D&D 5E Solving the problem of initiative.

[Greenstone.Walker]

Can it even be solved?

Specifically I'm talking about the "STOP!", wait for a beat, "Hammer time!" phenomena that initiative turns create.

I don't think this can be solved if there are more than two people at the table. No matter how you determine order, the GM can only listen to one player describe their actions at a time, and the GM can only tell one player the results of their actions at a time.

But that's OK. When the GM is telling other players the results of their actions, that's when you should be planing your action, so that when the GM asks "Alice? What are you doing?", you describe your action with no delay.

 

[hejtmane]

Can it even be solved?

Specifically I'm talking about the "STOP!", wait for a beat, "Hammer time!" phenomena that initiative turns create. I understand why it's this way, but lately I've been wracking my tiny brain for ways to make it better. Rolling initiative every turn is so tedious and time consuming. Rolling group initiative doesn't work either. Side initiative seems to take the worst aspects of every system and combine them together. I'm genuinely at a loss as to what could be done to improve the situation. I'm even willing to entertain changing the nature of initiative itself to an entirely new sub-system.

About the only thing that's I've felt wasn't too bad was limiting everyone to only one thing per turn instead of action + move + bonus action + item interaction. Even that has issues though. The other thing I've thought of is opposed initiative. That being you only roll when you look to oppose someone else or if you're opposed in some way. So you want to sneak away during a fight? OK, done. But if someone is hunting for you in the melee while you're trying to sneak away? Now it's a contest between two opposed entities.

I don't know, it's all very mathy and complex and hurting my brain. Anyone else got any better ideas?

I have bought in to
Popcorn Initiative: A Great Way to Adjust D&D and Pathfinder Initiative with a Stupid Name

http://angrydm.com/2013/09/popcorn-...and-pathfinder-initiative-with-a-stupid-name/

It has been great for the players they are more engaged in combat and what's going on.

Sometimes I will do a straight d20 no pluses for who goes first players or monsters but that is about it sometimes I go by who would have the upper hand ambush location etc

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can it even be solved?

Cyclical initiative was introduced in 3.0 (or maybe 2e C&T, I wasn't paying attention at the time), before that it was rolled every round, and could result in one side going twice between the other's turns, which could be brutal.

There are other alternatives. One rather baroque version - I don't recall from which game or old variant went like this: Declare actions in ascending order of INT, move simultaneously (you can even break that down into the fastest creatures moving the difference between their move and the slowers' moves first), resolve actions in descending order of DEX. If you're into computed stats you could create an Awareness (INT+WIS mods) and an Initiative (DEX + CHA mods) stat to stand in for INT & DEX, above, respectively. Or some variation. The idea is that players of smarter/more tactically aware/whatever-you-think-wins-in-this-sense-characters get an idea of what everyone else is trying to do before deciding what they'll do, to model that advantage, but then the faster/more aggressive ones actually do (complete) their things first. I recall finding it logical but frustrating in practice.

Another option is simultaneous initiative. You go through and resolve everyone's actions in whatever order, but all the effects - like damage - are applied at the end of the round. Nice if you like the trope of the hero/villain doing something dramatic 'with his last breath.'

But cyclical initiative really is reasonably fair and practical, IMHO.

 

[Alatar]

My players tend to make heavy use of delaying their initiative turns and ready actions to set up fighting sequences to pretty good effect.

I guess you've house-ruled that, as there is no Delay in 5e, much to my chagrin. We tend to play the rules straight up in my group. Our tactical machinations are constrained by the whims of the Initiative dice.

 

[pdzoch]

I guess you've house-ruled that, as there is no Delay in 5e, much to my chagrin. We tend to play the rules straight up in my group. Our tactical machinations are constrained by the whims of the Initiative dice.

I guess I did. One of the pitfalls of playing every edition of D&D is the older stuff gets dragged into the newer rules by accident. So far, it hasn't caused any problems. Usually the delay occurs in the first round when everyone wants to determine their own party sequence. There hasn't been many, if any, delays in later rounds.

 

[hejtmane]

I guess I did. One of the pitfalls of playing every edition of D&D is the older stuff gets dragged into the newer rules by accident. So far, it hasn't caused any problems. Usually the delay occurs in the first round when everyone wants to determine their own party sequence. There hasn't been many, if any, delays in later rounds.

