D&D 5E Spicing Up Combat

[Jimbro]

It defies all expectations, but I swear using the Speed Factor initiative variant makes combat a lot more quick and suspenseful. When everybody decides what they'll do ahead of time, there's no boring waiting because everybody is paying close attention to the initiative countdown and silently hoping nothing messes up their plan before it's their turn. You wouldn't even have to use the weapon speed modifiers (although it takes very little effort to memorize them, as they're all either +/-2 or +/-5).
If you don't believe me, now even The Angry GM agrees that this is an awesome rules variant. And honestly, nobody can argue with that many swears in one place.

Not a bad way to go! It's not as scary or as complex as it seems!

 

[Mouseferatu]

I use a completely homebrew initiative system that's made a huge difference. Basically, everyone rolls init at the start of combat, like normal, but only the highest roll matters. That player (or monster) goes at the top of every round. Everyone else is entirely random. No Dex, no speed factors, nothing. As Player One's turn is winding down, I roll completely randomly to see who goes next. Once everyone's gone, we're back to Player One.

It keeps things a lot more exciting/less predictable, and it means everyone's constantly paying attention, since you never know when your turn's going to come up.

 

[Jimbro]

I use a completely homebrew initiative system that's made a huge difference. Basically, everyone rolls init at the start of combat, like normal, but only the highest roll matters. That player (or monster) goes at the top of every round. Everyone else is entirely random. No Dex, no speed factors, nothing. As Player One's turn is winding down, I roll completely randomly to see who goes next. Once everyone's gone, we're back to Player One.

It keeps things a lot more exciting/less predictable, and it means everyone's constantly paying attention, since you never know when your turn's going to come up.

Damn it you're brilliant!

 

[Sunseeker]

Get player buy-in on the idea that turns are for acting, not for thinking about what to do. When it's time for a character's time in the spotlight, the player goes immediately or offers to delay his or her turn.

Oh dear lord yes!!!! I have this one player at my table, nice guy, a little odd but hey who isn't? But when it comes to his turn the DM says "Your turn!" and you can count the minutes as he just sits there. Silently. Staring at the table. Doing nothing.

If I DM and this guy plays, since he's nice and an otherwise good player, I'm using a sandtimer. Don't act by the time it runs out? You forfeit your turn that round.

 

[iserith]

Oh dear lord yes!!!! I have this one player at my table, nice guy, a little odd but hey who isn't? But when it comes to his turn the DM says "Your turn!" and you can count the minutes as he just sits there. Silently. Staring at the table. Doing nothing.

If I DM and this guy plays, since he's nice and an otherwise good player, I'm using a sandtimer. Don't act by the time it runs out? You forfeit your turn that round.

I don't understand this kind of behavior. If a person's turn takes a full minute (which is twice as long as it needs to be in my view), that's 4-5 minutes of time in between that player's turn to come up with a plan of action. Maybe sometimes it's reduced to as little as a minute because the person who acted before him did something that changed the calculus - that's when you get suggestions if you're stumped. What the hell are they doing during this time? Checking out mentally? That must be frustrating.

As for using initiative or other tricks to encourage players to pay attention, it's probably worth looking at other aspects of the game to see if there's something that can be done on the DM's side to improve player engagement with the scene. Initiative tricks might fix the symptoms, but I imagine the cause yet remains.

 

[Riley37]

IMO, in 5E, the PC has six seconds to decide AND act, each round. Which means that the player has less than six seconds to decide. "Going once, going twice..." Failure to decide means the Observe or Defend action, DM's choice.

Chess is a fine game. One can do tabletop miniature wargames as chess, or not. Speed chess is also a fine game!

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't understand this kind of behavior. If a person's turn takes a full minute (which is twice as long as it needs to be in my view), that's 4-5 minutes of time in between that player's turn to come up with a plan of action. Maybe sometimes it's reduced to as little as a minute because the person who acted before him did something that changed the calculus - that's when you get suggestions if you're stumped. What the hell are they doing during this time? Checking out mentally? That must be frustrating.

As for using initiative or other tricks to encourage players to pay attention, it's probably worth looking at other aspects of the game to see if there's something that can be done on the DM's side to improve player engagement with the scene. Initiative tricks might fix the symptoms, but I imagine the cause yet remains.

I honestly don't know, as there are times when he is quick to action. I can only assume it is something mental, but I haven't tracked it very much since I'm not DMing this game and am using that as an excuse to not totally track everything everyone is doing everywhere all the time. I'm sorta side-DMing through because I DMed the last game and the new DM respects me and knows I know the rules. So maybe I'll see if there is a common thread. Sometimes he takes suggestions, sometimes not. I know "taking suggestions" is hard for a lot of people. It could just be that our characters aren't exactly the most cohesive lot.

