D&D General Alternate Initiative Concept: "Y'all figure it out"

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Supporter
The "alternative initiative stat" thread got me thinking along this line... it really depends on what you're trying to improve as far as initiative goes- for me, it's getting the party to communicate and strategize at the start of an encounter. I'd love feedback and thoughts!

So what if you were to just tell party "OK it's combat- you all go. Who's going first, second, third, etc" and let them sort it out? That forces them to talk and plan out the round. But that'd invalidate some features that deal with improved initiative.

Then the GM secretly rolls for the enemies, and they go in-between the PC turns... Or you use passive 10+Initiative bonus for enemies. Either way, the PCs don't know when the enemies are going 'til said enemies act.

PC initiative features could still be made useful in some fashion so they don't go to waste. Ideas for that:

PCs with initiative features could react to enemies taking their "surprise" turns. Say it's: Archer, Warrior, Thief, Mage. Archer goes, then before Warrior goes, INTERRUPT, Goblin assassin goes. Thief can choose to go after the goblin goes, and before the warrior- A G T W M. Or maybe if the Thief's initiative feature would trump the goblin assassin's initiative (use passive v passive initiative to determine this?) then the thief could even go BEFORE the assassin would go. So it ends up A T G W M. Should this use/require a use of reaction on the PC's part? Nah, that's probably too much of a penalty.

Re: disagreements/settling on initiative and differing opinions:
1. The group elects a Caller. The Caller has final say on the plan.
2. People don't agree? Roll off to see who gets their way.
3. Set a timer. If the timer runs out and they can't come to agreement, either you use passive initiative or the enemies go first :'D
4+ ???

Finally, this seems like something to at the start of each round, rather than keep the same order throughout the combat. Thoughts?

Initiative as it stands is always so... crappy. There's always so little communication because people are going to be going when they rolled to go, so why bother planning/talking it out when the order of battle is decided by the dice? This'd mean that the fight literally couldn't start until they talked it out and decided who was going to go when, and presumably why they're going then. I've considered "popcorn initiative" where a player goes, then decides who goes next etc. but that doesn't have quite the same result.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Sounds like a way to grind the game to halt with the players I know. Often they already have a problem with overplanning things. Enforcing timers and "who wins the argument" rolls just sounds like more stick than carrot. Issue is 5E is the casual edition where tactical planning is a sure fire way to win, but its not really necessary either. This sort hefts that on folks not used to it.

I like Traveller with offering Dex or Int on the initiative roll. If somebody has leadership skill they get to roll, though if the effect is bad, their leadership skills fail and the fight gets tougher. Much snappier than what is proposed in OP
 

Yeah, it sounds like way too much discussion. Unless your players are into that sort of thing.

Just make everyone roll, and the highest roll goes first. Then you go around the table, in the direction chosen by the lowest roller.
 


We do group initiative most the time. Highest pc initiative bonus rolls vs highest NPC determines whether PC or NPC group goes first. Within PC group players can take turns in whatever order is desired.

Works great for strategizing. Turns go fairly fast because players have much less uncertainty about their teammates plans and that additional info helps them plan what they want to do.
 




The "alternative initiative stat" thread got me thinking along this line... it really depends on what you're trying to improve as far as initiative goes- for me, it's getting the party to communicate and strategize at the start of an encounter. I'd love feedback and thoughts!

So what if you were to just tell party "OK it's combat- you all go. Who's going first, second, third, etc" and let them sort it out? That forces them to talk and plan out the round. But that'd invalidate some features that deal with improved initiative.

Then the GM secretly rolls for the enemies, and they go in-between the PC turns... Or you use passive 10+Initiative bonus for enemies. Either way, the PCs don't know when the enemies are going 'til said enemies act.

PC initiative features could still be made useful in some fashion so they don't go to waste. Ideas for that:

PCs with initiative features could react to enemies taking their "surprise" turns. Say it's: Archer, Warrior, Thief, Mage. Archer goes, then before Warrior goes, INTERRUPT, Goblin assassin goes. Thief can choose to go after the goblin goes, and before the warrior- A G T W M. Or maybe if the Thief's initiative feature would trump the goblin assassin's initiative (use passive v passive initiative to determine this?) then the thief could even go BEFORE the assassin would go. So it ends up A T G W M. Should this use/require a use of reaction on the PC's part? Nah, that's probably too much of a penalty.

Re: disagreements/settling on initiative and differing opinions:
1. The group elects a Caller. The Caller has final say on the plan.
2. People don't agree? Roll off to see who gets their way.
3. Set a timer. If the timer runs out and they can't come to agreement, either you use passive initiative or the enemies go first :'D
4+ ???

Finally, this seems like something to at the start of each round, rather than keep the same order throughout the combat. Thoughts?

Initiative as it stands is always so... crappy. There's always so little communication because people are going to be going when they rolled to go, so why bother planning/talking it out when the order of battle is decided by the dice? This'd mean that the fight literally couldn't start until they talked it out and decided who was going to go when, and presumably why they're going then. I've considered "popcorn initiative" where a player goes, then decides who goes next etc. but that doesn't have quite the same result.
The issue you're identifying is that a randomized turn sequence discourages planning amongst players...because there's no way to know whether Beryl the Barbarian will get to act before or after Sam the Sorcerer's fireball. It's not impossible to plan, it's just much harder due to randomized turn sequence. This is ONE of the reasons I often see player strategies go haywire once combat begins (yes, there are other reasons too).

Last time I played in person I adopted a much more casual simple version of what you are considering... I call it 'clustered initiative with a football huddle.'

Initiative is determined as normal, with 2 exceptions: (1) players who want to go at same time roll one die using the lesser of their initiative values; (2) players who have consecutive initiative rolls with no monsters between them can act in any order they please. This creates 'clusters.'

Then, unless the party is surprised or the players clearly just want to get to the fighting, I give them about a minute to come up with their approach now that they know the initiative order/clusters. This is the 'football huddle.' At the table the "timer" is really just me setting up maps/minis, checking my notes, answering quick questions, and so forth.
 

We do group initiative most the time. Highest pc initiative bonus rolls vs highest NPC determines whether PC or NPC group goes first. Within PC group players can take turns in whatever order is desired.

Does it wors at higher level? I'd be happy with it but sometimes, a group all acting first can concentrate their effort on a single enemy, so it might be a huge advantage to off the enemy spellcaster before he has the chance to even act (and it wouldn't be fun if the strategy is turned around...)
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top