Initiative options?

Blue · Feb 20, 2019

5e bakes a lot of powers and spells into the assumption that between your action each opponent has exactly one action. Some of these are from you, like the Shield spell where once cast it is assumed to only stop any foe once - but will have a chance to stop every foe once. Or things like proning an opponent where they will have an opportunity to go (and potentially get up) before you go again. A lot of spells are the same way.

So I'd be wary, specifically for 5e, that other initiative systems that vary that "each goes exactly once" nature will add a good amount more variance into play, at times effectively invalidating a player's action. Even if it "evens out" over time, it's still really disappointing to the player when it happens.

Many other game systems, that don't hang so many mechanical expectations off of it, can have much more interesting and varied initiative.

iserith · Feb 20, 2019

dnd4vr said:
We understand going first for certain features is what makes them work, but otherwise it seems like a pointless mechanic.

I would not go so far as to say it's pointless. I would just say it's useful, but not particularly fun in and of itself. I mean, I even use it sometimes in exploration and social interaction challenges just as a way to manage spotlight and make sure everyone has a more or less equal chance to participate, which is all it really is used for in combat anyway.

aco175 · Feb 20, 2019

At one time we rolled initiative each round. May have been back in 2e days or early 3e. I liked it, but it did slow down combat more. It did make for some swingy combat with people going twice in a row if you are lat the first round and happen to roll first the next. I remember liking the way it played, but dropped it after the one campaign.

200orcs · Feb 20, 2019

Ok. I have played a lot of Shadowrun so I get what you are saying.

If you allow multiple actions per round you would break the game. There is the thief archetype that allows the 22 and go again at 12style. But it's a high level ability and they get to go twice.

For DnD you have to change the mindset of high initiative to take multiple actions, to maximizing action economy per round.

Essentially by being able to take a bonus action, move, standard action, reaction you can maximize what you can do per round

Having said that I believe that Shadowrun is a better system. I have always wanted to run D&D with Shadowrun rules, but I have never got around to it.

Draegn · Feb 21, 2019

200orcs said:
Ok. I have played a lot of Shadowrun so I get what you are saying.

If you allow multiple actions per round you would break the game. There is the thief archetype that allows the 22 and go again at 12style. But it's a high level ability and they get to go twice.

For DnD you have to change the mindset of high initiative to take multiple actions, to maximizing action economy per round.

Essentially by being able to take a bonus action, move, standard action, reaction you can maximize what you can do per round

Having said that I believe that Shadowrun is a better system. I have always wanted to run D&D with Shadowrun rules, but I have never got around to it.

You might find The Dark Eye 4e to be of interest.

Rhenny · Feb 21, 2019

In some of the Fantasy Grounds games I play in, the DM decided to use the roll each round option. In FG, the interface calculates and arranges initiative order so the extra die rolling isn't much of an issue. In a table top game, it would add too much extra time.

Honestly, as a player, I don't like the changing initiative. It doesn't really add to the game other than messing up plans. And since it does mess up plans, it often makes players take more time deciding their actions, which I hate.

DND_Reborn · Feb 21, 2019

200orcs said:
Having said that I believe that Shadowrun is a better system. I have always wanted to run D&D with Shadowrun rules, but I have never got around to it.

I always liked the idea, but even more so than D&D, it became a game of "speed kills". I don't really want that either. Our DM is working on a damage soaking system for D&D similar to Shadowrun, but it involves some pretty drastic homebrew!

I've been playing around with a variant of the Greyhawk system and want to suggest it to our group, but a lot of it does come down to enhancing initiative vs speed of play. I agree the re-roll each round just takes too much time in TTRPG. I also read a thread were one post used a purely narrative system. The DM would simply ask who wants to do what, and describe it to the players, letting the action resolve when their turn came.

My friend joked with me the other day and just asked me, "Dude, when are you just going to make your own game?" The more I think about different systems like D&D, Shadowrun, Vampire, WEG, GURPS, etc., the more I want to pick and choose what I loved best about each one and mash them all together.

Ilbranteloth · Feb 21, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Hi all,

I was thinking about Initiative a lot lately. Does anyone have any variant so it isn't just "I go, you go, I go, you go"?

Even rolling each round, it is still basically always I get a turn then you and alternates. My group is looking for something more dynamic and purposeful.

Any thoughts?

Yes. We only use initiative as an opposes check when you need to know what action resolves first. Otherwise we don’t use it at all.

Everybody describes what they are doing, and the DM does the same for the monsters. Actions are resolved in a logical order, often resolving the full change of blows between two combatants, and others can react to the action that’s already happened.

It’s relatively rare that you actually need to
Know who hit first. Unless it’s a killing blow, your each just taking damage.

We have a number of guidelines written up, but that’s the gist of it. Have been using it for several years now, with groups as large as 13 players. Works great.

5ekyu · Feb 21, 2019

dnd4vr said:
We understand going first for certain features is what makes them work, but otherwise it seems like a pointless mechanic. So, I agree, which is why I'll probably just suggest we get rid of initiative altogether. The game seems likely to run just as well because it is so simple in actions.

But, first I'll wait to see if anyone else has other ideas...

What you seem to be describing is represents in other systems as speed (say in hero) where you get a number of turns in a round and thr other guy gets b number in z round etc.

5e specifically avoids this as a given passive thing, and you have to create this by using features or abilities that either give you extra actions (action surge or haste or various ambush type features) or hy depriving the enemy of their opportunities (most any incapacitated condition.)

As for using simpler init, sure. For my last concluded campaign of 18 months, we let the players choose first or last then alternated one character from each side on the first turn in ehatevrrborder the side chose. The first last choice put a PC to go first or last. Then that was set for the fight.

Took it to choice over die roll.

My current game we are back to rolling but I allow you to take disad if you want.

Dausuul · Feb 21, 2019

You could go with the old-school method: Each round, declare your action, then roll initiative. Actions are resolved in initiative order.

It adds a lot of excitement to the initiative roll, and it discourages "clockwork planning" where the PCs orchestrate an elaborate sequence of actions based on a known initiative order. On the down side, it makes things more chaotic, and it doesn't mesh particularly well with 5E's mechanics, which are designed around cyclical initiative. My group tried it briefly and didn't like it, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work for you.