D&D 5E A variant initiative that worked great

[Stalker0]

The main concern I have with the OP method is initiative now translates into more actions in a combat.

There is literally nothing more powerful than more actions, it is the currency by which everything is done. This makes initiative even more powerful than it already is...and it’s already pretty powerful.

 

[Blue]

I just saw something like this on G+ though the "Initiative DC" was simply an initiative roll for the other side. It feels like it really takes away from the ebb and flow of tactics. Normally, if foe A knocks a PC prone, other PCs can intervene - engage foes who would move up and attack, help the PC to their feet, use a spell to create a barrier, etc. Now any tactic that does something like grants advantage can be used by the entire side.

In addition, there is no possibility to interrupt focus-fire. I would expect intelligently played foes to kill off a PC a round unless the DM intentionally spreads out their attacks.

And yes, I mean kill. First, and unconscious PC who is not killed suffers zero bad effects. It is extremely hard to lose an action - either they have already taken it or they just go after the healer. Which also means no need for death saves. And they know that they have a good period - all the PCs will get to go before the foe can retaliate (first all those that lost to the Init DC, and then next round all the rest who made the Init DC).

So it really is in the best interests of foes to kill PCs. Any attack (including spell attacks) on a downed person is with advantage, and any hits within 5' is an auto-crit. A hit is one auto-failed death save, a crit is two. Pretty easy to take someone out, especially if you have mixed forces like ogres with goblins. And if they don't the PCs have it super easy.

There are plenty of systems where a side initiative works. But given the options in D&D focusing all of those actions together I think will definitely change the tactics of combat in ways the system doesn't handle as well as the initiative it was designed with.

 

[Satyrn]

I like the idea of group initiative a lot, but I do see some problems.

On one turn, a player could easily die and get hit multiple more times, becoming perma-dead before the players get a turn to heal. Normal initiative gives more opportunity for different players to try to save the day.

Along the same lines, under normal initiative, players have to be well-rounded: if somebody dies and it is your turn, it is up to you to save them, and you may not be able to wait for the "healer"'s turn. With group initiative, there is no reason to diversify.

What about this method? :

Readied Group Initiative

Everybody rolls initiative (P = player team). Roll once for all enemies (E). All who roll higher than the enemies get a surprise round (S). Game progresses: S E P (E P alternating until end of combat). During a team's turn, its members may take their turns in any order they wish.

However, all turns are readied by all combatants. Any time a member of the opposing team finishes a turn, a combatant may immediately spend its reaction to take its turn. Rounds reset at the start of the Enemy team's turn.​

That just looks like "everyone goes whenever they want."
While the OP is "everyone goes whenever they want during their own side's turn."

Besides, after using this system for a couple years now, I have never seen the issue your fix is trying to address.

The time my gnome battlemaster died without a chance for others to intervene made sense. And the times he went down and the others did have a chance to intervene worked well, too.

The system allows for an interesting variety of outcomes for when a player falls.

 

[Satyrn]

There are plenty of systems where a side initiative works. But given the options in D&D focusing all of those actions together I think will definitely change the tactics of combat in ways the system doesn't handle as well as the initiative it was designed with.

We've been doing this for two years and it works fantastic.

 

[Blue]

We've been doing this for two years and it works fantastic.

Excellent, actual data! That's serious, all I described was theoretical.

Do you have a game using book initiative that we can compare and see if any of the issues UI described pop up? (If you don't, then there is no basis of comparison. If can feel fine while still being superior or inferior to the book method.)

Does there seem to be less back and forth of tactics (vs. just damage) vs. book initiative? I really don't see how that can be anything but true unless a side intentionally poorly chooses their order to inflict conditions after most of their side has gone, so please give examples.

The flip side, do you find that single conditions (like knocking prone to get advantage while adjacent) have an outsized impact compared to book initiative?

Do you find that getting knocked to zero HPs carries the same penalty as it does in a book initiative game?

 

[Satyrn]

Do you have a game using book initiative that we can compare and see if any of the issues UI described pop up? (If you don't, then there is no basis of comparison. If can feel fine while still being superior or inferior to the book method.)

I can compare against the way we played before the rule, although my memory's not perfect.

Does there seem to be less back and forth of tactics (vs. just damage) vs. book initiative? I really don't see how that can be anything but true unless a side intentionally poorly chooses their order to inflict conditions after most of their side has gone, so please give examples.

Oh, we're definitely optimizing for best use of inflicted conditions, and buff spells and the like. Well, some level of optimizing. It's like, if the fighter says "I'm gonna grapple that wizard," the cleric will say, "okay, first I'll cast this buff spell to help you." Or if the wizard says "I'm gonna cast fireball" the other players will go first so they can get out of the way first - and use shoves and pushes to corral the enemies into a tighter group so the wizard can hit more targets.

. . . I just realized a key point that might differentiate our tables. My table has pretty much always had the monsters act as a group, and so using this Initiative system is really giving the players what tbe monsters already had.

The flip side, do you find that single conditions (like knocking prone to get advantage while adjacent) have an outsized impact compared to book initiative?

No. There's generally still only one player that will get to attack the prone monster, with some exceptions where we gang up. So it just kinda helps make sure that the condition has some impact, where the book initiative could more easily have the condition have no impact (or just never get used as much)

Do you find that getting knocked to zero HPs carries the same penalty as it does in a book initiative game?

My gnome battlemaster has done the popup clown routine in one combat, and in another was riddled by bullets and killed outright. My experience says yeah, same penalty.

More than anything, I find that the players are more apt to look at their actions with an eye to how we can boost each other more than we used to, because the little buffs and conditions and positioning can be exploited to an effect to a point where it's tge equal of just hitting something with a sword.