What is your way for doing Initiative?

[5ekyu]

That's why I said:

Of course I meant 'suck' and also [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] proved us both wrong with the way his group handles it.



It depends on the players. I have one player who is a damn near genius. If we don't shuffle initiative and I don't do anything crazy with the NPCs and he can predict the other players actions then by the end of the first round he can pretty have the entire encounter resolved in his head.

So, when I run cons and other players, static initiative is fine. But with my standard group, it pretty much needed.

There is no right or wrong answer, just what works or doesn't work for any given group

"It depends on the players. I have one player who is a damn near genius. If we don't shuffle initiative and I don't do anything crazy with the NPCs and he can predict the other players actions then by the end of the first round he can pretty have the entire encounter resolved in his head."

That does not read to me like an issue with initiative - nor necessarily something I would want to put in *rules* to prevent.

But each table has it's own tastes. I mean, you are literally citing a need to add the d20 rerolls to stop a player from figuring out things and presumably making informed choices- whereas we go heavy towards more choices and less power to thecd20 at our table. "Power to the people, not the dice" is our thing.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

This should be a poll

I considered it actually, but I realized there are just too many options or choices I would want to list.

I prefer to roll every round to make initiative matter more, but it doesn't actually play out well, since it takes up more time. It also makes Dex more important, which a lot of people take issue with.

That is why my house-rule allows the player to use the best of Dex, Int, or Wis as all three can affect how quickly you are going to act in a combat situation (for different reasons, obviously). Generally, even the Str-based warrior builds have either a decent if not good Int or Wis if their Dex is only +0. Of course, now that we use a d6 and your modifier has to be at least +3 to gain a +1 on the d6 roll, many characters have no initiative modifier anyway. The worst would have been that Elf Ranger with Alert, normally +9, gaining +3 on the d6, but since the player got a new job she hasn't played any.

 

[5ekyu]

I considered it actually, but I realized there are just too many options or choices I would want to list.



That is why my house-rule allows the player to use the best of Dex, Int, or Wis as all three can affect how quickly you are going to act in a combat situation (for different reasons, obviously). Generally, even the Str-based warrior builds have either a decent if not good Int or Wis if their Dex is only +0. Of course, now that we use a d6 and your modifier has to be at least +3 to gain a +1 on the d6 roll, many characters have no initiative modifier anyway. The worst would have been that Elf Ranger with Alert, normally +9, gaining +3 on the d6, but since the player got a new job she hasn't played any.

So, mostly then it's just the die roll and not character specifics or traits that affects the order at all?

Interesting.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

So, mostly then it's just the die roll and not character specifics or traits that affects the order at all?

Interesting.

Well, in earlier editions with 1 minute rounds I would just use a die roll (d6 in 1E, d10 in 2E). The idea being that fast reflexes (high Dex) aren't going to likely matter during an entire minute of combat. I thought of doing it with 5E but with 6-second rounds, things like reflexes, tactical wit, and insight (Dex, Int, Wis) could affect how quickly someone acts.

Between Dex, Int, and Wis, many characters have at least one of those at 16 or higher, getting a +1 mod on the d6. Some don't, so no mod.

I work Alert to usually at another +1 (but many times +2), but we still calculate the normal total modifier, and divide by 3 for the new modifier. So, if a character uses Int 14 (so +2) but also Alert (+5), the total +7 divided by 3 is +2 on the d6. The new modifier is always rounded down. So if a character's normally +8 to Initiative, he is still +2 (8/3 = 2.67, round down to +2).

 

[Maxperson]

I can see how that might save *some* time, but it's still going to slow the game down a little bit, as the person tracking the initiative will still have to call for everyone's new initiative rolls at the start of each round and then reorganize the list, which is slower than just saying, "OK, new round, back to the top, X is up." And we may be talking seconds here, rather than minutes, but they still add up over the course of a session.

