toucanbuzz
No rule is inviolate
Thought I'd share actual play experience with the optional initiative rule in the DMG (p270) for "speed factor" as there's been a lot of theory-craft or supposition but not a lot of tabletop demonstration. This is NOT the Greyhawk variant proposed in the UA, btw.
As a refresher, with this variant players declare actions in advance each round, then roll initiative modified by the action chosen. In 2nd edition, this was called "speed factor."
We've played this system so far through 3rd level.
Has picking an action slowed the game down? No! Actually, it's sped us up. I didn't think it would (I originally proposed it'd be an even trade). It wasn't noticeable at the time how much players were slowing the game down on their turn picking the optimal action (should I drink a potion, bandage Rolf, cast a spell...) Plus, it's helping when the party coordinates. For example: Bard was going to cast True Strike, but Druid advises to save your spell. If my Faerie Fire works, we'll all have an easy time hitting the beast.
What about the mechanics? Is it hard memorizing the speed factor numbers? Not really. Most actions have no modifier. Players made a note beside things that actually had a modifier: +2 for light weapons, -2 for heavy or 2-hander, -5 for loading, and -1 per spell level. Simple as that. If they take a non-traditional action, I'll adjudicate myself what modifier to give using these as comparison (e.g. forcing a jammed door). After a few combats, it's been flowing really well for everyone.
What about forfeiting an action? A common criticism & concern is that a player might declare an action and then it isn't needed. So far, not an issue. There's been times someone has wanted to take a different action, mostly when another player drops, but that's the thrill of the system. You don't know who's going when. It's not predictable. Can there be times? Absolutely. Imagine the Ranger drops to 0hp and Bard declares she's bandaging him. But, next round, the monsters do a coup de grace and the Ranger is dead. She's standing there with bandages in hand. Alternately, another player might have said they'll cast Healing Word, and both hope that between the two of them, at least one of them gets to act before the monsters. That's strategy, and I'm a believer it's more believable and dynamic than a predictable, set turn where you KNOW you're going to bandage your comrade first because you always act before the ghouls do.
You're rolling every round and having to figure out initiative, isn't that slower? Not the way we're doing it. Plus, most actions don't have a modifier. As above, since no one is holding up the game to decide what they're doing each round, other than movement, it's been quick.
Let's run through a typical combat:
DM: The earth heaves as ghoulish fiends tear themselves from shallow graves and come loping down the tunnels at you. Actions!
Bard: Bardic Inspiration and shooting my crossbow. (+0 for inspiration, a bonus action, and -5 for the crossbow).
Ranger: I'm close up. Attacking with both blades. (+2 for using light weapons).
Sorcerer: Fire bolt! (+0 because it's a cantrip)
Druid: Faerie Fire online (-1 for a first level spell).
Paladin: Attacking and smiting if I hit (+0 for regular longsword attack, no modifier to ability use).
Everyone rolls, then the DM calls for initiative. No one knows, under this system, who's going to go first. Also, the above declarations are taking us maybe 15 seconds, unless there's some debate like the True Strike with Faerie Fire talk. Players know their characters and generally have an idea of what they're doing in most scenarios.
DM: Above 20
Ranger: 21. He attacks and hits both times.
DM: Above 15
Sorcerer & Druid: 16! (druid has higher dexterity, so he goes first, otherwise it'd be a roll-off). Both spells go off
DM: Above 10, my monsters go on 14. Resolves attacks. One of the ghouls goes for the bard.
DM: Above 5.
Paladin: 10, here I go! (attacks)
Bard: 8. Crap. I sing a song to inspire Ranger, then I'll try and shoot this guy closeup (with disadvantage).
The group should've planned ahead, knowing if the ghouls had a path to the Bard she would have a hard time getting her shot off. The Ranger or another could have used their Movement to block off a path, but no one did. The crossbow is a much slower weapon, so odds are the monsters might beat her to it. And this round, they did. She still gets to act, but not as effectively as she had hoped.
DM: Next round, everyone got actions? (this time, everyone yells them out quickly).
In this round, the monsters act first and take down the Ranger. Unlike traditional rules, others were in the act of casting spells, using an item, swinging a weapon, and they don't get, in that brief moment, to cast Healing Word or bandage the Ranger. The party is in trouble if the monsters go first next round because, if they're quick enough, Ranger could be killed.
Although I've fictionalized the combat, the scenario where someone could be killed actually occurred for us. The ghouls went first and ate the Ranger. He had already failed a Death Save the round he went down and the next round, the Ghouls finished him with a Crit. Harsh, but real. [sblock] We're playing Curse of Strahd, which is deadly anyways, and there were special resurrection rules involving the Powers that Be in that Realm that offered the Ranger a chance to come back, for a price. So I'm a little less hesitant to pull the trigger on a coup de grace situation. Even so, it's ghouls. It's like all the zombie flicks. When they have you down, they begin eating you, not moving onto the next guy.[/sblock]
For mechanics, the round table rapid-fire "actions?" is working. Players are shooting them out pretty quickly. That may change with higher level play, we'll see, but it encourages, highly encourages, "know thy character." There's some peer pressure to avoid being the player slowing the combat down. As a DM, the rapid fire "over 20, over 15, over 10..." system works well. By the time I'm down to the last few actors, there's no point in a countdown and we just know and go. I don't sit and pause. And I believe there's a lot more anxiety, leading to a more exciting game. You were planning on wrestling out of that vampire spawn's grasp this round, but maybe it goes first and finishes you off.
Conclusion: At low levels, it's working and just a quickly as traditional initiative based on the way we play. Your choice of an action becomes very meaningful, as does coordinating strategy and movement. You have to plan for battlefield control because the monsters might act slow one round and fast another, leading to consecutive attacks, which can be nasty. I'll be curious how this plays out at higher levels when players get a lot more choices for actions.
