-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Initiative - once/battle or every round?
- Thread starter Zandy
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
The Souljourner said:
... and all the 3.5 players blink and say "What's Refocus?"
-Hyp.
Sammael
Adventurer
Nyah, delay until the beginning of next round is better than refocus anyhow.
Rolling for initiative once per round screws up way too many rules that depend on static initiative, which is why I'd never use it IMC. At most, I'd ask for a reroll of initiative if battlefield conditions change dramatically.
Rolling for initiative once per round screws up way too many rules that depend on static initiative, which is why I'd never use it IMC. At most, I'd ask for a reroll of initiative if battlefield conditions change dramatically.
Oscar carramiñana
First Post
All opinions are good I vote for each round because the fight is more variable I know what delay actions are a little stupid with this system.
Wow.
I have to say I'm stunned that my group is SO FAR into the minority here.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, we experimented with single initiative when we switched to 3.0, but quickly returned to init each round.
Here are some reasons;
Gives rightful advantage to high-dex PC/NPCs; A rotten roll with single init can doom a PC, although I guess they could delay to the next round, but then they miss a movement/attack. With init each round, on average, the high-dex rollers will GET that benefit.
Increases tension; As one poster mentioned, combat IS a variable activity. Rolling each round MAKES it that again. As a DM, part of the fun is taking the players init, then showing them the monster Inits, and having the look on their faces as they see they are ALL after the monsters. As well, having two attacks in a row is just as nerve-racking, on BOTH sides. I don't have to have lived it to know that in the middle ages, swordsmen didn't take turns swinging...
Does NOT slow down combat; You would thing that, logically, an extra roll would slow things down a TON. And that WAS the case. But I built an initiative board. It is magnetic with little icons for each PC. BBEG monsters have solo icons, and groups of monsters have a group icon. I make matching foldup minis for the battleboard. When we get near the end of the round (last one or two to go), the person running the board calls for the init rolls. By the time the DM is ready for the next round, most inits are on the board waiting.
I hope that DMs out there don't roll separate inits for EACH NPC/monster! As a DM, I rarely roll more than 2 or 3 inits. It truly doesn't make the combats go slower, and it CERTAINLY makes them more exciting.
BUT... to each group their own way....
The ONLY time I don't make inits each round is when it is one-on-one battle OR when it will be a quick fight.
Anyway, thanks for all the input, everyone....
I have to say I'm stunned that my group is SO FAR into the minority here.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, we experimented with single initiative when we switched to 3.0, but quickly returned to init each round.
Here are some reasons;
Gives rightful advantage to high-dex PC/NPCs; A rotten roll with single init can doom a PC, although I guess they could delay to the next round, but then they miss a movement/attack. With init each round, on average, the high-dex rollers will GET that benefit.
Increases tension; As one poster mentioned, combat IS a variable activity. Rolling each round MAKES it that again. As a DM, part of the fun is taking the players init, then showing them the monster Inits, and having the look on their faces as they see they are ALL after the monsters. As well, having two attacks in a row is just as nerve-racking, on BOTH sides. I don't have to have lived it to know that in the middle ages, swordsmen didn't take turns swinging...
Does NOT slow down combat; You would thing that, logically, an extra roll would slow things down a TON. And that WAS the case. But I built an initiative board. It is magnetic with little icons for each PC. BBEG monsters have solo icons, and groups of monsters have a group icon. I make matching foldup minis for the battleboard. When we get near the end of the round (last one or two to go), the person running the board calls for the init rolls. By the time the DM is ready for the next round, most inits are on the board waiting.
I hope that DMs out there don't roll separate inits for EACH NPC/monster! As a DM, I rarely roll more than 2 or 3 inits. It truly doesn't make the combats go slower, and it CERTAINLY makes them more exciting.
BUT... to each group their own way....
The ONLY time I don't make inits each round is when it is one-on-one battle OR when it will be a quick fight.
Anyway, thanks for all the input, everyone....
IceBear
Explorer
Ah, but see, you have that nice tool (and a second brain/set of hands to use it) to offset
Yes, once per round is more realistic, but not so realistic that it's worth it for most of us.
A high Dex player that goes last due to a bad roll can be explained away due to the same battlefield conditions that you use to explain someone's suddenly reversal in the initiative order.
Anyway, as long as it works for you and isn't overwhelming then go for it. It's an alternative rule for a reason Readied actions are one way to break out of the "taking turns swinging" (even though that's not *really* what's going on) problem.
Do you guys notice any issues with stunning and full round spells? Does anyone even ready an action or do they just hope they'll win the iniative the next round? BTW, I doubt you're doing it, but the "look on the players' faces" comment makes it sound like you're competing with your players. Again, I doubt that's what you meant, so don't take it the wrong way
Yes, once per round is more realistic, but not so realistic that it's worth it for most of us.
A high Dex player that goes last due to a bad roll can be explained away due to the same battlefield conditions that you use to explain someone's suddenly reversal in the initiative order.
