D&D 5E Solving the problem of initiative.

There's a variant initiative in the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game, where you roll for initiate to see who goes first. After that, the person whose turn it is chooses who goes next. You can't pick someone a second time until everyone has taken a turn.
It creates some nice strategy.

It diesn't eliminate the inability to do anything when not your turn, but that's generally the nature of games...

I get the dissatisfaction in the OP, but not any specific complaint so it is difficult to address directly.

There are a few variations I find interesting or engaging.

1) Simultaneous declaration followed by ordered resolution. At the start of a round, all participants declare what they are going to do (down to where area of effects will be placed) and then initiative is rolled/triggered. Since everyone makes their choices at the same moment with the same information, the resolution phase gets more chaotic and the after-action narrative less linear. Who goes when becomes less important unless those characters are engaged in a form on contest and the combat can often be broken down into a set of smaller self-contained engagements for quick determination inside the round. Though time-consuming, additional humour can be derived by keeping the declarations secret for simultaneous reveal. "What do you mean none of us are attacking the guy casting the ritual? I thought you were going after him, arrgh!"

2) The person with initiative chooses the next person to go. The initial initiative determination only provides who goes first. As the character completes its turn, the player chooses the next character -- on any side -- who goes next. The character who goes last picks the first character to act in the next round. This allows some tactical choices in the combat though it can often result in a huge alpha-strike wave at the beginning if one side thinks it can drop it the other quickly and is willing to gamble in potentially having the survivors of the other side go twice is response.

I'm confused as to what you are looking for OP.

Are you looking for a simpler system, one that requires less bookkeeping and less action declaration?

Or are you looking for a more "realistic" or "natural" system, that simulates the chaos of the battlefield?

Because these things will lead you in opposite directions.

Reducing the number of "things" a person can do per turn will also significantly impact certain classes. Wizards and Clerics may not mind, but Monks and Rogues will. Iterative attackers will lose out significantly. At least in a D&D-styled system. Initiative exists largely to prevent everyone from shouting out what they want to do at the same time and ending up with nothing happening because one person (the DM) is attempting to have multiple monsters react to 4-5 people. IMO, the point of initiative is just to know who's supposed to be talking and who I can ignore or tell to be quiet and wait.

My reading of the OP is that he is rolling initiative for every single round like older editions. That is something I'm glad is not part of 5E.

OP, if this is the case, you only roll initiative at the beginning of any given combat, not after each round during that combat.

Lanliss said:

This is the "Side Initiative", which the OP specifically labeled as the polar opposite of what they want, and the worst thing ever.

Click to expand...

No it's not. It's not all PCs go, then all DM goes or the reverse. It's Player, DM, Player, DM, Player, etc., repeat until all creatures in the combat have gone, then determine which side starts 1st in round 2. Doesn't matter wich player/monster activates in wich slot. There's only 1 dice roll for initiative each round. Odds = players go 1st, evens = DM.

I still think this is the best approach. With the DM narrating the transitions between turns the combat moves more smoothly and the players (if they're paying attention) stand ready to take their action (or adjust their action as new information becomes available).

http://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/

pdzoch said:

o.k. I see. I've seen one DM use a narrative combat style where all the players sort of narrated what they were doing at the same time. The group was used to that style so they did not talk over each other much. I think it would work better with a theater of the mind style game. The DM only had one primary monster (there may have then one or two other minions in the mix), so I suppose it was easy for him to keep track of everything.

I'm not sure that is in my skill set, especially as I often have large encounters with many monsters. There is some artificiality to the set turn sequence, but it helps keep track of everything.

Click to expand...

I've done fairly narrative combat. It depends on the players as much as the DM and works best with smaller groups, typically. If it feels like a stretch, don't go there.

For a while, I did employ a "advantage" or "+2 bonus" for players who immediately began their turn when it was their turn to keep the game moving.

I think I'd be happy with ONLY the minor pause between characters in a turn. I always have one player in EVERY turn who seems to have wondered off for a bathroom break, a snack run, phone call, tend to a child or pet, etc.

Click to expand...

Dealing with kids is a quandary. Kids are important, unpredictable, and worthy of special consideration. Unless they're terrors (which I've seen), they're exempt from what I'm about to say.

