D&D 5E Have you actually read the 5e DMG?

[Mistwell]

I read most of it. I want to read the rest of it, but I cannot friggen find my DMG! It's lost. Which is bizarre. I still have my bruised and battered 1e DMG. How the heck did I lose this one?

I gotta do one of those Yoda things, where I crawl into one of my bookshelves and toss crap behind me heedlessly grunting and making disappointed sounds as I search for it through layers of old Dragon magazines and stacks of lead miniatures and old maps. Oh look, a Star Frontiers character sheet!

 

[dave2008]

But if I have 20 orcs, there's also no way I'm running all 20 on the same initiative either even if they have identical stats. That's kind of abusive. I'm breaking them up into groups of 4-5.

I agree, I didn't mean to suggest I would run them all at once.

 

[iserith]

I agree, but there are lots of ways to control pacing, and I think pacing outside of combat is far more important.

I keep an eye on pacing in all scenes and challenges.

I'm not convinced, but even so I can say with certainty that large battles with lots of foes that are all bunched up leads pretty easily to play zone out, which means they aren't ready when it is there turn, which means it makes those battles take longer.

I think @Asisreo addresses this well above. The design of the encounter is as important as the use of group initiative for like monsters in my view. They work hand in glove.

 

[Asisreo]

Not if you use the optional rule for speed factor. That rule replaces the initiative rule in the PHB and doesn't require identical monsters to roll in groups.

I know. I'm saying that not doing speed factor and only doing the individual initiative is a houserule. If you're using speed factor, it's a variant. If you're using individual initiative, it's a houserule.

 

[Maxperson]

I know. I'm saying that not doing speed factor and only doing the individual initiative is a houserule. If you're using speed factor, it's a variant. If you're using individual initiative, it's a houserule.

Gotcha.

 

[prabe]

My own approach is to take something of a middle ground. If I have a large group of monsters, I'll often break them up in the initiative in something like squads, and even if I don't do that they'll rarely coordinate in a way that is punitively lethal (unless that's the point of that particular monster, such as if there's a hive mind of some sort at play). I play in a campaign with a DM who has used individual initiative, to the point of giving every hobgoblin in a platoon its own initiative, and whether it actually slows combat down or not it makes it feel slower, just because so many things get turns between character turns, never mind your own character's turns.

 

[atanakar]

Also, using group initiative is actually more fun, imo. Being outnumbered is a real danger and players actually fear getting surrounded and mobbed (you can't move through a hostile creature's space.)

Disagree. Side initiative is the recipe for random TPKs because the monsters get can two consecutive rounds of combat agains the PCs. We abandoned that in the early 80s very fast. Individual initiative is available in the Basic Moldvay book.

Side initiative is a relic of old school rank & file battlefield war-games. I fully understand why Gygax-Arneson used that. They were creating the game from scratch. For me, it has no place in a game (D&D) about skirmish fights at the squad level. If combat is a bit little longer I don't mind.

The problem is elsewhere. Too many games concentrates on putting fights back to back to award XPs and level up, then complain about combat time. Drop XPs per encounter in favour of story XPs or set XPs after a number of games. It will change how you and your players play the game.

 

[Reynard]

I keep an eye on pacing in all scenes and challenges.



I think @Asisreo addresses this well above. The design of the encounter is as important as the use of group initiative for like monsters in my view. They work hand in glove.

For sure. If you are going to have a fight against a large number of bad guys, it is best to go in with a plan of how you are going to keep it moving and fun.

 

[iserith]

Disagree. Side initiative is the recipe for random TPKs because the monsters get can two consecutive rounds of combat agains the PCs. We abandoned that in the early 80s very fast. Individual initiative is available in the Basic Moldvay book.

Side initiative is a relic of old school rank & file battlefield war-games. I fully understand why Gygax-Arneson used that. They were creating the game from scratch. For me, it has no place in a game (D&D) about skirmish fights at the squad level. If combat is a bit little longer I don't mind.

I think you may be thinking of something else. It's only "side initiative" if there's only one group of like monsters in D&D 5e. And the only time they'd get to attack the PCs twice before the PCs act is if the PCs are surprised and beat the all the PCs in initiative (who are rolling individually). That will be rare. And even rarer still would be that this result leads to a TPK. I find this to be a non-concern.

The problem is elsewhere. Too many games concentrates on putting fights back to back to award XPs and level up, then complain about combat time. Drop XPs per encounter in favour of story XPs or set XPs after a number of games. It will change how you and your players play the game.

The problem is individual initiative in my view regardless of how many combats the game has. We just had this discussion on a large D&D Discord server I'm in. All the same arguments I'm seeing above from proponents of individual initiative were put forward there, too. I played in so many games and observed many others on this server with individual initiative that are demonstrably slower than the games that used the rules-prescribed group initiative for like monsters. Thankfully, the server mods mandated group initiative for like monsters. Things are a great deal better now, at least in this area.

 

[atanakar]

I think you may be thinking of something else. It's only "side initiative" if there's only one group of like monsters in D&D 5e. And the only time they'd get to attack the PCs twice before the PCs act is if the PCs are surprised and beat the all the PCs in initiative (who are rolling individually). That will be rare. And even rarer still would be that this result leads to a TPK. I find this to be a non-concern.

The problem is individual initiative in my view regardless of how many combats the game has. We just had this discussion on a large D&D Discord server I'm in. All the same arguments I'm seeing above from proponents of individual initiative were put forward there, too. I played in so many games and observed many others on this server with individual initiative that are demonstrably slower than the games that used the rules-prescribed group initiative for like monsters. Thankfully, the server mods mandated group initiative for like monsters. Things are a great deal better now, at least in this area.

Yes I was referring to Side Initiative (page 270 DMG 5e).

I play by the rules of Initiative in the PHB 5e (p189). Groups of monsters with a single initiative works. I usually split them in tactical roles, in multiple positions and/or waves on the battle field so they each have a different initiative even if they are the same stat wise. Leaders are autonomous.

I wouldn't role an initiative for each individual creature. I never do that unless they are important foes (BBEG with second in command and 2-3 elite guards) in low numbers 3-5. Then it's individual for each because it is the epic final battle and it makes sense that it takes more time.