D&D 5E 5/30 Q&A: Charm, Chases, and Combat Free

[delericho]

Why do you think it's better? I find it slow, artificial, annoying to track (often impossible, with how big combats can be in DDN), flow breaking, and ultimately boring.

Before I answer that, can I verify that we're definitely talking about the same thing? I'm referring specifically to the cyclic initiative system as implemented in 3e (and 4e, for that matter), as opposed to the 2nd Ed option where everyone rolled their own initiative, and rerolled every round.

(I should perhaps also note that my statement that "it is better", despite being phrased as an absolute, was of course just a matter of opinion, though a strongly held one. The 3e system certainly has its problems, especially at the very start of combat, but it's pretty unambiguously the least-worst initiative system I've encountered.)

 

[GX.Sigma]

Before I answer that, can I verify that we're definitely talking about the same thing? I'm referring specifically to the cyclic initiative system as implemented in 3e (and 4e, for that matter), as opposed to the 2nd Ed option where everyone rolled their own initiative, and rerolled every round.

I'm referring to the cyclic initiative system as implemented in 3e and 4e, as opposed to the classic version where each team rolls initiative as a group, and rerolls every round. (I mean, not the exact system from 1e or whatever, because that was pretty ****ed, but the basic idea of declare actions, then roll initiative, then resolve.)

 

[Dausuul]

Before I answer that, can I verify that we're definitely talking about the same thing? I'm referring specifically to the cyclic initiative system as implemented in 3e (and 4e, for that matter), as opposed to the 2nd Ed option where everyone rolled their own initiative, and rerolled every round.

(I should perhaps also note that my statement that "it is better", despite being phrased as an absolute, was of course just a matter of opinion, though a strongly held one. The 3e system certainly has its problems, especially at the very start of combat, but it's pretty unambiguously the least-worst initiative system I've encountered.)

The best initiative system I've yet encountered is "Start at the DM's left and go clockwise around the table. You can ready actions but not delay; readying will not affect your initiative next round." Our group decided to give it a try one evening, and we were amazed by how much quicker and simpler combat became.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[delericho]

I'm referring to the cyclic initiative system as implemented in 3e and 4e...

Okay, thanks for clarifying. In that case:

Why do you think it's better?

Two reasons. The first is that it's quicker to roll once than to reroll each round. The second is that doing so eliminated the particular artefact where a combatant might go last in one round and then first in the next, thus getting two turns one immediately after the other (and, of course, the reverse) - and although it does introduce some issues of its own, we found (and find) those less offensive than the ones that were removed.

I find it slow,

As noted, that was the exact opposite of our experience. Indeed, back when 3e was new I had this exact conversation with a player who was adamant that this would be the case; we tried it once, and didn't look back. (Some years later, I learned that the guys at WotC had likewise had that discussion when Mr Tweet first introduced it, too.)

artificial,

Eh, all game mechanics are, to at least a certain extent, artificial. Even the notion that every combatant should have a turn in every 6 second period is itself an artificial construct.

annoying to track (often impossible, with how big combats can be in DDN),

And, again, we found this to be the opposite. At the start of combat the DM makes a note on some paper, and then it's just a case of rolling around the sequence. (Or, even better, do what my 4e DM did, and have a set of cardboard 'hats' that he hung on his screen in order. If someone changes position in the order, change their position on the screen.)

flow breaking,

See "artificial" above - my comment here would be basically the same.

and ultimately boring.

Honestly, there should be enough of interest going on in combat, that the initiative system needn't carry the burden of being interesting in itself. It's very much a means to an end. At least, that's my take on it - better to get it over with and get on with the fun.

But YM..V, obviously.

 

[GX.Sigma]

And, again, we found this to be the opposite. At the start of combat the DM makes a note on some paper, and then it's just a case of rolling around the sequence. (Or, even better, do what my 4e DM did, and have a set of cardboard 'hats' that he hung on his screen in order. If someone changes position in the order, change their position on the screen.)

I do the cardboard hats thing too, and it does make part of it quicker, but it doesn't solve my other main issue with the system: When you have 5 PCs and 20 orcs, how the hell do you roll initiative? Do they actually expect the DM to roll initiative 20 times, write it all down, keep track of which HP number corresponds to which initiative number corresponds to which mini, etc.? It seems so, because if you roll once for all monsters, it's almost certain high-Dex PCs will always win initiative.

Even the notion that every combatant should have a turn in every 6 second period is itself an artificial construct.

The notion of every combatant having a turn is what I'm objecting to.

 

[delericho]

I do the cardboard hats thing too, and it does make part of it quicker, but it doesn't solve my other main issue with the system: When you have 5 PCs and 20 orcs, how the hell do you roll initiative?

Both 3e and 4e recommend splitting monsters into groups and rolling once per group. In the instance of the 20 orcs I would generally split them into 4 or 5 squads and roll once per squad.

That said, I've only actually run something like that once, and that was high-level PCs versus low-level mooks - it was frankly redundant to roll initiative at all. 3e doesn't really lend itself to combats with that many combatants. It's fair comment that if 5e does expect to support them, and cyclic initiative fails, then they'd need to revisit that.

 

[GX.Sigma]

That said, I've only actually run something like that once, and that was high-level PCs versus low-level mooks - it was frankly redundant to roll initiative at all.

