D&D General Rerolling Initiative each Round

[Charlaquin]

I have to admit, I'm completely surprised at the number of people's groups that reroll initiative each round. I figured some groups did it, but, before reading this thread, I never would have predicted just how many do it.

Well, to be fair, I pick and choose when I use it. There are some players I know will appreciate it and others I know will really struggle with it, so whether or not I use it will vary based on who’s playing in the campaign.

 

[jmartkdr2]

As for speeding up or slowing down - I think it really depends on the players. If tuning out is the main issue, it might help as there's an extra set of actions for everyone to take every round, but if analysis paralysis is an issue this would make it worse.

 

[Xeviat]

I’ve done it, and in my experience there is some slowdown at first, but less than you’d expect, and once everyone gets used to the system, it’s pretty comparable in terms of total table time per combat. What I do is I keep action declarations very simple: declare the action you intend to take, and in the case of an attack or spell, what weapon or spell you intended to use. No need to say where you plan to move or what target you plan to attack. Roll your weapon’s damage die, or 1d4 for each component the spell requires (verbal, somatic, material), or 1d8 for other actions, I roll monsters’ hit die type for them. Lower rolls are better. That keeps the action declaration phase at the top of the round quick. Then start counting up from 1, players say to stop when you reach their number. Player turns tend to go faster because they’ve already made the biggest decision and are just executing it.

Weapon damage die is a good idea for weapons, makes it variable and benefits small weapons. Great idea!

 

[Iosue]

B/X used the following system:

Side initiative, rolled every round.
Once initiative was decided the side that won went through the following phases:
1. Morale (for monsters/NPCs)
2. Movement
3. Missile fire
4. Magic
5. Melee

Defensive movement (fighting withdrawal/retreat) and magic had to be declared before initiative was rolled.

Here's what I really like about this system. There's no one's "turn." You don't have the situation where it's Player A's turn, and so now they think about what they are going to do. I say, "Any movement?" and all the players at the same time are put on the spot to decide: are they going to move, and if so, where? I say, "Any missile attacks?" And the players with ranged weapons are put on the spot to decide whether they will attack or not. I say, "Any magic?" and the magic-using PCs are put on the spot to decide if they will cast a spell this round. That just leaves melee for any characters in range to use a melee weapon.

It spreads around the time players spend thinking about their turn. They can make adjustments based on what happened. It even encourages working as a team.

I modified the system for 5e like this:
Side initiative, rolled every round.
1. Morale
2. Movement (Includes Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Search, and Use an Object Actions)
3. Missiles/Movement (Attacks with ranged weapons, plus any movement those characters have left over)
4. Magic/Movement/Saves (Cast a Spell, plus any movement those characters have left over, plus any saves that need to be made)
5. Melee/Movement (Attacks with melee weapons, plus any movement those characters have left over)

Bonus actions generally occur in the phase they best fit into, but can be tacked onto a phase that triggers them. (For example, Expeditious Retreat is cast on the Magic phase, but the bonus action movement can immediately occur then.) Reactions can occur whenever triggered.

Having the phases creates clear points for turn-length durations to end, and ongoing saves to be made. I found it's really sped things up and created dynamism. There is the danger of one side curb stomping the other if they win initiative. To prevent this, I have each distinct group of monsters make up its own side. So if it's PCs vs Orcs and an Ogre, there are three sides: PCs, Orcs, and Ogre. If the monsters outnumber the PCs, I recommend splitting them into party-size squads. Likewise, if your party is large (6 or more players), it might be a good idea to split up the party into two sides, as well.

The biggest downside I've run into is that classes the benefit from initiative bonuses get a little short-shrifted. It's not a problem if you've got player buy-in, but if they are playing a class partly because they want high initiative, you might want do something to make up for that, like always let them go first in the party, or possibly even let them have their own independent turn.

