D&D 5E Concurrent initiative variant; Everybody declares/Everybody resolves [WAS Simultaneous Initiative]

[MostlyDm]

Test driving this system in two games so far. Working great, with a few minor hiccups. Combat has definitely had a nice flow to it.

It keeps everyone declaring actions and intentions at the same pace as when combat has not started, which is the whole goal from my perspective.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't understand.

Are you implying that your PCs roll initiative *every round* ordinarily?

That's not how initiative works. Ever.

Which is a serious bug, not a feature.

You roll initiative *once* at the beginning of a combat scenario and then use that initiative score every round until the combat ends or something causes that numbers to change (which doesn't happen in 5e, but was a constant thing that could happen in 4e.)

Am I missing something here?

Yes, but you're not alone; the system as written is missing it too:

The complete lack of realism that results from strict cyclic initiative.
The complete inability of more than one participant to act at a time even when it would make sense to do so (e.g. two characters trying to stay together as they move)
The fact that knowing when everyone's turn comes up will (but shouldn't) influence your actions in combat after the first round (a case where player knowledge should not equal character knowledge)
The impossibility of things happening simultaneously (e.g. in a melee combat with just two participants, how can they run each other through?)

Re-rolling each round is one way to solve this, though cumbersome unless you go to a much smaller die size (I suggest d6) and cut back on or entirely remove modifiers. What's proposed in this thread is another, and while I'm not sold on the idea I applaud the sentiment behind it.

Lan-"in the fog of war, little if anything is clear"-efan

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The complete lack of realism that results from strict cyclic initiative.

I defy you to provide an example of a tabletop action resolution system that can boast of "realism" in any robust way. Every system, from core 5E D&D to Hemlock's rules here to the fiddly granular action point mechanics in wargames, is more or less a kludge, breaking chaotic real-time combat into discrete chunks that are manageable but fundamentally unrealistic. You want realism, boot up a computer.

The complete inability of more than one participant to act at a time even when it would make sense to do so (e.g. two characters trying to stay together as they move)

"Complete inability"? See readied actions.

The fact that knowing when everyone's turn comes up will (but shouldn't) influence your actions in combat after the first round (a case where player knowledge should not equal character knowledge)

Speak for yourself. My players seldom remember the turn order, and act in-character regardless.

The impossibility of things happening simultaneously (e.g. in a melee combat with just two participants, how can they run each other through?)

"Impossibility"? See again readied actions.

Re-rolling each round is one way to solve this, though cumbersome unless you go to a much smaller die size (I suggest d6) and cut back on or entirely remove modifiers.

Re-rolling each round addresses none of the problems you state except for player knowledge of the turn order. It's no more realistic, and no more amenable to simultaneous actions.

 

[Lanefan]

I defy you to provide an example of a tabletop action resolution system that can boast of "realism" in any robust way. Every system, from core 5E D&D to Hemlock's rules here to the fiddly granular action point mechanics in wargames, is more or less a kludge, breaking chaotic real-time combat into discrete chunks that are manageable but fundamentally unrealistic.

All true, but where options exist to get it closer, why not use them?

"Complete inability"? See readied actions.

By the book, though, they still don't happen at the same time. (in fairness, most DMs would ignore this and let them move together; but I've as a player also lost this argument at a table - I'll give details if needed but it's a long-ish story)

Speak for yourself. My players seldom remember the turn order, and act in-character regardless.

That's your group, and you're kind of lucky if that's how they are. What I've seen is players basing their actions for future rounds around knowing who (including the opponents) goes when, which breaks my metagame tolerance.

Re-rolling each round addresses none of the problems you state except for player knowledge of the turn order. It's no more realistic, and no more amenable to simultaneous actions.

It's much more amenable to simultaneous actions if you a} use a smaller die (we use d6 with almost no modifiers) and b} don't break ties unless for some reason you absolutely have to.

Lan-"what is it with North Americans and their dislike of games/sports/die rolls being tied"-efan

 

[TheCosmicKid]

All true, but where options exist to get it closer, why not use them?

By what metric is one closer than another?

It's much more amenable to simultaneous actions if you a} use a smaller die (we use d6 with almost no modifiers) and b} don't break ties unless for some reason you absolutely have to.

That's a result of those rules, not a result of the rolling-every-round rule.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's a result of those rules, not a result of the rolling-every-round rule.

So what? This thread isn't about rolling initiative every round. That's just something Lanefan mentioned in passing (apparently in conjunction with precisely "those rules" that go along with it at his table) and you jumped on.