Basically what I'm saying is that, in D&D Next, it always feels redundant to roll initiative. It doesn't really work with large numbers of homogeneous enemies (keeping track of which mini corresponds to which HP number corresponds to which group seems even harder than individual initiative), and it doesn't really work with small numbers of combatants ("you go, then you go, then you go, then the first giant goes, then the second giant goes, then you go"... why not just say "you all go, then the giants all go"?).

 

[Iosue]

In my opinion, Classic D&D does it best. Group initiative with a Combat Sequence - basically a tick system.

Here's how it works for those who haven't played Classic D&D. First, defensive movement and magic spells cast are declared. All sides roll d6. High roll wins and goes through combat sequence first, ties go simultaneously.

The Combat Sequence goes:
1. Morale
2. Movement
3. Missile Fire
4. Magic
5. Melee

For PCs, that's four lines, no waiting. The way it plays is, the DM says, "Any defensive movement?" (Cries of yes or no.) "Any spells?" (Cries of yes or no.) DM and a player roll initiative. When the players go, the DM says "Any movement?" and they either move their pieces, or describe their movement quickly in turn. Next step, "Any missile fire?" Players firing missiles make their rolls here. Then if someone said they were doing magic, their spell goes next. Finally, characters in hand to hand roll their attack rolls. Waiting time is minimal, so there's no time to get bored. At the same time, a side winning (or losing) initiative twice in a row adds to the ebb and flow of the battle. Anticipation hangs on every new initiative roll. We go through a whole round in 1 minute, maybe 2.

I think 2e's initiative system is elegant as far as it goes, but indeed if you need to recalculate one's initiative roll every round, cyclical initiative may just be quicker and easier. That said, here's an old Rule-of-Three where Rich Baker discusses initiative:

Through D&D's edition progression, initiative seems to have become more complex and threatens to pull people from the immersion of the game. How important do you feel initiative is to D&D and 4E, and what changes would you make if you had it to do over again?

I’m not sure I agree with that. I think initiative hit its maximum complexity in 2nd Edition, and then settled in at a moderate level of complexity in 3E and 4E.

A few months back, we took some time to play through every edition of D&D. (Every now and then it’s good to put the R in R&D.) When I read through the 2nd Edition initiative rules again I realized that I’d generally played the most complex initiative system presented, the “count-down” initiative system. My recollection was that many (even most?) 2nd Edition tables did the same thing. The count-down system was built to make combat go slow. You had to take your turn twice per round, once by declaring what you were going to do, and once by actually doing it. And of course adding an initiative roll to every single round of combat was tedious, too. Now, what I’d completely forgotten about 2nd Edition was that the count-down system was *not* the default; the first initiative system presented in 2E was a simple side initiative much like the one in 1st Edition. And playing through side initiative again after not looking at it for a number of years was eye-opening. Rounds went fast, there was no initiative order to track, and once the players got their heads around it, there was actually quite a lot of room for narrative control. Go ahead and throw your fireball, and *then* I’ll charge into the room!

The cyclic initiative system of 3E (and 4E) definitely improved on the count-down variant that was widely used in 2E. That was the clear superiority of the 3E to 2E initiative system that I remembered. It wasn’t necessarily better than side initiative—the two systems simply value different things. Side initiative is faster, but cyclic initiative is more orderly and balanced, and gives each player a turn to act. However, I don’t think I would try to change it now. Both cyclic and side initiative work, but we have a broad player base that is pretty used to cyclic initiative. Cyclic initiative might not be great for immersion, but the fact that so many players know it and know it well means that they’re probably not paying much attention to it anymore, and that’s a good thing. Initiative does a good job of getting out of the way at most 3E and 4E game tables, which in its own way is a boost for immersion.

(Personal preference alert.) The only thing I really dislike in the 3E/4E initiative system is the Delay action. I can accept the Ready action because sometimes it makes great sense, like “I fire my crossbow when a goblin pops up to shoot at me.” When you delay, you’re manipulating something outside the story of the combat, and that bothers me. It’s very un-immersive. True story: The Delay action is in the game because initial feedback on cyclic initiative showed that some players were spooked by the idea that a low initiative roll meant they’d go last for the entire battle. Offering players the option to delay and go first the next round was just a way to sugar-coat the concept of cyclic initiative, even though we all know that it doesn’t need sugar-coating at all.

IMO, Baker's criticism of 2e's system doesn't really apply to Classic's Combat Sequence system. The only intentions that need to be declared are defensive movement and spells. There are opportunities within the sequence to react and change plans. The Combat Sequence maintains balance and orderliness while giving everyone a chance to act. I wish that B/X's influence on Next extended to initiative, but as Baker notes, WotC has a pretty broad player base of 4e players and a broad potential base of 3e players who are used to cyclical initiative. Maybe we can get a sidebar or something.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I wish that B/X's influence on Next extended to initiative, but as Baker notes, WotC has a pretty broad player base of 4e players and a broad potential base of 3e players who are used to cyclical initiative. Maybe we can get a sidebar or something.

I don't think we can expect them to not use cyclical initiative as the default, but we can definitely expect them not to design the game assuming you're using a certain initiative system. All that really means is that they should stop giving out improved initiative as a class feature.