 

[Distracted DM]

B/X used the following system:

Side initiative, rolled every round.
Once initiative was decided the side that won went through the following phases:
1. Morale (for monsters/NPCs)
2. Movement
3. Missile fire
4. Magic
5. Melee

Defensive movement (fighting withdrawal/retreat) and magic had to be declared before initiative was rolled.

Here's what I really like about this system. There's no one's "turn." You don't have the situation where it's Player A's turn, and so now they think about what they are going to do. I say, "Any movement?" and all the players at the same time are put on the spot to decide: are they going to move, and if so, where? I say, "Any missile attacks?" And the players with ranged weapons are put on the spot to decide whether they will attack or not. I say, "Any magic?" and the magic-using PCs are put on the spot to decide if they will cast a spell this round. That just leaves melee for any characters in range to use a melee weapon.

It spreads around the time players spend thinking about their turn. They can make adjustments based on what happened. It even encourages working as a team.

I modified the system for 5e like this:
Side initiative, rolled every round.
1. Morale
2. Movement (Includes Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Search, and Use an Object Actions)
3. Missiles/Movement (Attacks with ranged weapons, plus any movement those characters have left over)
4. Magic/Movement/Saves (Cast a Spell, plus any movement those characters have left over, plus any saves that need to be made)
5. Melee/Movement (Attacks with melee weapons, plus any movement those characters have left over)

Bonus actions generally occur in the phase they best fit into, but can be tacked onto a phase that triggers them. (For example, Expeditious Retreat is cast on the Magic phase, but the bonus action movement can immediately occur then.) Reactions can occur whenever triggered.

Having the phases creates clear points for turn-length durations to end, and ongoing saves to be made. I found it's really sped things up and created dynamism. There is the danger of one side curb stomping the other if they win initiative. To prevent this, I have each distinct group of monsters make up its own side. So if it's PCs vs Orcs and an Ogre, there are three sides: PCs, Orcs, and Ogre. If the monsters outnumber the PCs, I recommend splitting them into party-size squads. Likewise, if your party is large (6 or more players), it might be a good idea to split up the party into two sides, as well.

The biggest downside I've run into is that classes the benefit from initiative bonuses get a little short-shrifted. It's not a problem if you've got player buy-in, but if they are playing a class partly because they want high initiative, you might want do something to make up for that, like always let them go first in the party, or possibly even let them have their own independent turn.

That's pretty cool.

 

[Charlaquin]

Weapon damage die is a good idea for weapons, makes it variable and benefits small weapons. Great idea!

Can’t take credit for it, I stole it from Mike Mearls! But yeah, it’s a good way to make weapon speeds a thing without having to remember what weapons get what modifiers. Weapon damage die is something you’ll need to know anyway.

 

[ezo]

I modified the system for 5e like this:
Side initiative, rolled every round.
1. Morale
2. Movement (Includes Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Search, and Use an Object Actions)
3. Missiles/Movement (Attacks with ranged weapons, plus any movement those characters have left over)
4. Magic/Movement/Saves (Cast a Spell, plus any movement those characters have left over, plus any saves that need to be made)
5. Melee/Movement (Attacks with melee weapons, plus any movement those characters have left over)

A system like this is too "forced" for me, personally.

Consider a wizard is casting fireball and a fighter wants to move in to attack. The fighter would have to move on 2, putting themself in the fireball potentially, or wait until 5 and move and attack all at once (but you post seems like this isn't an option really)?

What about the rogue who wants to attack, bonus action disengage, and then move away? Movement comes first, along with the bonus action to disengage, so the attack couldn't happen on 5 since they are no longer engaged with the enemy?

While this might produce a general flow for declaring what PCs are doing, I feel there has to be a lot of adlib finnagling going on.

Finally, personally, I've never been a fan of "side initiative". I fail to see how this...

created dynamism

???

If anything, it seems like it would make things more rote and mechanical.

Obviously it works for you, but I would love to see it in action.

 

[Vael]

I dislike rerolling initiative, but when I do want a less static combat order I use Popcorn Initiative from FATE. The idea being the current player/monster chooses who goes next in the round. Whoever goes last picks Whoever goes first next round.

