D&D 5E Alternate Initiative Rules

[toucanbuzz]

that means rolling initiative EVERY.SINGLE.ROUND. That is a huge time sink and too much micromanagement.

I'll beg to differ on this point as I've been running (for years now) an adaptation of the "weapon speed" rules in the DMG. Because everyone (that's 4 players + the DM) are deciding (generically) what they're doing simultaneously at the start of the round, we're saving a huge amount of time. We don't have 4 people sitting around waiting while 1 person at a time debates what to do.

(Showing my age her...) Having run AD&D (weapon speed) for 10 years and the d20 system of D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and D&D for another nearly 15 years, my experience is that declaring actions has been the quickest way to do it. The only issue is to find mechanics that actually make sense and are easy to use.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Here's what I have inserted on the outside of my DM screen for my players. The full rules are here.

I don't want to go into too much detail as I've posted playtest of this system previously (some mechanics have been improved but core is same). It took about 2 sessions for players to get familiar, and it works like a charm. It's a "declare" system like the DMG's "speed factor" initiative and AD&D's "weapon speed" rules. After decades of using various systems, I find it works faster than the set turn system of a modified d20 because everyone is making a decision at the same time, not 1 at a time, and I'm not pausing to record the order. Instead, lowest first, I count up until we hit someone's turn.

No matter how much a player can do in a round, they roll only the highest die. No modifiers, no math, and DEX (or INT) only come into play as tiebreakers.

 

[Nebulous]

Here's what I have inserted on the outside of my DM screen for my players. The full rules are here.

View attachment 116999

I don't want to go into too much detail as I've posted playtest of this system previously (some mechanics have been improved but core is same). It took about 2 sessions for players to get familiar, and it works like a charm. It's a "declare" system like the DMG's "speed factor" initiative and AD&D's "weapon speed" rules. After decades of using various systems, I find it works faster than the set turn system of a modified d20 because everyone is making a decision at the same time, not 1 at a time, and I'm not pausing to record the order. Instead, lowest first, I count up until we hit someone's turn.

No matter how much a player can do in a round, they roll only the highest die. No modifiers, no math, and DEX (or INT) only come into play as tiebreakers.

I'm going to take a closer look at this. No need for me to reinvent the wheel if you've got a well playtested version of something that does what I want (or close enough)

 

[Quickleaf]

So myself and another DM were mulling over some options. We don't like the default roll d20 and add Dex. It works, but it's also boring after years of the same thing, and it puts a ton of emphasis on Dex which is already super important. So we thought about stealing Perception skill as Initiative from PF2.

That works well for PCs, but monsters don't get great Perception skills in the core MM, and most aren't even listed, or they'll have a +0 or +1 Wisdom, which in this system would be a poor Initiative. In addition, he was toying with the idea of eschewing the d20 roll completely (bear with me) and using class and monster HIT DIE to replace it, and adding Perception to that.

So, your fighter types (d12, d10) would be on average higher, but still tempered by a high or low Perception. A little more math would be involved, but it takes the onus away from Dex and swingy d20. We are going to try it next session and just see what happens.

Has anyone tried something like that and how did it work/not work for you?

Not exactly the same, but I gradually mostly stopped rolling monster initiative and instead used monster initiative scores which I calculated as 10+Dexterity modifier+proficiency bonus (if monster is proficient in Dexterity saves). I would then tweak this number using all my DM experience. For instance, I always had zombies at initiative 1, similar to how they worked back in AD&D, while some leader monsters who seemed especially fast or agile I used 15 instead of 10 when determining initiative score.

We still had players rolling d20 as normal though.

On a few occasions, I used alternative initiative systems for specific reasons. Once I used 'popcorn' initiative for a rather chaotic situation where who was on the PCs' side was unclear – basically, the players acted whenever they wanted, and I just narrated stuff in between their turns. Once I adapted Shadow of the Demon Lord's system when acting fast before an enemy was of the essence.

 

[Nebulous]

On a few occasions, I used alternative initiative systems for specific reasons. Once I used 'popcorn' initiative for a rather chaotic situation where who was on the PCs' side was unclear – basically, the players acted whenever they wanted, and I just narrated stuff in between their turns. Once I adapted Shadow of the Demon Lord's system when acting fast before an enemy was of the essence.

yeah, i'm also looking at the Demon Lord and seeing if that would be adaptable.

 

[Coroc]

I miss weapon speed as a factor toward initiative. I'm not saying I would bring it back, because dex/finesse weapons are already too heavily favored, but I still miss it. Penalizing heavy weapons at this point would hurt my monsters more than my players.

Off the top of my head, if I were to homebrew something, I would use a weapon's damage dice to mimic weapon speed. Sticking with highest init goes first, then the weapon speed modifier would be subtracted from the init roll. Maybe apply the average damage as a Initiative modifier?

Spells? I don't know, but perhaps the modifier is the spell level.

I would also consider allowing Intelligence to be used as a Initiative Modifier.

I miss that like a phonecall when .. doing something important.
It totally adds to realism for me (not) when some bloke tries to tell me that the guy with a dagger gets the first and quicker attack at a guy with a halberd because it is the "slower" weapon.
That is so applicable also in reality (It's not!)

Let us asume i am in a fight for life and death, and for some circumstance i have the absolute same basic speed and reaction time like my opponent. We stand 10 ft apart in combat ready stance for the start. I have the choice between a halberd and a dagger and my opponent has to take the other weapon.

You can bet i want the halberd, because it is faster (my lever is my prolonged arm plus the halberd shaft whereas the dagger only has the armlength, if i move my arm at the same speed as the daggerwielder i will traverse a much longer distance with the sharp end of the weapon thats distance/time= velocity!) and ensures i get the first attack (because of reach).

 

[Nebulous]

Once I adapted Shadow of the Demon Lord's system when acting fast before an enemy was of the essence.

We are thinking of using side initiative every round (maybe with some kind of modifier - highest Perception maybe?) and using with the Shadow of the Demon Lord Fast/Slow system.

 

[toucanbuzz]

...It totally adds to realism for me (not) when some bloke tries to tell me that the guy with a dagger gets the first and quicker attack at a guy with a halberd because it is the "slower" weapon....

You can house-rule (from 3rd edition) that if you have a Reach attack and your opponent does not, if they try to enter your threat zone, you can use your Reaction to make an attack of opportunity.

 

[CleverNickName]

We use Intelligence instead of Dex for initiative rolls, to make it less about quick reflexes and more about quick thinking.

 

[Quickleaf]

We are thinking of using side initiative every round (maybe with some kind of modifier - highest Perception maybe?) and using with the Shadow of the Demon Lord Fast/Slow system.

Yeah that should work for most situations.

This isn't something that is in any rulebook (and maybe it can't be), but increasingly I've come to see initiative as something that should be tailored to fit the specific situation. Obviously, not a popular view – few players like the rules shifting under their feet. But when exceptional situations arise, I've found better success borrowing/designing initiative systems that are well-matched to that situation rather than forcing the situation to fit the generic initiative rules.