 

[Jimbro]

IMO, in 5E, the PC has six seconds to decide AND act, each round. Which means that the player has less than six seconds to decide. "Going once, going twice..." Failure to decide means the Observe or Defend action, DM's choice.

Chess is a fine game. One can do tabletop miniature wargames as chess, or not. Speed chess is also a fine game!

Tough, but fair! Let Riley37 rule this land.

 

[Riley37]

I'd rather just rule the tables which I DM.

I have house rules which STRONGLY discourage other players from saying ANYTHING tactical during another player's decision of what to do with their round. (DM standing orders: if you see another player have their PC make a horrible mistake... then decide, silently, what YOUR character will do, on YOUR character's turn, in the wake of that horrible mistake.) Exception: While Player A decides what PC A wil do, then Player B may speak for *up to six seconds*, IF (and only if) PC B uses their Reaction to speak mid-combat, and PC A is in position to hear PC B's words.

This works with players who enjoy quick resolution of fight scenes, and who are OK with the heroes muddling through, winning by abilities and courage and luck rather than by perfect execution of optimal plans.

I enjoy fight scenes in which PCs make mistakes, survive those mistakes, and carry on. Or make what COULD have been a mistake, but everything works out fine, maybe it takes them ten rounds to win instead of an optimal-move seven-turn victory. I enjoy those fight scenes more than I enjoy a game in which each PC acts as if a chorus of experts, audible only to them, had spent minutes debating what they should do, in the six seconds since their last action.

I mean, consider the Seahawks at Super Bowl 2014: they were among the *best in the world* at American football, a sport which has huge financial incentives to draw excellent players onto professional teams. And yet, in the heat of the moment, in a career-defining game, their quarterback made a snap-second decision to throw a slant pass in the end zone. In 20-20 hindsight, that may have been a mistake. But it was a mistake made by *world-class experts*... who were under pressure from another team of world-class experts. Are the PCs in your campaign really that much better, at making decisions under pressure, than the teams who play the Super Bowl?

If a PC makes a horrible mistake, that can be awful for the PC, but amusing to the players. I consider it a success when a PC decides something like "wow, I will NEVER AGAIN start a lamp-oil fire in an unventilated underground passage, and I'll NEVER AGAIN fire a crossbow at a target who's surrounded by my allies." I think that's a better story, than the tale of the PCs who sailed through life without ever making imperfect choices in the heat of battle.

 

[Fralex]

I'd rather just rule the tables which I DM.

I have house rules which STRONGLY discourage other players from saying ANYTHING tactical during another player's decision of what to do with their round. (DM standing orders: if you see another player have their PC make a horrible mistake... then decide, silently, what YOUR character will do, on YOUR character's turn, in the wake of that horrible mistake.) Exception: While Player A decides what PC A wil do, then Player B may speak for *up to six seconds*, IF (and only if) PC B uses their Reaction to speak mid-combat, and PC A is in position to hear PC B's words.

This works with players who enjoy quick resolution of fight scenes, and who are OK with the heroes muddling through, winning by abilities and courage and luck rather than by perfect execution of optimal plans.

I enjoy fight scenes in which PCs make mistakes, survive those mistakes, and carry on. Or make what COULD have been a mistake, but everything works out fine, maybe it takes them ten rounds to win instead of an optimal-move seven-turn victory. I enjoy those fight scenes more than I enjoy a game in which each PC acts as if a chorus of experts, audible only to them, had spent minutes debating what they should do, in the six seconds since their last action.

I mean, consider the Seahawks at Super Bowl 2014: they were among the *best in the world* at American football, a sport which has huge financial incentives to draw excellent players onto professional teams. And yet, in the heat of the moment, in a career-defining game, their quarterback made a snap-second decision to throw a slant pass in the end zone. In 20-20 hindsight, that may have been a mistake. But it was a mistake made by *world-class experts*... who were under pressure from another team of world-class experts. Are the PCs in your campaign really that much better, at making decisions under pressure, than the teams who play the Super Bowl?

If a PC makes a horrible mistake, that can be awful for the PC, but amusing to the players. I consider it a success when a PC decides something like "wow, I will NEVER AGAIN start a lamp-oil fire in an unventilated underground passage, and I'll NEVER AGAIN fire a crossbow at a target who's surrounded by my allies." I think that's a better story, than the tale of the PCs who sailed through life without ever making imperfect choices in the heat of battle.

It should be noted that, at one point, another player pointed out a mistake I was about to make that would've killed us all, along with a bunch of nameless NPCs, in a hilariously stupid fashion. Tip: Just because you can reduce the boat to fit through a smaller gap doesn't mean you will also shrink everything inside it.

That said, yeah, I am in favor of people not trying to think of the perfect way their character would react to something given an infinite amount of time to think. Mistakes are interesting!