I am guess I am lucky all the guys at the table right now are young their first D&D is 5e I think i did one session where we did 3.5 and I was still learning before we jumped to this (I did not have all the book at first)


Me I really only remember parts of it I played D&D (yes you read that right) and 1e; I think I played 2e once or twice but I was not the DM

One of my favorite books to ever get was the first Unearth Arcana

 

[MechaPilot]

No it's not. It's not all PCs go, then all DM goes or the reverse. It's Player, DM, Player, DM, Player, etc., repeat until all creatures in the combat have gone, then determine which side starts 1st in round 2. Doesn't matter wich player/monster activates in wich slot. There's only 1 dice roll for initiative each round. Odds = players go 1st, evens = DM.

I've done that before. I refer to it as "woven" initiative, because it weaves the opposition's turns in among the initiative winners' turns.

 

[Lanefan]

If you're looking for a more realistic fog-of-war situation, re-roll every round but use a much smaller die! Also, allow for simultaneous actions on tied initiatives - yes, you swing your sword just as the sleep spell hits you; roll to hit just as you fall asleep - the impossibility of these in a fully turn-based system is to me one of its greatest failings. In other words, let the tied initiatives stay tied unless for some reason you absolutely have to determine which happens first (does the sword hit the caster and interrupt his spell or has the spell already resolved?) in which case just do a d6 roll-off "sub-initiative".

We use a d6 initiative, no Dex modifiers and few if any other modifiers at all, high goes first. I'll go around the table asking for 6's then I'll do the opposition's 6's, but the understanding is that this is all pretty much happening at once. Then 5's, and so on. Each action (if you get more than one) gets its own independent initiative; thus if you get two melee attacks in a round each gets its own d6. There's some sub-rules for sorting out messy situations usually involving spell interruption as noted above (we use casting times) but the basics are fairly simple. And a 6-segment round is far easier and quicker to count down through than a 20+dex-segment round.

With a small group/party it's a fast system; with a large group/party it's slow...but then so is everything else.

Lan-"if the rules don't allow for two combatants to occasionally simultaneously finish each other off they're not working right"-efan

 

[Uller]

I'm pretty much fine with initiative as it is. It's a game, after all and there has to be some simple way to resolve whose turn it is. But something to consider:

In real combat, initiative is taken. Not everyone gets to just go when it's their turn. One side or the other manages to maneuver or make a successful shot or cause some other effect that allows themselves or others on their side to take follow on actions. A grenade or burst of automatic fire near the enemy will get them to duck which allows friends to move to a better position. Killing the machine gunner that has been laying down a wall of lead might take some pressure off your side. Grievously wounding an enemy might make two more stop fighting for a bit.

I don't know how such a system could work in a game...probably something like successfully doing something to the enemy might give an initiative bonus (or impose a penalty_) on the next round.

Have half your HP lost (the old 4e bloodied condition): -3
Take down a foe: +3 to you and -1 to any enemy adjacent
Take down more than one: +5 to you and -3 to adjacent enemies
Lose the bloodied condition: +3
Move to a "flanking" position: +1
Hide: +3

Just some thoughts. It would, unfortunately slow combat down. Each round you'd have to recalculate initiative bonuses.

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm confused as to what you are looking for OP.

Are you looking for a simpler system, one that requires less bookkeeping and less action declaration?

Or are you looking for a more "realistic" or "natural" system, that simulates the chaos of the battlefield?

Because these things will lead you in opposite directions.

I'm pretty sure he want's both.

If he wasn't opposed to rolling every round, using a system similar to AD&D would be great. Everyone determines their actions, then rolls for initiative, resolving in order. It sometimes caused impossible actions, but the trick was to allow for vague actions (such as not determining targets of attacks, and assuming movement as necessary). Spells & effects should reference the end of rounds, rather than turns, to keep them more evenly useful (if slightly more powerful, since 1 round is from when cast to the end of the next round). It allowed for very integrated rounds, keeping the delay between turns to a minimum. It's not for everyone though.

Something that might help the OP is remember that all of the action IS happening simultaneously. It's just broken down into the Turn system for ease of play. As a DM, I try to make sure that my descriptions incorporate this as much as possible.