As a refresher, with this variant players declare actions in advance each round, then roll initiative modified by the action chosen. In 2nd edition, this was called "speed factor."
We've played this system so far through 3rd level.
Has picking an action slowed the game down? No! Actually, it's sped us up. I didn't think it would (I originally proposed it'd be an even trade). It wasn't noticeable at the time how much players were slowing the game down on their turn picking the optimal action (should I drink a potion, bandage Rolf, cast a spell...) Plus, it's helping when the party coordinates. For example: Bard was going to cast True Strike, but Druid advises to save your spell. If my Faerie Fire works, we'll all have an easy time hitting the beast.
What about the mechanics? Is it hard memorizing the speed factor numbers? Not really. Most actions have no modifier. Players made a note beside things that actually had a modifier: +2 for light weapons, -2 for heavy or 2-hander, -5 for loading, and -1 per spell level. Simple as that. If they take a non-traditional action, I'll adjudicate myself what modifier to give using these as comparison (e.g. forcing a jammed door). After a few combats, it's been flowing really well for everyone.
What about forfeiting an action? A common criticism & concern is that a player might declare an action and then it isn't needed. So far, not an issue. There's been times someone has wanted to take a different action, mostly when another player drops, but that's the thrill of the system. You don't know who's going when. It's not predictable. Can there be times? Absolutely. Imagine the Ranger drops to 0hp and Bard declares she's bandaging him. But, next round, the monsters do a coup de grace and the Ranger is dead. She's standing there with bandages in hand. Alternately, another player might have said they'll cast Healing Word, and both hope that between the two of them, at least one of them gets to act before the monsters. That's strategy, and I'm a believer it's more believable and dynamic than a predictable, set turn where you KNOW you're going to bandage your comrade first because you always act before the ghouls do.
You're rolling every round and having to figure out initiative, isn't that slower? Not the way we're doing it. Plus, most actions don't have a modifier. As above, since no one is holding up the game to decide what they're doing each round, other than movement, it's been quick.
Let's run through a typical combat:
DM: The earth heaves as ghoulish fiends tear themselves from shallow graves and come loping down the tunnels at you. Actions!
Bard: Bardic Inspiration and shooting my crossbow. (+0 for inspiration, a bonus action, and -5 for the crossbow).
Ranger: I'm close up. Attacking with both blades. (+2 for using light weapons).
Sorcerer: Fire bolt! (+0 because it's a cantrip)
Druid: Faerie Fire online (-1 for a first level spell).
Paladin: Attacking and smiting if I hit (+0 for regular longsword attack, no modifier to ability use).
Everyone rolls, then the DM calls for initiative. No one knows, under this system, who's going to go first. Also, the above declarations are taking us maybe 15 seconds, unless there's some debate like the True Strike with Faerie Fire talk. Players know their characters and generally have an idea of what they're doing in most scenarios.
DM: Above 20
Ranger: 21. He attacks and hits both times.
DM: Above 15
Sorcerer & Druid: 16! (druid has higher dexterity, so he goes first, otherwise it'd be a roll-off). Both spells go off
DM: Above 10, my monsters go on 14. Resolves attacks. One of the ghouls goes for the bard.
DM: Above 5.
Paladin: 10, here I go! (attacks)
Bard: 8. Crap. I sing a song to inspire Ranger, then I'll try and shoot this guy closeup (with disadvantage).
The group should've planned ahead, knowing if the ghouls had a path to the Bard she would have a hard time getting her shot off. The Ranger or another could have used their Movement to block off a path, but no one did. The crossbow is a much slower weapon, so odds are the monsters might beat her to it. And this round, they did. She still gets to act, but not as effectively as she had hoped.
DM: Next round, everyone got actions? (this time, everyone yells them out quickly).
In this round, the monsters act first and take down the Ranger. Unlike traditional rules, others were in the act of casting spells, using an item, swinging a weapon, and they don't get, in that brief moment, to cast Healing Word or bandage the Ranger. The party is in trouble if the monsters go first next round because, if they're quick enough, Ranger could be killed.
Although I've fictionalized the combat, the scenario where someone could be killed actually occurred for us. The ghouls went first and ate the Ranger. He had already failed a Death Save the round he went down and the next round, the Ghouls finished him with a Crit. Harsh, but real. [sblock] We're playing Curse of Strahd, which is deadly anyways, and there were special resurrection rules involving the Powers that Be in that Realm that offered the Ranger a chance to come back, for a price. So I'm a little less hesitant to pull the trigger on a coup de grace situation. Even so, it's ghouls. It's like all the zombie flicks. When they have you down, they begin eating you, not moving onto the next guy.[/sblock]
For mechanics, the round table rapid-fire "actions?" is working. Players are shooting them out pretty quickly. That may change with higher level play, we'll see, but it encourages, highly encourages, "know thy character." There's some peer pressure to avoid being the player slowing the combat down. As a DM, the rapid fire "over 20, over 15, over 10..." system works well. By the time I'm down to the last few actors, there's no point in a countdown and we just know and go. I don't sit and pause. And I believe there's a lot more anxiety, leading to a more exciting game. You were planning on wrestling out of that vampire spawn's grasp this round, but maybe it goes first and finishes you off.
Conclusion: At low levels, it's working and just a quickly as traditional initiative based on the way we play. Your choice of an action becomes very meaningful, as does coordinating strategy and movement. You have to plan for battlefield control because the monsters might act slow one round and fast another, leading to consecutive attacks, which can be nasty. I'll be curious how this plays out at higher levels when players get a lot more choices for actions.