The player needs to get his stuff in a pile. Combats are generally predictable. Use the head during non-combat lulls; sometimes, nature calls, but it shouldn't be a common interruption. Unless you're on-call for work or have a dying grandmother (pregnant wife, etc.), stay off the phone during the game -- period. That's just rude. Also, assuming you mean "snack run" as a trip to the gas station/grocery store, those happen before the session -- and you still show up on time for the game. If you meant it as getting up to fetch your drink from the fridge, plan better and/or go when someone else does it. My group is friends, who just happen to like to game, so we're pretty casual, but friends should still be considerate. If you're gamers, first, then it should be a bit more rigid.

Over the years, I've had groups/players who just seem to be unprepared on their turn. I've found that having a rough window of opportunity, say one minute-ish, is a good stick with which to beat them. If I think the minute is up, I start counting down from ten, then they miss their action. In 3E, I defaulted to "delay". In 5E, it hasn't really been an issue, but I'd probably lean towards a readied action to whack whomever comes in range (if there's already someone in range, they should just whack them, to begin with). Note that you need to be pretty comfortable being a dick without seeming like you're being a dick to get away with this -- or the whole table needs to be some level of annoyed with the player in question. Reserve for chronic behavior, not the occasional "Hey, I think this is a good time to try out power/spell X that I've never used." The latter is good learning (usually).

Weird Dave said:

Depending on what kinds of problems you are trying to solve with initiative, you can also look at kitbashing the Savage Worlds game system. That system uses a deck of regular playing cards, deals out one to each participant in the combat, and then counts down from Ace to Deuce (spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs for suits in case of ties). Holding your action involves flipping your card upside down and not getting another one on the next draw but allows you to interrupt someone else's action. In Savage Worlds there are Edges (similar-ish to feats) that change some of the mechanics of the card-based initiative - Level Headed, for example, allows you to take two cards and keep one of them of your choice. Jokers are wild and give you a special bonus.

Click to expand...

The Savage Worlds initiative system is hands down one of the best parts of the system. Once you try the "card deck count down" variant for initiative, rolling dice every round is simply boring. It also adds real tension, because the order of combat changes every round. Sometimes you get to act ahead of the enemies, sometimes you don't.

The other thing Savage Worlds does is give out a +2 bonus to actions when a player gets dealt a joker. For our groups, we'll usually add 1 or 2 more jokers to a standard deck to spice things up (normal decks come with 2 jokers standard, I believe).

The one thing that some people who come from a D&D background don't like about it is that dexterity bonuses in D&D don't really make a difference with this kind of initiative mechanic. That guy with the 18 or 19 DEX may not get to act ahead of the monsters with 11 or 12 DEX, and for some people it bothers them that this particular aspect of their character build isn't baked into initiative. One easy way around this problem is to simply say that if they ever get a card equal to or lower than their DEX bonus, they get dealt another card. If you want to be more generous you could change it to their DEX bonus + 2.

Savage Worlds includes two edges (the equivalent of a D&D feat) that affect initiative. One is based on Intelligence, where due to a character's innate intelligence and powers of observation they get to draw two cards for initiative and keep the higher. The other permanently sets the minimum card threshold to 6. If you'd rather use "feats" instead of giving an inherent DEX bonus, that's how to do it.

Concrete suggestions, assuming you don't want core/RAW:

1) Super simple: No rolling, just go in order of Dexterity. In case of a tie, then you roll a D20, no modifiers. Roll until no ties. Just write down the names on a sheet of paper. It stays the same the whole combat.

2) Mechanically simpler, potentially hazardous: Go by side (PCs and allies vs. "monsters") -- use highest dexterity per side. Each side gets to internally negotiate exactly how they want to order. I'd avoid this, though, because all your giants will be hiring goblin retainers, just to get the initiative.

3) Simple randomization: Use a deck of cards. Deal one per unique combatant or group of mooks. Leave the cards, face up, in front of each "owner". Step from high to low, Joker is wild. Ignore modifiers, since it ruins the display (cost of simplicity).

