What is your way for doing Initiative?

We just all roll, and the group that beat the monsters goes, then the bad guys, then the rest of the party. We don't track order in those groups.

smbakeresq said:

The Greyhawk Initiative here. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/greyhawk-initiative

Click to expand...

I don't know what I hate more: How needlessly complicated it is, how it reintroduces weapon speed and still doesn't try to fix the weapon reach problem (i.e., bigger weapons are always slower regardless of other characteristics), or how it uses Greyhawk in the name for no reason.

I mean, it's better than ADDICT, but I cannot fathom actually using either system in actual play.

Blue said:

You're absolutely correct - as long you willfully ignore the the other half of the equation that was already pointed out.

It also has a duration of 1 round. Spell effects don't last past the end of their duration. When Fear ends, you don't keep running. When Command ends, you don't take the action.

Also, duration is not the only effect that lasts until the start (or end) of your next turn, so even if this particular case is wrong it doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

Ok, I just refuted your issue with Command because it was the example you used. The 1 round duration is arguable since with cyclical rounds, 1 round means until you go again on the repeated initiative number, but in non-cyclical rounds you have to decide does 1 round mean the round the spell is cast, or the next round? I rule it as the next round. In essence, casters gain the benefit of the spell lasting until the end of the current round, and whenever its effects ends on the next round. In some cases, this is the caster's next turn. In the case of Command, it is the next action of the target.

Blue said:

If you read what I wrote, the rationalizing was about where you were equating only losing part of your spell being the same as getting your full spell. I don't see that addressed so the comment about rationalizing still stands.

Click to expand...

No problem, I thought you were more making a general statement. I never claimed losing part of a spell's possible effects as the same as getting all of them (that is illogical). I stated that there are cases when a caster can have increased duration of benefits in some cases and obviously decreased in others. Your rebuke about the monster having to not be killed, to "average out" as I put it, is only under certain cases. Consider a spell like Shield: the caster can benefit only on the turn it is cast if he goes first next turn or gains it for the next turn as well if the attacker goes first since his next turn has not yet begun. In the cyclical system, he only gains it for the turn on which it is cast (possibly against other foes that are going before him next turn, if you are rolling more than one initiative for opponents...).

As I said, in practice, which I have always played this way, there has never, ever been an issue with it. Just like I can come up with abusive and scenarios with cyclical systems, there will always be benefits and drawbacks to non-cyclical. For me and my players, the benefits of unpredictability in the upcoming round adds excitement to the game and is worth the non-existent cost you believe is there.

Blue said:

Ah yes, the "your point doesn't agree with what I'm saying, so feel free not to use it for your group". That's a fine and true statement, almost goes without saying. But doesn't invalidate the points being made.

Click to expand...

Well, it doesn't invalidate them, but as I have discussed the points are not as great a concern as you imagine. Nearly all of the time, if there is any doubt, I rule in the spell benefiting the caster once they succeed in casting it.

5E also lacks such things as variable casting time. Most spells are simply 1 action. There is no way to disrupt a spell short of Counterspell if it has a casting time of 1 action. Even if a player Readies their attack in anticipation of an enemy caster casting a spell, he can't stop it since the Readied action is completed after the triggering event of spell casting.

What it sums to is this: unless we debated the possible merits and flaws for every single spell, the point is moot. You believe there are possible high costs associated with playing this way and I have tried to explain to you there really aren't. If you don't believe me, no problem. I understand your concerns and I am happy to discuss them with you, but in actual play I haven't seen them.

Will add my experience in support of [MENTION=6976296]James Grover[/MENTION], in practice none of these issues that people are worried about have ever been a problem at my table. It works just fine. The only time it appears not to work is in theory with a group of rules lawyers.

We experimented with the Popcorn Intiative for a few sessions.

For now, we just roll, highest goes first, ties between PCs and monsters go to the players (and, in the case of player ties, whichever player I wrote down first or whichever player wants to go first - no one has really cared). I roll a separate initiative for each monster type (the 3 goblins get one roll, the one bugbear gets its roll, and the 5 giant rats get theirs).

We might try some modified group initiative (like [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1013]Flexor the Mighty![/MENTION] suggest upthread) but where I roll an average for two monster groups (arbitrarily "fast" and "slow"). All players who beat all the monsters sort out their own order, those in the middle do the same, and those at the bottom of the order do the same.

In any case, if you use a method that includes rolling for initiative, I highly recommend having players do an initiative roll before the session starts. As people arrive, they can do their roll. If the DM has done the same with some potential monster encounters, everyone can jump right into the action instead of "pausing" a combat for initiative. When the dust settles and the combat is over, the PCs can roll again... you know, in case another combat pops up.

Flexor the Mighty! said:

We just all roll, and the group that beat the monsters goes, then the bad guys, then the rest of the party. We don't track order in those groups.

Click to expand...

This is what I do. Rolling every round.

It makes having a good initiative matter while also adding the chaos of changing initiative.

What I want is combat to feel like a group acting.. When you have side initiative (or something like this) you have more of a team feel. I want players figuring out how to work together and I don’t mind some meta-level tactical discussion during combat.

Individual initiative always felt to me like it promoted more of a “it’s my turn to be awesome” feel.

I thought about trying popcorn initiative, but I can’t imagjne how much time would be lost deciding who to pass to... my players would agonize over every hand off.

Bacon Bits said:

I don't know what I hate more: How needlessly complicated it is, how it reintroduces weapon speed and still doesn't try to fix the weapon reach problem (i.e., bigger weapons are always slower regardless of other characteristics), or how it uses Greyhawk in the name for no reason.

I mean, it's better than ADDICT, but I cannot fathom actually using either system in actual play.

Click to expand...

In actual use its very fast. It takes an encounter to get used then it just flies along. It actually helps move the whole combat faster as players actually have to interact as a team.

I used to use a chess timer to keep combat moving along anyway, now I just push them along. Tactics shouldn't take that long. As a real life story, at Sandhurst, the British Officer Training School, between WW1 and WW2 they would present a tactical problem on a sand table as homework to be done by next day. The German army used a similar system, except you had 5 minutes to present a solution.

Monayuris said:

This is what I do. Rolling every round.

It makes having a good initiative matter while also adding the chaos of changing initiative.

What I want is combat to feel like a group acting.. When you have side initiative (or something like this) you have more of a team feel. I want players figuring out how to work together and I don’t mind some meta-level tactical discussion during combat.

Individual initiative always felt to me like it promoted more of a “it’s my turn to be awesome” feel.

I thought about trying popcorn initiative, but I can’t imagjne how much time would be lost deciding who to pass to... my players would agonize over every hand off.

Click to expand...

That is an excellent point about some level of meta-tactical discussion. I will add that to my notes to discuss on Wednesday with my group. Thanks.

smbakeresq said:

The Greyhawk Initiative here. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/greyhawk-initiative

Click to expand...

You know, I never knew about this and personally there are aspects of it I love! With a little tweaking, I think it would be a great system for initiative and allow for a smooth and descriptive flow of action.

One thing I would immediately change is that if you selected the attack action only and rolled, but on your turn you had no foe to attack, you would then roll the d6 and add it to the present total, moving on the new total.

Yep, awesome system in theory. Now to twist it, turn it, tweak it, and flop it on its head until I have something brilliant!

I thought about letting people without an action roll a d6 and I didn’t like it. PC will attempt to game it, never rolling to move in hopes of going early and then getting bailed out if it didn’t work.

You have to be smart and decide what is best. Making your players decisions is what makes the game a game.

Make a choice.