D&D 5E Side Initiative

[JeffB]

The Kids and I vastly prefer simple per side initiative vs. Cyclic. Yes it's more swingy but it adds tension and breaks up round after round of "ok..fighters turn, wizards turn, goblins turn, clerics turn, rogues turn...end of round 1...ok fighters, turn wizards turn, goblins turn, clerics turn, rogues turn...end of round 2....ok fighters turn........"

Drives us crazy.

Anyone tried Side initiative, roll each round for 5e? It's my understanding it's listed as an optional rule in the dmg? I have done it in 3e, and 4e without too much issue. In 4e it was a bit more problematic at times due to so many sont/eont powers/conditions. I often would rewrite a power or swap out for something if it was an issue more than once.

 

[bedir than]

I've done a responsive speed initiative. Where you roll once at the beginning of the encounter and then apply speed modifiers to the next round after the action was taken. It's fairly quick and allows minor variance in order, while granting some interesting tactical choices.

 

[Warunsun]

One of my player's suggested we roll initiative on a d10 instead of a d20 a few sessions back. I was like, sure, doesn't bother me. Something I do is roll for initiative every other combat. I generally use the same initiative list then for two combats in a row (for non-special stuff). I'll have a card for "Bad Guys" or "Mobs". Side initiative is mentioned in the DMG but I haven't used it yet. Side initiative has each side roll once but then you follow through with the list like normal. So, if the PCs win initiative they go as a group before the mobs each round until combat ends. But I don't see anything wrong at all with re-rolling initiative every round if that is what you guys want. I would love an android app that would auto roll my groups initiative so I wouldn't have to bother with it. Normally, I don't use phones or computers at the table but such a time saver would be awesome.

 

[redrick]

The DMG also includes a much more complex speed factor initiative that involves re-rolling every round, so I don't see any problem with using side initiative but re-rolling every round.

I really wanted to do the speed factor with my group — I've seen some very positive write-ups of it here and elsewhere that say that the initial buy-in is a bit much, but once you get it rolling, it actually speeds up combat a lot, and makes things a lot more exciting. Unfortunately, when I proposed it to my players, one of them would have none of it, so we tabled it and haven't come back to it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What I've finally settled on, after a lot of pondering of the various options, is a homebrew system that works as follows:

1: I have a list of all the PCs, and then each "batch" of monsters. (I have unique monsters go on their own, but groups of the same kind all go at once. So a battle with a wight and four zombies has two monster turns, one for the wight and one for the zombies. That part of my system is pretty common.)

2: The order of said list is irrelevant, as long as it remains constant. I go alphabetically by player name, and then monsters in order of importance.

3: Everyone rolls initiative as normal at the start of combat. However, only the highest roll matters.

4: The person who got that highest roll goes first on each round, in effect "anchoring" the round.

5: Everyone else? Completely random. If there are six combatants/initiative "groups" (not counting the one who won the initiative and became the anchor), I'll just flat roll a d6, and whoever comes up on the list is who goes next.

6: Once everyone's gone once, the "anchor" goes again, signifying the start of the next round.

It goes fast. Rolling a single extra die behind the screen and saying, "So-and-so, you're up next" takes about two seconds, and can be done--for instance--while the current player is rolling something or moving a token.

It keeps combat unpredictable. No fixed order. No "Oh, I have a while until my next turn, I'll play some Plants vs. Zombies." No "Wait, what was going on?" People pay attention constantly, because they never know when they're going to dive in.

Does it make Dex a bit less valuable, since only one person's Dex modifier matters in any given combat. Sure, but Dex is already overwhelmingly the MVP of stats. I don't feel bad taking a minor perk away from it. And it may make feats or abilities that grant init bonuses a bit weaker, but they're still valuable--being the "anchor" and the one predictable factor, as well as going first, is worthwhile--and players know this when they create their characters, so they can decide then if that's enough for them.

I have a few other rules, regarding readies/delays and "ends on the next turn" spell durations, but the above is the gist of it. I highly recommend it.

 

[77IM]

I've been running Lost Mines for about 8 sessions now and we have done side initiative the whole time and it works well.

At the start, everybody rolls initiative (monsters roll as a group). Players who have higher initiative than the monsters go first. Then we alternate monsters-players-monsters-players-monsters-players etc. until the battle is over.

My players tend to remember their initiative rolls, and then on the players' turn, if there's question about who gets to go first, they defer to the player who "should" go next in the initiative order.

I like side initiative because it's less for me to keep track of and allows better coordination between the characters on a "side."

 

[Psikerlord#]

We use normal initiative but also allow delays to swap your order somewhat. So essentially players can go in any order in between monster turns.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The DMG also includes a much more complex speed factor initiative that involves re-rolling every round, so I don't see any problem with using side initiative but re-rolling every round.

I really wanted to do the speed factor with my group — I've seen some very positive write-ups of it here and elsewhere that say that the initial buy-in is a bit much, but once you get it rolling, it actually speeds up combat a lot, and makes things a lot more exciting. Unfortunately, when I proposed it to my players, one of them would have none of it, so we tabled it and haven't come back to it.

RE: speed factor initiative. I've been using a speed factor-ish variant for two or three months now. My assessment is that "declare then act" it isn't much faster, or slower, than regular initiative because 1.) you hardly ever need to actually roll initiative because usually it doesn't matter who acts first (only if someone goes unconscious but would have hit, then you need to see if he got his shot off before getting taken out); 2.) most of the delay in combat at my table is spent talking, not rolling dice. (Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I enforce a "no talking during combat" rule--would players retreat from combat in order to confer with each other? Might be worth experimenting with.) However, it certainly does make things a lot more exciting because of the decoupling between decision and resolution.

I hope you get to try it out someday.

 

[Iosue]

I've taken the Classic D&D combat and sequence and modified it for 5e. Side initiative, rolled every round. Here's the sequence -

1. Morale
2. Movement (Includes Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Search, and Use an Object Actions)
3. Missiles/Movement (Attacks with ranged weapons, plus any movement those characters have left over)
4. Magic/Movement/Saves (Cast a Spell, plus any movement those characters have left over, plus any saves that need to be made)
5. Melee/Movement (Attacks with melee weapons, plus any movement those characters have left over)

Reactions can occur whenever triggered.

Having the phases creates clear points for turn-length durations to end, and ongoing saves to be made. I've been using this for my game played on Roll20 over Google Hangouts. I found it's really sped things up and created dynamism, as initiative goes back and forth. There is the danger of one side curb stomping the other if they win initiative. To prevent this, I have each distinct group of monsters make up its own side. So if it's PCs vs Orcs and an Ogre, there are three sides: PCs, Orcs, and Ogre. If the monsters outnumber the PCs, I recommend splitting them into party-size squads. Likewise, if your party is large (6 or more players), it might be a good idea to split up the party into two sides, as well.

 

[S'mon]

Side initiative more or less per RAW:

1. GM declares monster initiative: "Beat this DC to act before they do".
2. PCs roll init checks per RAW.
3. Those who beat the monsters' init DC get to act.
4. All Monsters act.
5. All PCs act in any order.
6. Go to #4.

*GM can eg make one unmodified d20 roll for all monsters, or use their lowest bonus, or use d20+monster
leaders' DEX or CHA bonus, or take 10+leader CHA bonus, etc - whatever floats your boat.