D&D 5E Tried Speed Factor Initiative for the first time last night. Your thoughts?

[Psikerlord#]

I feel like there are less of these in 5e than 4e. I would probably deal with these on a case by case basis, and probably in the players' benefit. I think I'll probably just rule that characters doing things like death saves come last in the initiative (meaning that you have an opportunity to attempt to heal a character back up before they waste their turn on a death save.)

For me, the whole point is declaring actions before-hand. The speed factor is just part of the package as presented by the DMG, and I'm giving it a shot for now. The goal is to introduce a little more uncertainty into combat, where character actions are taken without exact knowledge of what is happening at the same time during the round. My hope (and what I've read elsewhere with people who've tried it) is that it also tends to make player decision-making a little faster in combat, because there is less possibility to construct "the perfect move."

Ah yes ok I see you're hoping to speed things up as well as add more uncertainty. Fair enough.

 

[Syntallah]

I feel like there are less of these in 5e than 4e. I would probably deal with these on a case by case basis, and probably in the players' benefit. I think I'll probably just rule that characters doing things like death saves come last in the initiative (meaning that you have an opportunity to attempt to heal a character back up before they waste their turn on a death save.)

For me, the whole point is declaring actions before-hand. The speed factor is just part of the package as presented by the DMG, and I'm giving it a shot for now. The goal is to introduce a little more uncertainty into combat, where character actions are taken without exact knowledge of what is happening at the same time during the round. My hope (and what I've read elsewhere with people who've tried it) is that it also tends to make player decision-making a little faster in combat, because there is less possibility to construct "the perfect move."

I automatically adjust a character's initiative to a "roll of 1" (i.e. as if they rolled a '1' on a d20 and then add initiative mods) when they go unconscious. If they just got their bell rung, and they lost cognizance for a bit, they shouldn't be going first in the round like nothing happened. This helps with the situation you mentioned above, and some characters are quick responders (e.g. high Dex, feats, etc) so they might bounce back quicker than others. After they are back to at least 1hp they may roll normally in the next round.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Anyway, what have all y'all's experiences been with this variant? How many people use declared actions but just ignore the speed factor? Do you feel like you lose anything by doing that? How do you encourage your groups to be creative in combat, but not contemplative?

I use something very much like it, and yes I ignore the speed factor. I'm not losing anything by ignoring it because the main thing I'm going for is verisimilitude: unifying combat and non-combat, so the same rules apply to both and you can switch seamlessly between them. My major tweak is that actions are declared in order from lowest Int to highest (although Alert trumps everything) on the theory that quicker thinkers can delay decisions for longer. Also, for some battles I don't bother to roll initiative on rounds where it doesn't matter (although in large battles it's usually simplest to just roll and then count down).

My players haven't had any issues at all with initiative suppressing creativity. "I attempt to stuff the enormous silverpede in my bag of devouring so it gets eaten" works the same way no matter what initiative rules you use. It probably helps that our table uses the Rule of Yes wherein any unusual trick you try is guaranteed to work the first time it its used in the campaign; I won't bother figuring whether/how it could actually fail until the second time you use it. So yes, the monk can catch that poisoned arrow aimed at someone else, and yes, you can use Bestow Curse to render someone almost incapable of speech (Wis save each round) to prevent them from disrupting negotiations.

Speeding up combat: I've found that owning lots of dice is good (so players can roll everything in parallel instead of serially), and using average damage instead of rolling is also helpful. I have my players roll to-hit and damage early, as soon as they choose their action, so the results can be narrated without rolling required. When only one PC is the focus of all attacks I eschew initiative rolls for everyone who didn't hit (because the timing of a miss is irrelevant). And it really helps to memorize monster stats, because looking them up during the game eats up precious seconds.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My problem with changing initiative each round is there are some effects that end at the end of the enemy's next turn. That sort of ability is wasted it initiative goes against you next round. But maybe I should see that as a boon?

This has been tricky, so what I've done is basically rule that "your turn" is happening throughout the whole round, simultaneous with everyone else's turn. I.e. if you're taking damage at the start of your turn because a fire elemental set you on fire, you take damage at the start of every round. If a failed save from a Medusa restrains you until your next save at the end of your next turn, you'll be paralyzed for the rest of this round (which might or might not affect your current attack, depending on initiative rolls) and all of next round, and then you'll make your save to recover at the end of next round. It does lead to some abilities like Stunning Strike being stronger (i.e. negating more attacks on average) but consistency has been the most important thing so far, more than "not affecting balance." The players know how it works so they adjust their strategies accordingly.

Just my experience, hope that helps.

 

[phmas]

We began using the speed factor rules in our PS campaign. We liked a lot, not so much because of the speed factor per se (it just adds another layer of complexity to the game, and it's boring as hell to keep track of, specially for the DM, let alone it being not much balanced, IMO), but the ramdomness of the combat, the declaring of actions at the star of the turn, THAT is what's fantastic about the system. We like it so much, we are letting go of the the speed factor rules and just sticking "declare your actions every round, then roll initiative". It just ends with all the meta-thinking that can happen in standard initiative.

Cheers!

 

[Psikerlord#]

I do seem to recall combat feeling more random in 2e. I cant remember if we rolled initiative every round or not. Was that standard for 2e?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I do seem to recall combat feeling more random in 2e. I cant remember if we rolled initiative every round or not. Was that standard for 2e?

Yes.

 

[phmas]

I do seem to recall combat feeling more random in 2e. I cant remember if we rolled initiative every round or not. Was that standard for 2e?

Yes. In fact, rolling initiative every round was the standard. Speed factor was optional, although most people I know used it.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Ok... perhaps the ability to disrupt casting spells by causing damage before they got the spell off, and changing initiative every round, and declaring actions up front, made the game feel more random/exciting?

I might have to try it now!

I am still a bit worried about those kinds of effects that last "until your enemy's next turn" type thing (eg: knock enemy prone, but he gets better initiative than you next rd and gets up before you can take advantage, etc). But there are a few options about managing that, as some have already posted. Or, indeed, perhaps the thwarting of such plans by virtue of a lucky/unlucky initiative roll is a good thing. I'm on the fence on that one.

I do like the idea of messing up the initiative order in general terms. Keeps thing fresh each round. You never know if your PC will get hammered twice in a row (end of one turn, then start of next one), by the same opponent. Overall I suspect more randomness ought to = more danger for the PCs I would think.

 

[MerricB]

I am still a bit worried about those kinds of effects that last "until your enemy's next turn" type thing (eg: knock enemy prone, but he gets better initiative than you next rd and gets up before you can take advantage, etc).

To some extent, that's balanced by sometimes they last longer than you expect - you lost initiative and knock someone prone, then you win initiative and they're still prone.

Cyclical initiative is great at giving a standard length for effects. Some of the effects (prone, for instance) aren't as good when initiative is more random; in some cases, I'd set the duration as lasting to the end of particular round. ("Turn" begins to mean something else in this system).

Cheers!