some halfling and the rogue led them on a harrowing chase while the rest of the PCs tried to save her? Hard to say with certainty in the abstract, but my money's on the latter.

Click to expand...

There will be no harrowing chase if 6 orcs mob one 3rd level halfling rogue before anyone has a chance to act. Imxp, there will be a squished halfling and an annoyed player. Ymmv but I don't think anyone would find that interesting. Memorable maybe. But not interesting.

Uller said:

Yes...In a fantasy setting, we can come up with all manner of rp justifications for the DM having the monsters doing just about anything...we get it.

But could != should. Having the monster act on knowledge he shouldn't have just because he can and then retroactively coming up with an RP reason for it is, imo, not going to be much fun for anyone. It just leaves players feeling like the DM is trying to win.

Click to expand...

There's another couple of presuppositions in your statement: That the monster is (1) acting on specific knowledge and (2) it "shouldn't have" that knowledge. In the example I provided, the DM knows that it may make the combat challenge more difficulty by having the monsters focus fire. Presumably, he or she wants to do that because it is a choice that will be fun for everyone and will help lead to an exciting, memorable story. Is the orc acting on knowledge it shouldn't have? Not unless the DM declares that it is. The orc can be acting in the manner the DM decides for just about any other reason.

Uller said:

But that is not really what I was talking about. The question was asked why is it an edge for the monsters to have group initiative while the PCs have individual initiative. The answer is there is a non-trivial chance the monsters will get to all go before the PCs can do anything just by dumb luck of the dice (or the PCs can all go before the monsters can do anything...if the monsters roll poorly). Since the monsters are only rolling one die while the PCs are rolling several, it increases the chances of the monsters all going first or all going last and that can significantly increase or decrease the difficulty of the encounter. I mainly mitigate this by having the monsters have an init score of 11+Dex mod and monsters lose ties. That way usually about half the PCs go first, then the monsters then the rest of the PCs. If the party all rolls really well or really badly things turn out differently but that isn't very often.

The example I gave (6 orcs vs 4 3rd level PCs) was intended to show how a "hard" encounter can suddenly turn deadly before the players even get a chance to act. My suggestion is that in that circumstance the DM blunt that edge just a bit by not having the monsters focus fire on one hapless PC while all 3 other PCs stand around with their thumbs up their butts. The RP justification is the monsters are acting as if the PCs CAN intervene...because as far as the monsters know, the big guy with the sword will probably object to them tearing apart his little friend.

If you would like to do otherwise, go for it. But as a DM that his been playing for a very long time (going on 40 years), I wouldn't recommend making a habit of that sort of thing. I don't think players generally find it interesting to have their PC chopped to bits without being able to do anything about it.

Click to expand...

Even if I did agree that group initiative impacts difficulty in any appreciable way, what you say is that sometimes the PCs all go first, sometimes the monsters all go first, and sometimes some the monsters go in the middle of the PCs' order. Which seems fair to me.

As well, there are many things the PCs can do mitigate or avoid outcomes where the PC is cut down early in the fight. Without even including all the events and decisions that led to the PCs running into the melee range of an orc war band, if the players know the orcs are coming for the rogue first, then it would be smart to, say, spend Inspiration on their Initiative rolls.

Uller said:

There will be no harrowing chase if 6 orcs mob one 3rd level halfling rogue before anyone has a chance to act. Imxp, there will be a squished halfling and an annoyed player. Ymmv but I don't think anyone would find that interesting. Memorable maybe. But not interesting.

Click to expand...

Unless the events leading up to the encounter with the orcs were unfair, I don't really see how the player has any grounds to be annoyed with that outcome.

Uller said:

Yes...In a fantasy setting, we can come up with all manner of rp justifications for the DM having the monsters doing just about anything...we get it.
But could != should. Having the monster act on knowledge he shouldn't have just because he can and then retroactively coming up with an RP reason for it is, imo, not going to be much fun for anyone. It just leaves players feeling like the DM is trying to win.

Click to expand...

It's not that bad to give the players the sense that you're trying to win, if you can pull it off, while actually not winning all the time. Because, really, the DM decides when the players will win or lose, but the game is more fun if the players feel like they're actions are directly responsible for their PCs' victories.

But that is not really what I was talking about. The question was asked why is it an edge for the monsters to have group initiative while the PCs have individual initiative.

Click to expand...

It's clearly an edge, making it easier for Team Monster to coordinate their actions. But, the DM is running a bunch of monsters and adjudicating all the PCs actions, so he's /harried/, while each player can focus on making the best tactical decisions for his character - so, in a way, it kinda works out.

My suggestion is that in that circumstance the DM blunt that edge just a bit by not having the monsters focus fire on one hapless PC while all 3 other PCs stand around with their thumbs up their butts. The RP justification is the monsters are acting as if the PCs CAN intervene...because as far as the monsters know, the big guy with the sword will probably object to them tearing apart his little friend.

Click to expand...

Nod. That's the sort of a gentlemen's' aggro that was a staple in many campaigns back in the day - the melee-bruiser-type monsters would preferentially attack 'the strongest looking' character in the party. It saved the casters (tactically the prime targets, and vulnerable), and kept the fighters from feeling useless - put-upon, often dropped, & occasionally dead, but not useless.

But as a DM that his been playing for a very long time (going on 40 years), I wouldn't recommend making a habit of that sort of thing. I don't think players generally find it interesting to have their PC chopped to bits without being able to do anything about it.

Click to expand...

Apparently it's more important that the fighter be 'simple' than have actual mechanisms to protect his buddies like he's supposed to, so, yeah, we've been compensating for it the whole time.

iserith said:

"Been a fortnight since we et a halfling..." growls the biggest of the orcs, drooling on himself as he looks to his comrades. "The orc what lands the killing blow gets to suck the eyes out 'er skull!" The ranging scavengers all begin staring hungrily at the halfling rogue before making a move as one toward her. Let's roll some initiative."

Click to expand...

This is good because it telegraphs the monsters' tactics, the player's may have a chance to act on that, and the gang-up won't come as a shock...