Anyway, as long as it works for you and isn't overwhelming then go for it. It's an alternative rule for a reason
Readied actions are one way to break out of the "taking turns swinging" (even though that's not *really* what's going on) problem.Do you guys notice any issues with stunning and full round spells? Does anyone even ready an action or do they just hope they'll win the iniative the next round? BTW, I doubt you're doing it, but the "look on the players' faces" comment makes it sound like you're competing with your players. Again, I doubt that's what you meant, so don't take it the wrong way
Last edited:
kigmatzomat
Hero
IceBear said:
Stuns aren't much of a big deal since it means you lose your next action, whenever it is. Haven't seen many full-round spells but it seems like it'd be equally good or bad. A fast fighter could get more shots to disrupt an opposing mage or the mage might manage to finish before the fighter gets a single attack in. This works both for and against the players so it's a draw IMO. Makes fights more chancey.
I've found more use of held actions, especially to disrupt hasted mages. That +4 init bonus means they can keep up with, if not outrun, the fighters, and extra movement/actions means they can easily play keep-away while slinging spells. So the fighters tend to hold action more often to try and disrupt spellcasting.
Readying, aka "I hold action until the start of next round" gets used occassionally, but not often. I don't see it being useful that often.
ForceUser
Explorer
If it works for you, great. I loathed tracking initiative each round in 2E. I found it to be an onerous task. Rolling intiative only once per fight was one of the best changes of 3E. What we do is use index cards. We have one card for each PC and one card for each monster type. When initiative is rolled we arrange the cards in descending initiative order and then simply cycle through them one after the other until the fight ends. A character on a delay has his card removed from the stack until he wishes to insert, and a readied character's card is turned sideways so that it sticks out of the deck to remind the DM that the character is on a ready. When you die your card is removed from the stack. It's super easy and makes combat go smoothly for us.Zandy said:Wow.
I have to say I'm stunned that my group is SO FAR into the minority here.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, we experimented with single initiative when we switched to 3.0, but quickly returned to init each round.
Here are some reasons;
Gives rightful advantage to high-dex PC/NPCs; A rotten roll with single init can doom a PC, although I guess they could delay to the next round, but then they miss a movement/attack. With init each round, on average, the high-dex rollers will GET that benefit.
Increases tension; As one poster mentioned, combat IS a variable activity. Rolling each round MAKES it that again. As a DM, part of the fun is taking the players init, then showing them the monster Inits, and having the look on their faces as they see they are ALL after the monsters. As well, having two attacks in a row is just as nerve-racking, on BOTH sides. I don't have to have lived it to know that in the middle ages, swordsmen didn't take turns swinging...
Does NOT slow down combat; You would thing that, logically, an extra roll would slow things down a TON. And that WAS the case. But I built an initiative board. It is magnetic with little icons for each PC. BBEG monsters have solo icons, and groups of monsters have a group icon. I make matching foldup minis for the battleboard. When we get near the end of the round (last one or two to go), the person running the board calls for the init rolls. By the time the DM is ready for the next round, most inits are on the board waiting.
I hope that DMs out there don't roll separate inits for EACH NPC/monster! As a DM, I rarely roll more than 2 or 3 inits. It truly doesn't make the combats go slower, and it CERTAINLY makes them more exciting.
BUT... to each group their own way....
The ONLY time I don't make inits each round is when it is one-on-one battle OR when it will be a quick fight.
Anyway, thanks for all the input, everyone....
It's important to remember that D&D is an abstract rules system and is in no way meant to directly mimic the reality of combat.
Last edited:
IceBear said:
When someone is stunned (and we had a high level monk who used stunning fist almost EVERY attack
they are stunned until the same init the next round. Anyone who wants a free shot before then gets it. As for the "look", that is exactly the point of rolling each round. It is the increased tension that the inits bring that help make the combat more fun. My philosophy as a DM is that I'm the referee and entirely neutral. Any DM who takes joy in killing PCs should quit the job. The joy comes in giving your players a great adventure, whether they live or die.
IceBear
Explorer
I understand what you mean about making it more tense, I'd maybe entertain the idea more if it wouldn't bog down my game (it would, you have a system that works for you so that's good).
Also, I can't help but think that it makes the game more deadly (I believe the PCs will suffer more two FRAs in a row, suffer more spell disruptions, etc than the NPCs will simply because the PCs are in combat more than any one group of monsters), and that's fine if that's what your group is comfortable with, but I don't need to make mine any more deadly or track any more pieces of information
Anyway, I am happy it works for you and your group. Seriously
Also, I can't help but think that it makes the game more deadly (I believe the PCs will suffer more two FRAs in a row, suffer more spell disruptions, etc than the NPCs will simply because the PCs are in combat more than any one group of monsters), and that's fine if that's what your group is comfortable with, but I don't need to make mine any more deadly or track any more pieces of information
Anyway, I am happy it works for you and your group. Seriously
Similar Threads