There's no one on this thread advocating the thing you're criticizing: rolling every round without Lanefan's house rules attached.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you break up the movement phases and the attacking phases?

Or does movement have a higher precedence than attacking or something?

 

[FrogReaver]

A separate thought, I read the first post and I don't see anything simultaneous about it.

Basically the only nuance I picked up on sounded like you allowed someone to delay their whole turn.

 

[Harzel]

Yes to both questions. Yes, action declarations are normally visible to everyone (it represents the start of an action--more intelligent creatures have faster OODA loops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop) and can delay committing to an action). Yes, intelligent enemies get the same benefits as intelligent PCs.

If the players are fighting an Ogre and a Mind Flayer, the DM will say, "The Ogre smashes Ralph flat with his club--or tries to anyway. What do you do, Ralph?" Maybe Ralph declares a Dodge, so the Ogre will have disadvantage, and then Belinda declares that she's hypnotizing the Mind Flayer with her Hypnotic Gaze, and Peter says he's going to shoot the Mind Flayer full of arrows while keeping his distance from it. Then the Mind Flayer, because he's the most intelligent, gets to declare his action. The DM says, "The Mind Flayer maneuvers so that Belinda and Ralph are both in front of it and then blasts them both."

Then everybody rolls dice and resolves their actions. (It's fine if they roll dice beforehand, just as long as they don't show the results to anyone who is still declaring.) If necessary, roll initiative to see whose action happened first. E.g. if the Ogre hit Ralph but failed his save vs. Mind Blast, the Ogre and the Mind Flayer both need to roll their initiative to see if the Ogre actually got his smash in.

I would also let you convey a "fake" action using Deception, e.g. "I'm going to try to look like I'm just dodging but really I'm about to Action Surge and attack the Mind Flayer four times," which is mechanically just the regular four attacks on the Mind Flayer, but with an Deception vs. (better of Perception or Insight) contest beforehand to see if the Mind Flayer falls for the deception. And maybe I'd also impose disadvantage on any initiative checks to represent how the deception slows you down by a second or two.

It sounds like you're on the right track. Let me know how it goes for you!

Ok, thanks for the answers and the additional example. I have some more questions, though. Here is one part of the combat encounter that I referred to earlier.

Scenario A:

• Three goblins are standing together
• Bard PC is about 30 ft. away from them
• Paladin PC is about 15 ft. away from them
• The goblins’ declared action is that they are going to scatter looking for cover and then shoot at the paladin.

My concern for the moment will be the bard’s declared action. When we ran this with cyclic initiative, the bard got to go before the goblins. He ran right up into the goblins’ face and cast Thunderwave. (Not that is matters, but the bard rolled well and the goblins didn’t. This was cool because dead flying goblins.) So my first question is, (A1) with simultaneous initiative ala Hemlock would that even have a chance of working? My analysis: If I “strictly enforce” Everything Happens at Once ™, then it would seem to me that the answer is no – the goblins would scatter while the bard was approaching, so this isn’t even worth trying. OTOH, since initiative contests are possible, then perhaps this should be treated as one. However, this would then bring up two more questions. (A2) If there is an initiative contest, does this result in the winner getting to take his entire turn (e.g., bard’s move and cast) before the loser gets to do anything or is the contest somehow at a finer granularity? (A3) How much of the bard’s action declaration can be contingent on the initiative result? (E.g., Do I allow, “If the goblins stay still, I run up to them and cast Thunderwave, but if the goblins scatter before I can move, then I stay where I am and shoot at the bugbear in front of the paladin.”, or does it have to be more like, “I run toward the goblins (unconditionally). If I get to them before they scatter, then I cast Thunderwave, otherwise I turn and shoot at the bugbear in front of the paladin.”?) Or if there is some other way that this should go that I am not seeing, just ignore the questions and describe that instead.

Scenario B: (only interesting if the answer to A1 is “no”)

• Three goblins are standing together
• Bard PC is about 30 ft. away from them
• Paladin PC is about 15 ft. away from them
• The goblins’ declared action is that they are going to shoot at the paladin and then scatter looking for cover.

Does this change any of the answers to the questions posed for A?

Ok, I’ll stop there for now. I think understanding how these situations would work will go quite a ways toward clarifying things for me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Do you break up the movement phases and the attacking phases?

Not for TTRPG play.

I've considered breaking it up to finer detail (say, letting everyone do 10% of their movement, ten times, so that distances between combatants change only gradually) but only with the aid of a computer. For tabletop the extra complexity just wouldn't be worth the minor increase in fidelity, which really only matters for chase scenes and for looking pretty.