 

[Iosue]

A system like this is too "forced" for me, personally.

Consider a wizard is casting fireball and a fighter wants to move in to attack. The fighter would have to move on 2, putting themself in the fireball potentially, or wait until 5 and move and attack all at once (but you post seems like this isn't an option really)?

Yes, if the wizard is going to fireball the area, the fighter would want to hang back until after the fireball has taken affect. If the fighter did not move in the movement phase, they would have unused movement left with which to move on the melee phase, so they could then move in and mop up anyone who survived.

What about the rogue who wants to attack, bonus action disengage, and then move away? Movement comes first, along with the bonus action to disengage, so the attack couldn't happen on 5 since they are no longer engaged with the enemy?

No, the bonus action activates when the Rogue uses it. So, what would happen is that the Rogue moves into melee range on the movement phase, attacks on the melee phase, and then uses the bonus action to disengage, and moves away with any movement they have left.

But if the Rogue was not in melee, and using their bonus action to Dash, then that would happen on the movement phase.

While this might produce a general flow for declaring what PCs are doing, I feel there has to be a lot of adlib finnagling going on.

Finally, personally, I've never been a fan of "side initiative". I fail to see how this...

???

If anything, it seems like it would make things more rote and mechanical.

Obviously it works for you, but I would love to see it in action.

Of course, I make no claim that this is a superior system that works for everyone. I have been in groups where, prior to the first character in the initiative order goes, the whole party puts their heads together and plans out their strategy, or one player will tell another player to attack one particular enemy, because he plans on tying down these others with an AOE. This is not the kind of group that really needs this initiative system, because they are already creating dynamism and teamwork.

But that is not my regular group. What happens in my regular group is that everyone thinks of what to do on their turn on that turn. They may have had an idea of what they were going to do before the other players went, but now the situation has changed, so now they have to reconsider. Each player's turn is an island unto itself.

So in the case of the melee fighter and the fireball wizard, the Wizard maybe thinking "Fireball!", but the Fighter goes ahead in the initiative order and jumps into melee. The Wizard player goes, "Oh well, can't do fireball now," and so starts thinking of a different action.

But with this system, in our group, what would happen is something like this:
DM Iosue: Any movement?
Fighter Player: I'm moving here to engage this enemy.
Wizard Player: Hold on! I'm going to let loose a fireball. Hold your movement until after that!
Fighter Player: OK!

This is the dynamism I was talking about that our group doesn't get with the usual initiative. Because it's the "party's turn", and the action of each phase applies to all the PCs, no one's stepping on any toes, telling people what to do on their turn, but there's freedom for give and take, and light strategizing.

 

[LordEntrails]

Constantly having to re-adjust "who is next" sequences absolutely slow down the game as compared to having a fixed initiative order.

No. Not for our group it doesn't. It actually speeds things up because it causes players to pay attention and be constantly thinking.

Using FG, it automatically re-rolls at the start of every round and updates the Combat Tracker.

Further, it doesn't just mess up tactics, it makes players take longer turns, period, because they can't get into a fixed mindset about when they're acting in the round, nor anticipate what will happen, they have to continually re-adjust their thinking, and work on a basis of having absolutely no idea what the initiative will be next turn.

No our turns don't take longer, not for us. And getting into a fixed mindset is exactly what our group despises.

Without random init, I have 2 players in my group that will solve the battle mathematically on turn one, if they chose too. They are that good at math and RPG tactics. They will know that on turn 4 or 5 that PC X is going to go down, or that the Troll will go unconscious, or that X, Y, or Z will happen. They know they can wait 3 turns to heal the rogue, they know they can do x, y, z.

With random init they can't wait 3 turns. They don't know who is going to move where. For us, we enjoy it because it adds CHAOS to combat. Just like, in our opinions, it should be.

And yes, players will constantly have to re-adjust their thinking because they have no idea what the initiative will be next turn. That's the point.