As I explained, the bolded doesn't happen as all the rolls except one player have happened BEFORE the start of the new round. We have a dry erase marker initiative board that one of the players found and bought. At the beginning of the night whoever is tracking initiative writes down each PC's name. There is no list reorganization as it's pretty easy to just see in big bold numbering who has the highest initiative. As I said in the last post, it takes all of 2 seconds to get the last players initiative number and add it to the list. 2 seconds + "Ok, new round, back to the top, X is up." is 2 seconds slower than "OK, new round, back to the top, X is up." The difference is that X changes from round to round.

I run two games. One game consists of relative newbies who still struggle to take their turns quickly. My other game has six players in it. Anything that slows down combat is not worth bothering with in my book.

Which is fine. I personally don't see a literal 2 second slowdown per round as significant, but I will accept that you do.

 

[plisnithus8]

1. Roll at the beginning of combat, each novel getting s roll.
2. Highest total goes first, but then we just go clockwise.
3. Players can switch positions before NPCs go, especially if one is having to look up spells.
It really speeds things up, and — while rewarding a high initiative roll — removes taking any time from recording the order.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, in earlier editions with 1 minute rounds I would just use a die roll (d6 in 1E, d10 in 2E). The idea being that fast reflexes (high Dex) aren't going to likely matter during an entire minute of combat. I thought of doing it with 5E but with 6-second rounds, things like reflexes, tactical wit, and insight (Dex, Int, Wis) could affect how quickly someone acts.

That's not true, though. In 1e with 1 minute rounds, the attack represented when an opening happened for the PC to get his attack. Someone with faster reflexes would be able to take advantage of briefer openings, giving more and sometimes earlier opportunities to attack, so the reaction adjustment made sense. Bigger and heavier weapons made that harder, so they added more time to when you could go via weapon speed.

 

[5ekyu]

Well, in earlier editions with 1 minute rounds I would just use a die roll (d6 in 1E, d10 in 2E). The idea being that fast reflexes (high Dex) aren't going to likely matter during an entire minute of combat. I thought of doing it with 5E but with 6-second rounds, things like reflexes, tactical wit, and insight (Dex, Int, Wis) could affect how quickly someone acts.

Between Dex, Int, and Wis, many characters have at least one of those at 16 or higher, getting a +1 mod on the d6. Some don't, so no mod.

I work Alert to usually at another +1 (but many times +2), but we still calculate the normal total modifier, and divide by 3 for the new modifier. So, if a character uses Int 14 (so +2) but also Alert (+5), the total +7 divided by 3 is +2 on the d6. The new modifier is always rounded down. So if a character's normally +8 to Initiative, he is still +2 (8/3 = 2.67, round down to +2).

thats all fantastic and i wish we had time for you to add five more paragraphs about how simple math works but the final nutshells are it would seem one of the three...

1 - It basically is a bunch'a math to reproduce the same results as the regular rules. (Does not seem to be what you are claiming.)
2 - It boils down the difference in character to more character having the same modifiers (less difference shown between characters) and so you give the dice more power and the character traits matter less.
3 - It boils down to create more differentiation between the characters (fewer have the same modifier) and so the character traits matter more.

Now, it seems to me that with all your math involved it comes out to #2 - 3 pt brackets of 5e modifiers (equivalent of six points of ability score) divide down to 1 meaning a lot less distinction between PCs and more of this just being a "die decides".

We tend to go the opposite way - favoring elements that make it more about the character traits than about the dice over ones that buff down the character traits to being more similar between characters.

But thats us.

I have played in games where the modifier was always just a single d6 and where "traits" boiled down to "just big stuff" so a lot of the small differences were not designed or desired in the mix - "don't sweat the small stuff" (DWSS) design - and while it was fun the one area it definitely showed some issues was in the degree of "mechanical" differentiation between the characters being a smidge lower than we liked - but then it was more narratively driven and things like "sequencing events" was not random at all.

