D&D 5E Why use initiative?

[Maxperson]

Some time after I first tried DMing 5th edition, I ran into a video by Matt Colville in his Running the Game series on YouTube. In it he mentioned a really cool alternative to initiative that one of the creators of 5E came up with:

D4 for ranged. D8 for melee. D12 for spellcasting. +D6 to move and/or do something. The lower rolls go first. This process occurs at the beginning of each round.

There are a couple of things that this accomplishes extremely well. The more actions you make, the longer you will need to perform them. Also some actions are more complicated and take more time to perform.

Not only is this more immersive when players think about how long it will take them to do what they want to do, but it actively encourages players to have fun strategizing with each other during many rounds. It also adds a very welcome layer to the strategy because now players can actually try to get an earlier initiative on a given turn, and they have to think about the cost/benefit ratio for the things that they do. E.g. "how can I heal Rumlar, and do it quick?"

So IMO this alternative is not only mechanically superior but it is more immersive. It makes combat feel real.

The main issue I have is that it doesn't really make the combat feel more real, it's just unreal in a different way. If you think about it, drawing an arrow, nocking the arrow, drawing back, aiming and firing is not faster(let alone twice as fast) as swinging or stabbing with a sword. A crossbow is going to be slower than a short bow. A greatsword is going to be slower than a dagger. The dagger will be faster than the short bow.

If you want to make combat feel real and immersive. Roll every round with a d20 or if that's too swingy, a d12 and then add weapon and spell speed factors to it. You can add that d6 for movement if you like.

 

[Blue]

One issue with 5e is that as part of the steamlining they frequently use spell and feature durations of "until the (start|end) oif your next turn" to really mean "everyone will be affected by this during exactly one of their turns. It's a nice bit of streamlining combat when you have cyclical initiative. But it breaks down and requires other types of duration when initiative changes from round to round.

Picture this - you are a monk, and you stun someone who has already acted. Next round you go even faster - say you don't have to move in what you proposed, or you just roll better. You go before the person you stunned and there stun is completed - but they never lost an action to it.

Early editions where you rolled initiative every round (and could incorporate things like weapon speed and casting time) measured duration for full rounds, not ending part way though one. This does in some ways rounds down with if you go later in the round you could effect someone one less time, but they also had a lot less single round occurances, so if sometimes your 5 round duration afected someone 4 times or sometimes 5 times, that wasn't as big a change as 0 or 1.

This isn't a problem with variable initiative. It's the combination of variable initiative, 5e streamlining, and the number of short duration effects, esp. "1 of everyone's turn" ones.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't use cyclical initiative.

However, I can see how having a concurrent declaration phase could really cut down on combat length. Though, there will also be a bit of increased time in rolling the initiative dice each turn and the DM establishing the order for that turn. I think it's likely for many groups that it will save them more time than it costs them.

 

[Maxperson]

Though, there will also be a bit of increased time in rolling the initiative dice each turn and the DM establishing the order for that turn. I think it's likely for many groups that it will save them more time than it costs them.

Depends on how you do it. My group rolls each round. The person tracking initiative asks the current player to roll at the end of that players turn. By the time the last person is finishing, he's the only one who still has to roll. Initiative is done about 3-5 seconds after the round is over.

 

[Charlaquin]

One issue with 5e is that as part of the steamlining they frequently use spell and feature durations of "until the (start|end) oif your next turn" to really mean "everyone will be affected by this during exactly one of their turns. It's a nice bit of streamlining combat when you have cyclical initiative. But it breaks down and requires other types of duration when initiative changes from round to round.

Picture this - you are a monk, and you stun someone who has already acted. Next round you go even faster - say you don't have to move in what you proposed, or you just roll better. You go before the person you stunned and there stun is completed - but they never lost an action to it.

Early editions where you rolled initiative every round (and could incorporate things like weapon speed and casting time) measured duration for full rounds, not ending part way though one. This does in some ways rounds down with if you go later in the round you could effect someone one less time, but they also had a lot less single round occurances, so if sometimes your 5 round duration afected someone 4 times or sometimes 5 times, that wasn't as big a change as 0 or 1.

This isn't a problem with variable initiative. It's the combination of variable initiative, 5e streamlining, and the number of short duration effects, esp. "1 of everyone's turn" ones.

You can kind of resolve this by replacing all instances of “until the start/end of your/the target’s next turn” with “one round” and defining “one round” as “until the current initiative count on the next round” (that is to say, if the effect started on count 3 of round 1, it ends on count 3 of round 2). That would insure that such durations always last for at least one of everyone’s turn. Though, it creates the new problem of some creatures having two turns occur within that duration, if they acted after it on the round it started and before it on the round where it ends.

 

[Bacon Bits]

For the life of me, I think I will never understand wanting initiative to be more complicated than it currently is or involve more die rolls. The primary purpose of initiative is to establish sequential order to an event that -- at least conceptually -- is simultaneous.

My least favorite is the action-based modifiers. I've intensely disliked the so-called "Greyhawk" initiative or weapon based initiative. Simply put, any justification you can imagine for why a bow might be fast or a dagger might slow or a spell might be slow or a polearm might be fast, and I can imagine another justification for why the opposite is true. If, for example, a dagger is faster than a pike, why did armies ever use pikes? They'd have lost to a horde of knifezerkers! The truth is that if there were any real difference that were not down to the relative position or situation that would determine how quickly a weapon might be used, that implement would simply not be useful as a weapon at all. The Tueller Drill makes it pretty clear that what we think of as deadly range in the game isn't how reality works.

