5e Initiative Tweak - Reactive Initiative

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm going to test out a new initiative tweak this week. I'm currently using 5e, but it would work in any edition.

To keep things simple, I've been going with group initiative. The problem I have with group initiative, and to a lesser degree individual initiative, is the feel of everything being turn-based. This tends to be accentuated when using miniatures and grids, but I'll save that discussion for later.

Anyway, the problem I have is along these lines:

Initiative Order (using individual initiative)
Rogue
Ranger
Orc #1
Bard
Orc #2
Orc #3
Cleric
Orc #4

Round 1 example:
The rogue moves toward Orc #3 but readies his attack for after the Ranger’s attack.
The Ranger moves into and attacks Orc #3. The Rogue then completes his attack against Orc #3.
Orc #1 moves and attacks the ranger
The bard attacks orc #4
Orc #2 moves to attack the bard
Orc #3 attacks the ranger
The Cleric moves in to attack Orc #3 and kills it.
Orc #4 attacks the bard

So orc #3 and 4 were the first to be attacked, but they don't retaliate until later in the round which can be some time later in real world time. This is one of the shortcomings of splitting what is essentially simultaneous actions into turns.

My tweak, which I'm calling Reactive Initiative, is that creatures who are attacked get to take their turn immediately (that is, out of turn) if they are attacking the creature that attacked them. The rest of the initiative order stays the same, and it doesn't alter the initiative order in subsequent rounds.

Example:
The rogue moves toward Orc #3 but readies his attack for after the Ranger’s attack.
The Ranger moves into and attacks Orc #3. The Rogue then completes his attack against Orc #3.
Orc #3 attacks the ranger (out of the normal initiative flow)
Orc #1 moves and attacks the ranger
The bard attacks orc #4
Orc #4 attacks the bard
Orc #2 moves to attack the bard
Orc#3 has already has his attack.
The Cleric moves in to attack Orc #3 and kills it.
Orc #4 has already attacked so it starts the second round with the same initiative order as above.

Essentially, the idea is to complete each conflict in turn. Like popcorn initiative it allows the PCs to control the flow of the combat a bit based on who they attack and when.

I think it works even better with group initiative, and this is how I intend to go with it.

Example:
Initiative order:
PCs
Orcs

Since the PCs can determine who goes when within their group initiative, the ranger can go first this time. This would change things a bit. Looking at just the rogue, ranger, and orc #3:

The rogue can still choose to move in and ready his attack for when the ranger attacks. This has the benefit of giving him his sneak attack, but it also turns it into a reaction. If they go with this option, then it's the same as the other two:
Rogue readies, ranger attacks, rogue attacks (reaction happens before another action), and the orc attacks the ranger.

But if the ranger goes first it works like this:
Ranger attacks
Orc #3 attacks ranger
Rogue sneak attacks orc #3, and still has his reaction available.

It's a minor change, but I think it will help with the feel that combat is fluid and that retaliation is immediate, not 10 minutes later. It presents additional tactical decisions without relying on a grid or exact placement, and still allows the simplicity of group initiative.

It can also be used with popcorn initiative, where an attacking character would have to hand over the initiative to the creature he attacked. Once that creature has attacked back, they could choose anybody to pass the initiative to that still hasn't gone this turn.

It sounds a lot more complicated than it is.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Well, the first gaming night test worked well and the players liked it. They particularly liked how it made each individual combat feel more complete.

Ilbranteloth

 

[LandOfConfusion]

Is this really a problem? I mean the whole point of having high initiative is to get the upper hand on your enemy. Currently I have the players role initiative and I role initiative for the group of monsters. I don't particularly like this, but it means characters invested in acting quickly go first, then all the monsters, then the slow characters. With this reaction system it penalizes two fast characters attempting to kill an enemy before it gets to act. Maybe it won't matter, but it seems this would end up skewing against the players.

Combat gets slowed down by turns only because you need to take time to systematically resolve actions. In the game world everything should be happening very quickly. The fact that orc #3 acts way down the list just means he acts a few fractions of a second after the other combatants.

