Removing Initiative

[CubicsRube]

I've been running a DW campaign for near on 2 years and regularly play in 5e.

There are some effects of removing initiative entirely such as the barbarian ability to get advantage on initiative rolls.

Removing rounds in the traditional sense is far more difficult.

I would suggest this commonly mentioned rule:
At the start of combat you set an "initiative dc" for the enemies.
Players roll initiative. Whoever beats the dc can act before the monsters in any order they like.
Then all the monsters act.
Then all the players.
Repeat last 2 steps.

That way you don't punish classes that have benefits in the initiative space (such as assassin rogues), you preserve the round structure, and you encourage coordination and tactics that is very noticeable in Dungeon World play.

The only thing that gets a little odd might be spell durations. You can use common sense i think in most cases on these. If you want a codified solution however, you can use shadow of the demon lords rounds structure for inspiration if you want, which includes an "end of round" phase in which most spells trigger/expire

 

[Hawk Diesel]

What if you kept initiative and rounds as normal in D&D, but have that list of monster moves. Divide the list into minor moves, major moves, and devastating moves. Nothing happens if the player misses whatever their attempting by less than two. Missing by 3-5 and the monster gets to take a minor move. Missing by more than 5 gives the monster a major move. And a critical fail gives the monster a devastating move. That should make combat a bit more dynamic and challenging for players.

 

[Jester David]

The problem I can see with this, is that a lot of characters have options that allow multiple attacks, so they might do something every turn. While other classes are build around saving throws and the like that are always effective to some degree.

 

[dave2008]

Sounds great - but just so I can get my head around it I have some questions.

If the Giant does or does not miss Jim, is it Jim the spellcaster's turn next?
If Jim the Spellcaster misses, is it the Giant's turn again?
What about Craig the Rogue and Marge the Cleric, when do they go...?

Do what you want, but that sounds just awful to me.

 

[Sadras]

Do what you want, but that sounds just awful to me.

What I liked about the concept in the OP was not so much the lack of initiative, but the creative thinking in having the monster respond to misses and what those misses could be given the laundry list provided in the same post.

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't think this will work in 5e. I think the game needs to be designed around it for it to work.

Our table uses a simplified version of the Greyhawk Initiative variant.

This is the flow of our games:

1. DM sets the scene
2. DM asks each player what they are doing
3. If hostilities are declared then initiative is called as it matters who is doing what and we are on a time scale of seconds.
4. Resolve all actions

One problem with this sort of format:

''My fighter lunge at the hill giant, climb on its belly than try to stab his forehead''

Is that all of the other characters in the scene are just standing around. The same problem comes up during exploration. So instead we ask all players what they are doing before resolving anything.

 

[dave2008]

What I liked about the concept in the OP was not so much the lack of initiative, but the creative thinking in having the monster respond to misses and what those misses could be given the laundry list provided in the same post.

I much prefer the no-initiative concept. I actually don't mind the list of options either, but the idea that the "monsters" only act on a miss is a non started for me.

 

[5ekyu]

What I liked about the concept in the OP was not so much the lack of initiative, but the creative thinking in having the monster respond to misses and what those misses could be given the laundry list provided in the same post.

IIRC STA 2d20 did something similar with melee combat - if a PC failed their melee combat attack the other side either got attacks or did damage - maybe going either way...

In 5e, this same thing could be done with the success at cost "setback" type mechanic - in that "you can still land your blow *but* only by opening yourself up to an AO" - taking a hit to deliver a hit. of course, it could also be an idea to allow the option of ""off-balance" and give advantage for attacks against you until the end of your next turn" as another flavor of this - but I prefer the other choice.

 

[Sadras]

I much prefer the no-initiative concept. I actually don't mind the list of options either, but the idea that the "monsters" only act on a miss is a non started for me.

Well, I won't scrap the initiative in D&D as that I believe would mess around with spell duration. I don't need or want that headache. And I would keep the monster in the initiative order. What I might experiment with is the monster's additional laundry list of actions on misses or as @Hawk Diesel describes upthread as minor and major moves.
One must be careful though as these minor/major moves + legendary actions could make an encounter super deadly.

 

[Blue]

What do you think? Is it possible to remove Initiative from the game without breaking to much things?

I think that's a very cool system.

I think it would be hard to backfit to 5e D&D because of the number of durations and triggers the system has.

Spells are the most obvious topic. Think about a spell that does damage when a foe ends it's turn in the area. If the foe gets fewer activations they will take less damage. If the PCs roll more success with cost they get the benefit of the foe taking more damage.

Things that last until "the start of your next turn" are assumed to impact each foe (or ally, if it's helpful) exactly once.

Action surge is a way to get another action without the foes getting one - but really if you roll poorly they can interrupt, and they might even get more actions because of your action surge.

Each case could be corrected - but really that seems like a lot of work and that maybe a system that had less built on action economy and less reliance on the "everyone gets one action per turn" would be better able to natively take advantage of that sort of combat flow replacing initiative.