D&D 5E Action Point Initiative

[mellored]

This is very similar to my "roundless" version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xPT-45PCBvaAJ3FaKI2Tkz2UmMGzoFcCzG0i7BfOss/edit?usp=sharing

I now have a simpler round-based one at the top of the document, scroll down for the full version.

No rounds. Roll for the next initiative when you use your turn as suggested, bonus action and reactions, delay and ready, changing your mind, and no modifiers to initiative. Movement is separated from your action.

I don't see 5e working well with weapon speed. Not without rebalancing a lot of things.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I don't see 5e working well with weapon speed. Not without rebalancing a lot of things.

That's why it's broader strokes, while most folks wielding finesse or light weapons probably have a Dexterity build. Although you could just go with d6 for initiative for everything.

Wait, that sounds a lot like AD&D, doesn't it?

 

[mellored]

That's why it's broader strokes, while most folks wielding finesse or light weapons probably have a Dexterity build. Although you could just go with d6 for initiative for everything.

Wait, that sounds a lot like AD&D, doesn't it?

For combat with rounds, yes. That's fine. You still have 1 dagger attack per 1 hammer attack. Daggers just go first.

For roundless, no. You would end up with 3 or 4 dagger attacks per 2 hammer attacks. And 5e just isn't balanced for that.

 

[Quickleaf]

I've been thinking about initiative, including Mearls' recent alternate version, along with various Action Point mechanics of some older games. Not *fully* though through, though - just some preliminary musings. I'm sure I"m not the first to wonder how this would work. Hell, it might even be already in that other thread - I haven't read the whole thing!

So, you take Mearls' initiative system, using the damage as initiative roll variant. However, you no longer have rounds - you just have one long track.

• Start a combat by rolling initiative as normal (using Dex). Take your action on your turn. Then declare your next action and roll the initiative die/dice for that, adding it to the current initiative count. That action completes at that that initiative count, at which point you declare your next action.
• You only take one action, or one move at a time.
• You can interrupt your own action and change your mind. You just declare a new action before the initiative count indicates your action has completed and reset from that point.
• Spells have a flat initiative count equal to twice their level.
• Anything which takes a turn's duration simply takes 20 initiative beats instead.

I haven't considered how bonus actions and the like factor in yet. And I definitely haven't playtested it - it's just musings.

It sounds interesting! As a GM, however, knowing how often players change their minds about what they want to do...it sounds like it could be a headache at the table constantly accounting for changing actions & changing initiatives based on what the current initiative count is and what they're changing their action to.

In general, that's my main criticism of these sorts of "declare action in advance" initiative systems. Because players *are* going to change their minds, these systems increase the burden on the GM (who is typically tracking initiative in most games I've run or participated in).

The "declare action in advance" systems I've seen seem to offer increased group participation in coming up with a plan at the cost of being less flexible (i.e. more cumbersome for the GM) when it comes to handling the players changing their minds. Which *is* going to come up, and likely come up a lot.

Theoretically, I'm intrigued at the idea of a "declare action in advance" initiative system which DOESN'T come at the cost of increasing the GM's burden...probably through some innovative method of handling players changing their minds according to changing circumstances.

 

[mellored]

Theoretically, I'm intrigued at the idea of a "declare action in advance" initiative system which DOESN'T come at the cost of increasing the GM's burden...probably through some innovative method of handling players changing their minds according to changing circumstances.

Just let the players keep track. All the DM needs to do is count up. When it's their number they go. You only need to step in if you think they cheat.

Also, the system punishes changing your action. You lose a small part of your turn each time you change.

 

[Morrus]

Just let the players keep track. All the DM needs to do is count up. When it's their number they go. You only need to step in if you think they cheat.

Also, the system punishes changing your action. You lose a small part of your turn each time you change.

In fact, I don’t have anything to do with initiative when I run a game. I have a player track it.