My most recent concluded 5e campaign (18 months beginning to end) used "initiative by choice" - designed to remove random order altogether and empower choice not rolls.

Start of each combat the players were told to pick "first or last" and if we did not get a quick answer of "first" the answer would be last.

if they chose first, the one who did so went first. if several chimed in with first, they made a quick decision of which went first or they went to last. After that it was "one of mine, one of yours" repeating until the side with last was down to their "last guy" as that guy was held off for last. So if the numbers were uneven there might be a cluster of multiples from the more numerous at the near-end.

But each time "one of yours" came up you chose which one. So you go first and want your cleric to go later and your fighter to rush ahead while your rogue lets the fighter engage to get sneak - all good. But, same for the other side.

If you chose last, one of my guys goes and the same sequencing by choice went.

After the first turn, the order was set and carried from round to round (due to there being issues with changing sequence order and the turn-based timing all through 5e mechanics.)

It played out great and the players loved it (and at times hated it) for the freedom it gave them to actually *choose* their sequences and order and how it made that opening turn more like the opening of a tactical game with repercussions that carried all through the fight - driven by choices more than dice for order ever did.

So, for "streamlining play", it removed all the dice rolling for turn order stuff and moved us immediately into "make meaningful choices" (to us that means "the fun stuff") right away.

I represented features that gave advantage on init and such by letting that player choose for his character his own "first" or "last" separate from the group decision. So, in theory, if the group chose first and they did too, the advantaged guy would go, then the party "first" then we went to the back-n-forth.

But thats how we normally tend to look for "what changes do we want to make" - do they put more spotlight and import on differences in characters, choices made or dice?


We practically never (read this as "never but faulty memory") implement things that spotlight the dice more and the character differences and choices less.

When we want to save time in a mostly dice driven step - its usually by just removing the dice not changing around the dice and mods to create a different dice soup - especially if it makes more "ties" happen. Why roll dice with a good chance to leave you at "ties"? You were at a tie before the roll, then you rolled and now you are at a new tie? Wasted time.

but again, thats just us.

 

[not-so-newguy]

The system as written.

For a while we were doing a group initiative, where the Players got their turn and then the DM took his. On the Players turn, each character acted in whatever order the players wanted, switching it up each round however they pleased. Obviously, it optimised their actions (so the guy with Shield Master would go before anybody else attacking the same foe) and that was the draw that made the system fun. Plus, it meant I never had to track initiative order as DM.

I’m considering switching to this simpler way of handling initiative. In your experience, Did combat encounters become easier?

Edit: I imagine that surprise would become a huge advantage.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

That's not true, though. In 1e with 1 minute rounds, the attack represented when an opening happened for the PC to get his attack. Someone with faster reflexes would be able to take advantage of briefer openings, giving more and sometimes earlier opportunities to attack, so the reaction adjustment made sense. Bigger and heavier weapons made that harder, so they added more time to when you could go via weapon speed.

Yeah, yeah, I know how it worked in 1E, even with determining did your fireball finish before or after the sword attack? or was it during it? etc. A lot of people never quite understood how that part worked LOL! And yes, bigger weapons had some effect, but they also added reach. But in an entire minute of attacks, feints, parries, movement, etc. combat is too random IMO to allow faster reflexes to operate that way, which is why I simplified it to just the d6 roll. Either way, this isn't about 1E now.

Other game systems, such as Shadowrun, use Quickness (Dex) and Intelligence to calculate your Reaction, which modifies Initiative. Intelligence or Wisdom can just as easily effect Initiative. With Intelligence you find the tactical opening more quickly, with Wisdom your understand of your foe and the general flow of battle might create an opening sooner. They work just as logically as Dex (and reaction timing/reflexes). Experience can also be a HUGE factor but we never see it incorporated into Initiative, do we? For instance, in 5E why not also have your proficiency bonus, a measure of your experience in combat, adventure, life, etc., also add to Initiative.