D&D 5E (Homebrew) Dynamic Initiative System, 4 year feedback

[toucanbuzz]

One year ago, I posted updates on playtest of a dynamic initiative system, inspired by Mike Mearls, AD&D, and Matt Colville commentary, wherein players (and monsters) declare actions at the same time each round, then roll a die based off that choice to determine initiative. Lowest goes first, and player choice rules the day. I'm now into year 4, and a 2nd group thanks to a career move, of actual play with this type of system, with players who all have also used the default d20 system.

Universal conclusion: dynamic initiative for them is faster and more interesting, largely because 90% of decision making is now happening at the same time rather than 1 at a time. Further, the learning curve is minimal (roughly 2-3 combats). Even so, playtest revealed some issues, including a handful raised 1 year ago by the awesome folks in this community. So, attached are (1) my handout version (that goes on the front of my DM screen), and (2) the more detailed notes for a DM, including playtest notes that led to revision.

Anyhow, if you're looking for something that adds an extra element of strategy to your game by removing the sheer randomness of initiative, all without a major learning curve, take a peek.

EDIT: added v2.1, which incorporates a rec by @dnd4vr for spell casting times, cleans up some errors and clarifying language, and incorporates what to do if a player declares a dagger throw then with Extra Attack pulls out a great axe.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Interesting. I've explored similar concepts, but in the end have favored simplicity and speed over complexity and such. shrug

While I can imagine it might be more interesting, I don't see how this is really faster than other systems. Also, how does this remove the sheer randomness of initiative, you are still rolling dice after all?

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting. I've explored similar concepts, but in the end have favored simplicity and speed over complexity and such. shrug

While I can imagine it might be more interesting, I don't see how this is really faster than other systems.

More time spent on the logistics, but less time spent deliberating on actions. Players often take a long time to decide what to do on their turns. When you have to decide what to do during a shared action declaration phase, there's more pressure to make a decision quickly. It also forces the players to make decisions with incomplete information. Instead of thinking for half a minute about what spell to cast, who to attack, where to move to avoid opportunity attacks, if you need to dash/disengage, etc. you think for just a few seconds and end up just going "Uhh... I guess I'll probably move and attack," or "I guess I'll cast fireball."

Also, how does this remove the sheer randomness of initiative, you are still rolling dice after all?

It doesn't really. It does insure that your action has some impact on when in the round your action is most likely to get executed, but it's definitely still random. Randomness isn't really a problem initiative variants like this set out to solve. On the contrary, one of the goals is to make the order of actions less predictable from round to round.

 

[DND_Reborn]

More time spent on the logistics, but less time spent deliberating on actions.

Which is why, at best, I see the time factor as a wash--no better, no worse in most cases--when I've adopted declaration systems and seen them in use.

Players often take a long time to decide what to do on their turns.

Again, I see this as true in either type of system, it just depends more on the player IME. More experienced players will act faster in either system, newer players or players unfamiliar with a class/spells/etc. will take longer.

Personally, I don't mind time taken here because as much as we play our PCs, we aren't them, we aren't there, and if the PCs were real I am sure they would make decisions to act more quickly that us players who control them. Every caster (if real) would know exactly what their spells can do, but players (and DMs) often have to check specifics and such.

When you have to decide what to do during a shared action declaration phase, there's more pressure to make a decision quickly.

I suppose this depends on the group. When I DM, I give the players time, but if they take more than 30 seconds or so, I tell them to make up their minds. But,

It also forces the players to make decisions with incomplete information. Instead of thinking for half a minute about what spell to cast, who to attack, where to move to avoid opportunity attacks, if you need to dash/disengage, etc. you think for just a few seconds and end up just going "Uhh... I guess I'll probably move and attack," or "I guess I'll cast fireball."

Agreed on incomplete information. But having to make decisions quickly and with less information would seem to led to less strategic play (something gained by the OP as claimed to my understanding). It also increases the chance the PC will perform the same action over and over instead of having the time to explore alternatives. shrug

Also, declarations IME lead to strange inconsistencies in some ways. I've used declarations for nearly 30 years in playing 1E/2E, so I am not opposed to it, it is just a different mindset as to how combat happens IMO.