Frankly, it would make more sense if, regardless of the events of the round, any creature not incapacitated or dead at the start of the round got to take a turn that round even if they "die" before their turn. After all, how dramatic is it to have one last action before dropping? Once you allow that to be your framework, the majority of the benefits of going first collapse. They're not gone, but they're significantly mitigated. At that point you might as well use popcorn initiative, since going early in the turn order is now mostly a point of current positioning and who determines the information that the rest of the party needs. Now going first is both beneficial and kind of risky. Now it's a real choice.

What people are really trying to do with initiative is game the action economy. Trying to find a way for them to have a turn and others not to. To get ahead of the damage curve. To get the effects of surprise without all that mucking about with surprise rules. And to do all that under some guise of fairness. In any case, I don't think this really adds much to the game. It's not a strategic or tactical choice. Going first is all but universally the best option, and delay was so uncommon a move that it was removed entirely with very little grumbling (and subsumed in the very inferior "ready"). So it's a false choice. It's also overvalued so players already think it's better than it actually is. So why encourage more systems that make the false choice more false if anything?

Just feels like throwing good design after bad.

Otherwise, you can still just use OD&D missile/melee/magic sections of the round.

 

[FrogReaver]

Depends on how you do it. My group rolls each round. The person tracking initiative asks the current player to roll at the end of that players turn. By the time the last person is finishing, he's the only one who still has to roll. Initiative is done about 3-5 seconds after the round is over.

How do you have initiative die size vary depending on the declared Action then?

 

[DND_Reborn]

For the life of me, I think I will never understand wanting initiative to be more complicated than it currently is or involve more die rolls. The primary purpose of initiative is to establish sequential order to an event that -- at least conceptually -- is simultaneous.

Yeah, that is part of what bothered me personally is that you have sequential order to simultaneous actions. So, we broke down actions to more simulate the idea of everything happening together. Each participant does one thing before others act, but they don't get to do everything before the next person acts.

My least favorite is the action-based modifiers. I've intensely disliked the so-called "Greyhawk" initiative or weapon based initiative. Simply put, any justification you can imagine for why a bow might be fast or a dagger might slow or a spell might be slow or a polearm might be fast, and I can imagine another justification for why the opposite is true. If, for example, a dagger is faster than a pike, why did armies ever use pikes? They'd have lost to a horde of knifezerkers! The truth is that if there were any real difference that were not down to the relative position or situation that would determine how quickly a weapon might be used, that implement would simply not be useful as a weapon at all. The Tueller Drill makes it pretty clear that what we think of as deadly range in the game isn't how reality works.

I don't mind speed factors being used, but reach is also an issue which more often overlooked or simply ignored.

Frankly, it would make more sense if, regardless of the events of the round, any creature not incapacitated or dead at the start of the round got to take a turn that round even if they "die" before their turn. After all, how dramatic is it to have one last action before dropping? Once you allow that to be your framework, the majority of the benefits of going first collapse. They're not gone, but they're significantly mitigated.

That is an interesting idea, especially if it works both ways and creatures get to finish their turns as well.

What people are really trying to do with initiative is game the action economy. Trying to find a way for them to have a turn and others not to. To get ahead of the damage curve. To get the effects of surprise without all that mucking about with surprise rules. And to do all that under some guise of fairness. In any case, I don't think this really adds much to the game. It's not a strategic or tactical choice. Going first is all but universally the best option, and delay was so uncommon a move that it was removed entirely with very little grumbling (and subsumed in the very inferior "ready"). So it's a false choice. It's also overvalued so players already think it's better than it actually is. So why encourage more systems that make the false choice more false if anything?

We aren't gaming action economy, we are breaking down actions to simulate simultaneous actions better. It adds quite a bit of tactics actually, but that is also because movement is also an action now, and with more types of movement working together and tactics becomes part of the game for us.

Now, it is more simulationist, so for the people who don't want that it would just over complicate things.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, that is part of what bothered me personally is that you have sequential order to simultaneous actions. So, we broke down actions to more simulate the idea of everything happening together. Each participant does one thing before others act, but they don't get to do everything before the next person acts.


I don't mind speed factors being used, but reach is also an issue which more often overlooked or simply ignored.


That is an interesting idea, especially if it works both ways and creatures get to finish their turns as well.


We aren't gaming action economy, we are breaking down actions to simulate simultaneous actions better. It adds quite a bit of tactics actually, but that is also because movement is also an action now, and with more types of movement working together and tactics becomes part of the game for us.

Now, it is more simulationist, so for the people who don't want that it would just over complicate things.

I don't agree that what you are describing is more simulationist, it's just different.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't agree that what you are describing is more simulationist, it's just different.

It is in the sense of allowing actions to be resolved one at a time for each participant instead of taking all your actions at once.

For example:

A moves
B moves
C casts
D attacks

A attacks
B attacks
C moves
D attacks again

instead of:

A moves and attacks (while B, C, and D are frozen)
B moves and attacks (A, C, and D are frozen)
C casts and moves (A, B, and D are frozen)
D attacks twice (A, B, and C are frozen)

RAW taking all your actions at once and then being frozen while every one else resolves theirs isn't very simulationist, but by allowing actions to be resolved one at a time all creatures are acting "more" at the same time, and not frozen (as long anyway).

It keeps players more engaged as well. No one is waiting around, looking at their cell phones, etc. because they know their next action is coming up soon. Tactics play a bigger role as well (we've added some things though to enhance this even more).