 

[LostSoul]

Looks interesting. I'm always interested in new initiative systems. I like the new tactical options it presents.

How are you defining an attack? If you blast 6 orcs with a fireball, do they all get to act? What about Help, would that trigger a turn?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Example:

The Rogue, with high initiative, moves up to engage the six orcs, then turns around and fires her bow at the Wizard. (With disadvantage, because of the nearby orcs.)
The Wizard, who rolled -2 for initiative, retaliates by throwing a Fireball at the Rogue, incidentally killing all of the orcs before they get to act. (The Rogue takes no damage, thanks to Evasion.)

It's the bag of rats all over again.

 

[77IM]

I would worry about forgetting which creatures have already acted.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Good questions on the address of effect spells, haven't really run into it, but I'd be ok with them reacting at the time. Assistance, probably not.

I can make a bag of rats out of any rules, if you're players really want to attack each other to gain an advantage then I think any 'realism' or suspension of disbelief is out the window already.

It hasn't really been a problem of keeping track of who has acted yet. But I've used individual initiative, including each of the monsters, including rolling every round, group initiative, and everything in between over the years.

It's not really a problem per se, just another concept to try out for those who like such things. It stems partially from my desire to get away from gridded combat. Part is just my love of tweaking the system. In a (offline) discussion that was trying to show the benefit of a grid being more 'realistic' for tactics like flanking, it started bugging me that in a real combat nobody would simply stand around and let you flank them, they'd be actively moving to prevent that. Which began to point to the initiative system being part of the problem. Don't get me wrong, this is far from the perfect solution, just something different.

Whats occurred to me, which I'm sure I'd nothing new, is that a good 'realistic' combat system would allow you to recreate a football play. A lot happens in a few seconds and nobody is standing still. Part of that thinking led to the idea that while it's difficult to do everything simultaneously, having the immediate retaliation for a melee attack would reduce the feel that everybody's taking turns.

Ilbranteloth

 

[LostSoul]

Whats occurred to me, which I'm sure I'd nothing new, is that a good 'realistic' combat system would allow you to recreate a football play. A lot happens in a few seconds and nobody is standing still. Part of that thinking led to the idea that while it's difficult to do everything simultaneously, having the immediate retaliation for a melee attack would reduce the feel that everybody's taking turns.

Would it be that hard to do everything simultaneously in 5E?

I run a system like that. It's pretty simple: everyone declares their actions at the same time. If you attack another character you roll, otherwise you don't. Based on your action you apply modifiers to the roll; I don't know if you'd need to do much of that in 5E. If your roll hits the DC you succeed at the action you declared.

(I think I'm doing something that allows the system to work when both characters succeed at seemingly contradictory actions. I think it's that you don't have control over the success of your defense - that's what AC (or whatever) is there for. I haven't written that down anywhere though. e.g. If the orc chops you in the head, and you parry and stab the orc, the success or failure of your parry is determined by the orc's roll, not your own.)

I don't use initiative. What typically happens is that one character succeeds while another fails, putting the character who failed into a position where they have to respond to the successful action - giving up the initiative.

Anyway. I think you should go for it. I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with.

 

[Curmudjinn]

This is pretty interesting. I've been mulling around using static initiative numbers in my own games(modified by circumstance and bonuses). Having initiatives operate on a 0-5 scale for the most part would work well with your method, as the actions seem more simultaneous with the limited range.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yeah, I may revisit the idea of static numbers. The other thing that has occurred to me is that it's often fairly obvious who should get their attack first (fighter charging an orc with a loaded crossbow).

So instead of calling initiative, I'm thinking of renaming it 'Reaction' and it's only necessary to roll if the situation calls for it. For example, somebody striking a spellcaster to break their concentration - did they score the hit before they cast the spell or after?

To put it another way, if two opponents are both attacking each other, and neither is likely to kill or disable the other, then they can roll simultaneously. If one of the shots would potentially kill or disable them, then you'd need to roll reaction (initiative) to see who strikes first.

We'll see how the session goes tonight...

Ilbranteloth