It doesn't really. It does insure that your action has some impact on when in the round your action is most likely to get executed, but it's definitely still random. Randomness isn't really a problem initiative variants like this set out to solve. On the contrary, one of the goals is to make the order of actions less predictable from round to round.

Yeah, I agree the point of initiative is to make it so when your chance to act comes, it is random.

I understand the OP's point, though, in that it reduces the randomness by having your action selection impact your turn in line (as you point out as well).

Again, either type of system is fine IMO, just a different mindset. I do find it peculiar that in 1E (with 1-minute long rounds) that when your turn came it was because that was when you spotted the opening for your attack, completed your spell, etc. IIRC. With 6-second long rounds in 5E, it is almost more as if nearly every swing or strike is rolled.

 

[BookTenTiger]

This is a really neat system! I would love to try it out sometime. It really seems to support the idea that all these turns are happening at the same time.

Two questions:

I got a little confused about bonus actions. Do they have to be declared? Or do you get to spontaneously choose to take one on your turn? Does a rogue have to say "I'm going to attack with my dagger then use a bonus action to disengage" or do they just say "I'm going to attack with my dagger" and then choose whether to disengage or not when their turn comes up?

Do you declare monster actions or just choose when their turn comes up?

 

[DND_Reborn]

@toucanbuzz

Have you considered having the die for spells be based on components?

For example, you have Power Word spells have 1 because they are verbal only a just a single word.

Maybe something like this:
Single component (V, S, or M): d4
Two components (VS, VM, SM): d6 or d8
All three components (VSM): d10 or d12

Just a thought instead of having it +1 per spell level, since a spell such as Wish is V only, despite being level 9. Now, it could be narratively that the longer time is due to the magic gathering or something... so I could see it either way.

 

[Zaukrie]

Great! As you know, this is going in a doco I hope to sell soon. I'm interested in the feedback for sure.

 

[Stalker0]

I agree with others that I can't imagine that this would be truly "quicker" in terms of actual game time. For all the time you save with the 1 out of a time figuring out you lose by having to re call out and recalculate initiative every round.

That said, I could absolutely see how it would speed up the "perception" of time....since all players are deciding together, it has the feeling of less downtime for them, which I could see would be really interesting.

Two questions:

1) I do not understand this paragraph, could you provide some examples? "On your turn, you may always freely substitute Dash, Disengage, or Dodge in lieu of your Action. However, if the Action requires movement (Dash, Disengage) and you did not add +2 to move, you cannot take that Action. This also applies to such features as the Rogue “Cunning Action.”

2) You mentioned in your DM comments about the ability to change spells on your action but I don't see that mechanically.

3) Does the alertness feat effectively mean you just roll a d3 all the time?


I could see an interesting variant to allow for Int to be a cooler stat. Something like "a number of times per day equal to your int mod, you can freely substitute your action for a different one, as long as the new action does not have a faster initiative". Or remove the clause about the faster initiative if you like the idea that int makes you "faster".

 

[Zaukrie]

My experience, brief as it is, is that everyone deciding at once does speed up game play, some. It also makes it seem much faster, which is just as, if not more, important. Now, I've only used this (and others like it) enough to get a group used to it plus a few more encounters.

Re-rolling or otherwise deciding init every round adds no real time to the game. Given the flow and how people decide what to do, it usually happens while the last actor is taking their turn in a round. But, for some people, it did effect how they felt about time for sure.

 

[Stalker0]

Two other thoughts:

1) How was tracking conditions with this system? At first glance, I would think having to track "this effect ends on Init 3" would be much more cumbersome than "ends when Bob goes next".

2) Something that I think is neat is that if an unconscious player is healed, they always get to go in the same round, just at the end. That's always been a little jenky in the core game, and I like how clean it is with this system. I personally would probably just take it one step simpler and say that unconscious people always go last, period. But I could see how getting to roll a die is at least something the unconscious player gets to do....which helps fight the perception of doing absolutely nothing.