Quickleaf
Legend
Has anyone experimented with using different approaches to initiative within the same adventure or campaign?
This probably sounds nuts, but let me explain...
I've noticed that the "everybody roll" sequential initiative (5e's default) creates an undesirable speed bump in the transition to smaller less important combats, whereas it can help set the tone for a more climactic combat.
Similarly, I've noticed that simply using side initiative in 5e can create problems in larger / more significant fights: makes winning initiative too important & reduces the back-and-forth flow between GM and Player.
Here's what I'm imagining: A "zooming" lens of different initiative approaches for three scales of conflict...
Snap Scenes: When there’s one or two monsters of the same type (like a quick guard scene) or just one or two players are involved in a very focused fast scene, it can be resolved with the active/leading player rolling initiative against a DC of 10 + the monster’s DEX. PC wins? They go first. PC loses? Monsters go first. Sometimes, the combat is so secondary to the scene that it can be resolved simply as “resolve the PC’s hostile action" and not even worry about initiative.
This uses 'passive' initiative (the Initiative Score variant from the DMG), but only for monsters.
Typical Scenes: For most combat encounters, initiative is not rolled. Instead, the round begins with whoever triggered the scene (if in doubt, have one PC roll versus one monster to determine who goes first). When that character finishes their turn, they choose the next creature/group to act, and so on. The last person to act in the current round decides who starts the new round – but they can't pick themselves. A creature/PC that hasn’t taken a turn yet this round may interrupt the order if it took damage or if it spends Inspiration or a Legendary Resistance.
This is an idea from Richard Whitters that he's developing for his Ruttiger RPG; it's 'popcorn' initiative but the damage caveat encourages back-and-forth. If there's ambiguity about who is initial actor, either the GM can let the players sort their strategy out, the GM can call for the two debating players to roll against each other, or the Snap Scene roll can resolve between a PC and a monster.
Climax Scenes: For climactic / set-piece / boss encounters, everyone rolls initiative as normal. If the PCs are not surprised, the players may have one minute to make their plan of attack. During initiative, players who have consecutive turns with no monsters in between them may act in any order they wish, including overlapping their turns.
This 'clustered' initiative with a 'football huddle' is what I've been using for my default initiative in all scenes currently. IME it encourages quick planning while injecting some randomness without totally overriding that planing. However, like any method for recording initiative (short of VTT automation) it is definitely a speed bump, so I'm wondering about reserving it for scenes with bigger stakes.
This probably sounds nuts, but let me explain...
I've noticed that the "everybody roll" sequential initiative (5e's default) creates an undesirable speed bump in the transition to smaller less important combats, whereas it can help set the tone for a more climactic combat.
Similarly, I've noticed that simply using side initiative in 5e can create problems in larger / more significant fights: makes winning initiative too important & reduces the back-and-forth flow between GM and Player.
Here's what I'm imagining: A "zooming" lens of different initiative approaches for three scales of conflict...
Snap Scenes: When there’s one or two monsters of the same type (like a quick guard scene) or just one or two players are involved in a very focused fast scene, it can be resolved with the active/leading player rolling initiative against a DC of 10 + the monster’s DEX. PC wins? They go first. PC loses? Monsters go first. Sometimes, the combat is so secondary to the scene that it can be resolved simply as “resolve the PC’s hostile action" and not even worry about initiative.
This uses 'passive' initiative (the Initiative Score variant from the DMG), but only for monsters.
Typical Scenes: For most combat encounters, initiative is not rolled. Instead, the round begins with whoever triggered the scene (if in doubt, have one PC roll versus one monster to determine who goes first). When that character finishes their turn, they choose the next creature/group to act, and so on. The last person to act in the current round decides who starts the new round – but they can't pick themselves. A creature/PC that hasn’t taken a turn yet this round may interrupt the order if it took damage or if it spends Inspiration or a Legendary Resistance.
This is an idea from Richard Whitters that he's developing for his Ruttiger RPG; it's 'popcorn' initiative but the damage caveat encourages back-and-forth. If there's ambiguity about who is initial actor, either the GM can let the players sort their strategy out, the GM can call for the two debating players to roll against each other, or the Snap Scene roll can resolve between a PC and a monster.
Climax Scenes: For climactic / set-piece / boss encounters, everyone rolls initiative as normal. If the PCs are not surprised, the players may have one minute to make their plan of attack. During initiative, players who have consecutive turns with no monsters in between them may act in any order they wish, including overlapping their turns.
This 'clustered' initiative with a 'football huddle' is what I've been using for my default initiative in all scenes currently. IME it encourages quick planning while injecting some randomness without totally overriding that planing. However, like any method for recording initiative (short of VTT automation) it is definitely a speed bump, so I'm wondering about reserving it for scenes with bigger stakes.
