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

[FormerlyHemlock]

(deleted)

 

[FrogReaver]

So what happens when they both roll well?

Simultaneous-when-it-doesn't-matter-and-ordered-by-speed-when-it-does is a bit of a mouth full. And still misses the main point of declaring your action being separate from the resolution.

That's actually a great Segway to explain what I mean by not having a target. So say there are 2 goblins. An archer declares he is targeting the closer one. The closer goblin declares he is going to hide. The archer rolls a 20 on his attack. The goblin rolls a 20 on his stealth. The tiebreaker system is brought out. The goblin wins it. Does the goblin succeeding at his hiding before the archer attacks him invalidate the archers whole turn or is he free now to target the other goblin?

 

[mellored]

That's actually a great Segway to explain what I mean by not having a target. So say there are 2 goblins. An archer declares he is targeting the closer one. The closer goblin declares he is going to hide. The archer rolls a 20 on his attack. The goblin rolls a 20 on his stealth. The tiebreaker system is brought out. The goblin wins it. Does the goblin succeeding at his hiding before the archer attacks him invalidate the archers whole turn or is he free now to target the other goblin?

It seems that you make conditional declaration. So you say "I shoot that goblin, or some other one".

Thus if he hides before you shoot, you switch targets. Presumably with the same 20. Otherwise you just out of luck because you spent your time aiming at someone who ran away, which is realistic, and works both ways. If your smart and fast enough, you can easily get people to waste actions.

Overall, I like the separation of declaring and resolving, but it doesn't seem to mesh well with 5e's action economy. Also having 20 creatures declare and then trying to resolve them all without any structure can get difficult. I think it would only work in the right group, or as part of another game built with it in mind.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It seems that you make conditional declaration. So you say "I shoot that goblin, or some other one".

Thus if he hides before you shoot, you switch targets. Presumably with the same 20. Otherwise you just out of luck because you spent your time aiming at someone who ran away, which is realistic, and works both ways. If your smart and fast enough, you can easily get people to waste actions.

Precisely. Players love it when that happens. One of the best things ever was when the necromancer Nox, who was facing a Death Slaad which (due to prior events in play) was wearing Nox's own Robe of the Archmagi, managed to just barely kill the Death Slaad right before it finished Plane Shifting to safety, taking his Robe forever with it. I think there were six skeletons (out of 18 or 20) which hit the Slaad with arrows that round, and all six of them needed to beat its initiative to kill it. IIRC the Slaad rolled a 2 or something on initiative so they all managed to still beat it, but everything was on the line for poor Nox when initiative was rolled. Nox didn't even have clothes on, he was wearing makeshift clothing he had rigged out of leaves and tree bark. I can still remember the look on S.'s (the player's) face as we rolled the dice.

I like that kind of drama, and yet you can never have it in standard PHB initiative. With concurrent initiative, every time initiative is rolled, it's because something exciting is at stake. (Or because the combat is so complex, with dozens of combatants and so many conditional actions declared that rolling initiative is actually simpler than not rolling it.)

 

[Lanefan]

I acknowledge though that the word "simultaneous" has created confusion. "Concurrent" might be better.

Only because you called it one thing then talked about another.

Simultaneous initiative (or at least the possibility of some things being able to happen at the same time) is what I'm after; that and a way around cyclic turns.

If you haven't rolled initiative for the round, it's because nobody cares what order things happened in. If I hit you and do 7 HP of damage, and you hit me and do 4 HP of damage, and we're both still alive--it doesn't matter who had higher speed. Conceptually someone still landed their blow first but it doesn't matter who. They happened at approximately the same time (concurrently).

But what if the 4 h.p. puts you down. Did you get your swing in for the 7 in return or not, and if so did that 7 put the foe down?

There should be three possible answers:
- the 7 got the foe first, he's down and I'm still up
- the 4 got me first, I'm down and he's still up
- the hits were simultaneous and we're both down

The game as is cannot possibly generate the third option, which to me is a very serious bug. On reading some of these other ideas I wonder if they might only generate the third option, which would be equally as bad.

Lanefan

 

[Campbell]

Rather than allowing conditional declarations I would consider allowing a change in action, but at disadvantage or perhaps at the cost of your reaction - maybe both. The idea is that you want there to be a cost for having to make last minute adjustments.

 

[Lanefan]

That's actually a great Segway to explain what I mean by not having a target. So say there are 2 goblins. An archer declares he is targeting the closer one. The closer goblin declares he is going to hide. The archer rolls a 20 on his attack. The goblin rolls a 20 on his stealth. The tiebreaker system is brought out. The goblin wins it. Does the goblin succeeding at his hiding before the archer attacks him invalidate the archers whole turn

I'd say yes; the goblin this time got lucky.

or is he free now to target the other goblin?

With his next shot, sure; but this one's left an arrow in a tree instead of in a goblin.

EDIT: But if what's concealing the goblin won't stop an arrow (e.g. a bush, or magical darkness) then maybe your '20' just shot a hidden foe by sheer luck. This would, obviously, be situation-dependent.

Yes, separating action from resolution is the key point. Everything else is just an optimization for speed or an elaboration for additional fun. If you're a DM looking for ideas to steal, the big idea I'd recommend to you is "separate action declaration from action resolution." That's where 70-80% of the gains come from.

Which is more or less how 1e did it, only with a boatload of fiddly rules on top which very few people (including me) ever fully used.

In 1e you declared and locked in your action(s) including targets at the start of the round, as did everyone else on your side, then they all resolved. Then the other side went. Unless there were complications, which there invariably were; the full rules for 1e initiative are an essay unto themselves. But the chassis it all sits on is declare-then-resolve.

It's not a good system as written. That said, I've yet to see a RAW D&D initiative system that is.

Lan-"houserule system for the win"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Rather than allowing conditional declarations I would consider allowing a change in action, but at disadvantage or perhaps at the cost of your reaction - maybe both. The idea is that you want there to be a cost for having to make last minute adjustments.

Or maybe the change in action IS your reaction...you're reacting to the change in situation. Makes sense...

 

[mellored]

There should be three possible answers:
- the 7 got the foe first, he's down and I'm still up
- the 4 got me first, I'm down and he's still up
- the hits were simultaneous and we're both down

You could simply have it be

1: 7 is faster.
2: 4 is faster.
3: They are the same speed. (Don’t roll a tie breaker)

 

[mellored]

Or maybe the change in action IS your reaction...you're reacting to the change in situation. Makes sense...

I would make it a bonus action to switch.