3a) Cards with modifiers: If ignoring the modifiers bothers you, then deal each player a hand of cards at the beginning of the session. The hand size is equal to the absolute value of their Dexterity modifier. After drawing for initiative at the top of combat, each player is permitted (dex bonus) or required (dex penalty) to use a card of their choice (bonus) or the lowest card (penalty) from their hand, in place of the drawn card. In this case, the drawn card goes into their hand. In this way, they always have the same number of cards in their hand. If you have marathon sessions, collect the hands, shuffle, and re-deal after roughly four hours of play.

4) Complex and "realistic": If you can get your hands on a copy of Phoenix Command and the melee combat supplement, go with that. Since I haven't seen them since the 1980s, you're probably going to have to roll your own. Every action has a speed factor. You can use 1E AD&D speed factors, if available, or you can do something more simplistic. For example, weapons have a 4 base SF. Weapons with the "two-handed" (or versatile, used two-handed) or "heavy" properties get a +2 SF for each. The "light" and "finesse" properties each shift the SF by -1. Yes, that difference is intentional. Spells that take an action to cast are base of 2 SF, +1 per spell level (yes, meteor swarm has the potential to set you up for real pain). Spells that can be cast as a bonus action are automatically a 2 SF or 4 SF, if 5th level or above (balance-ish). Movement is 1 SF per 5' moved, with faster and slower creatures having a slightly different rate (I have ideas, but they're complex). Combat is assumed to start on segment 10, with the initiative modifier being subtracted from that for when a given character starts. Armor limits dexterity for this purpose. On their number, each combatant chooses an action and begins to execute it. Their action completes in a number of segments equal to the SF of the action. At that point, they choose a new action. Readied actions begin one segment after the triggering action begins. If you're just delaying (resurrecting that option), it costs you 5 segments to jump back into the fray.

4a) Complex with better modifiers: If you like 4, but want Dexterity to matter more, that can be worked in pretty easily. Just add 4 to the SF of all actions. Now, subtract the dex modifier from the SF every time. An action can never take less than 1 segment. You could get wild with this and use Intelligence to modify the SF for spells, Strength for weapons, etc. Personally, I'd avoid this other than to limit the modifier to the lesser of Dexterity or attack stat. You could either leave armor to limit dexterity impact on SF or you could apply a +1 SF for medium armor and a +2 SF for heavy armor, with non-proficiency doubling it. Each level of encumbrance is +2 to all SF.

As for my thoughts on what to use, I'd still go with the PHB rule. I don't see #1 being much quicker to collect each value vs. including a roll. I use a combat tracker that can roll for me, so that's totally no gain. I do not like #2, at all. It was included because some folks like initiative by side. I actually kinda like the flavor of using cards, but I thing it's equal in complexity to the PHB rules, so it's just aesthetics. If I did use cards, I'd probably go with #3a, just for fun. Playing Phoenix Command cured me of any complaints I had around "realism". I know I would not enjoy #4, but I also know it's totally workable as long as you like math.

Lanliss said:

I believe the specific issue being discussed is the "turn" concept. Everything stops, Barbarian does stuff, Everything stops, Fighter does stuff, Everything stops, etc. OP wants a more fluid handling of the order, I think, with the turns essentially intermingled into one mess of a combat, as it should rightly be.

Click to expand...

If that is the problem (it's not clear from the original post), then that's easily solved:

Follow the basic conversation of the game (page 3, Basic Rules).

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

So after the DM has described the setup, the players declare they want to fight. The DM decides that's time for initiative and calls for the check. Once that's sorted out, the DM describes the environment from the perspective of the fight (as in your example) and asks "What do you do?" The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM narrates the result, calling for attack rolls or ability checks as needed.

Now, instead of just saying "Barbarian, you're up..." the DM instead follows the basic conversation of the game, which holds in all situations, by describing the environment to the player of the barbarian and asks "What do you do?" The player describes. The DM narrates, perhaps with some rolls involved. Repeat for all players at the table.

A lot of DMs forget Step 1 and then it leads to that feeling that combat is this separate thing and initiative is the signal that you've dumped into some other subsystem separate from other play. That's only so when you're not following the basic conversation of the game for all interactions at the table as the rules say we should be doing.