D&D 5E Avoiding Initiative

[Lanefan]

People stuck in d&d become too fixated on initiative imo. Especially dex based, as there are many more factors that play into your ability to react quickly than physical speed.

I've been running Dungeon World for a while now, which has no initiative. At first I was really unclear how the system would function, but it works pretty much like it would even if it had a system, but without the book keeping.

You ask each of the chaeacters what they're doing, roll up results and determine the responses. In principle, a character in DW could act twice when others act once, but I found in practice people don't do that. Even if you just allowed all characters a single normal turn of actions, you can still avoid using initiative. In DW, the only time it clicks with characters that theyre in combat is that theyve lost hit points. I like it that way.

How do you determine sequence or timing in a system like this, on those occasions* when it's necessary to do so?

* - such as, does a binding or incapacitating spell resolve before or after that spell's target shoots its bow at me; or does my mighty killing blow take the orc's head off before or after it's had its attack for this round; or do I get behind cover before or after the volley of arrows comes in; or did Han really shoot first?

Or is it just a matter of whoever talks the first/fastest gets to act first? Or does everything happensimultaneously no matter what?

Locked-in turn-based initiative is not necessary, but some sort of randomized sequencing sometimes is.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

We don’t use initiative at all, resolving things in what seems a logical order. I don’t “go around the table”, just tell me what you’re doing, and go ahead and start doing it. They can talk to each other, etc. I can listen to several people at once, and if I have questions I’ll ask. We like combat to be fast, chaotic, and just part of the flow of the game.

It’s usually not important to know who hit first, and if it is we do an opposed initiative check between the relevant combatants.

This is fine if all your players are relatively similar when it comes to speaking up and getting themselves heard, but would be bad for a table with a couple of loudmouths and some others who are more reserved/quiet.

And for me, trying to listen to more than one person at a time is just begging for misinterpretations and errors, leading to argmuents (bad) and retcons (worse) later.

 

[Lanefan]

As for the OP, I don't see the roll-for-initiative break as a problem and thus haven't ever put any thought into fixing it.

I guess part of this is that rolling for initiative is always preceded by either a party d6 for surprise or an escalating situation; and as this has already got people's attention, rolling for initiative goes quickly.

Then again, I use a simplified initiative system where everyone rolls a d6 for each action/attack in a round; I go around and resolve all sixes more or less simultaneously, then all fives, etc. Next round, roll 'em again.

Any system that locks in the turn order each round or allows the amount of co-ordination given by "side" initiatives gives way too many advantages to the players, as it allows them to plan ahead in ways their PCs likely couldn't do in the fog of war. Even pre-rolling initiatives ahead of time would be bad for this.

Lanefan

 

[neogod22]

Problem is, Dex is already too useful - no point making it even more so by having it lock in the turn order for every combat.

Best typo I've seen all day!

Like I said, it's an idea I had. Seems like a pretty logical one.

 

[fjw70]

I have as a default enemies try to flee a combat if they're aware that things are going badly.

Only undead, constructs and sentient beings with reasons to fight to the death (defending young, crazed cultists, etc) fight to the death.

I rarely make those that retreat come back later, unless its made awaee thst theyre likely to go and get reinforcements.

Makes fights a lot quicker.

Back on the subject on initiative. There's no right answer purely because every system has pros and cons. I've played and run games that do round the table initiative, and that's worked fine for me, though some players may not like it.

Honestly i find any system features that give a character a boost to initiative artificial at best anyway.

If you have changing initiative, it can make fights feel more chaotic, or if you have ordered initiative, it enables you to plan better as a team. If you do round the table for example, you know when you get back to the dm, you've got bad things coming, so you've got to see what you can do before that.

I do that sometimes as well. However, one group I had would do everything they could to kill fleeing monsters and it actually made some combats longer.

 

[CubicsRube]

How do you determine sequence or timing in a system like this, on those occasions* when it's necessary to do so?

* - such as, does a binding or incapacitating spell resolve before or after that spell's target shoots its bow at me; or does my mighty killing blow take the orc's head off before or after it's had its attack for this round; or do I get behind cover before or after the volley of arrows comes in; or did Han really shoot first?

Or is it just a matter of whoever talks the first/fastest gets to act first? Or does everything happensimultaneously no matter what?

Locked-in turn-based initiative is not necessary, but some sort of randomized sequencing sometimes is.

Lanefan

Well, DW in particular deals with this by not really having duration spells and having only players make rolls. If a player fails a melee attack, for example, that is when their opponent hits the. Or does something else bad. It's assumed that they are locked in cinematic struggle between rolls.

In another system you could simply work with the "players go, enemies go" version, which is essentially the same. Shadow of the demon lord uses it to great effect. They have an "end of round" phase where duration spells and effects expire, and the system is built around that.

 

[CubicsRube]

As for the OP, I don't see the roll-for-initiative break as a problem and thus haven't ever put any thought into fixing it.

I guess part of this is that rolling for initiative is always preceded by either a party d6 for surprise or an escalating situation; and as this has already got people's attention, rolling for initiative goes quickly.

Then again, I use a simplified initiative system where everyone rolls a d6 for each action/attack in a round; I go around and resolve all sixes more or less simultaneously, then all fives, etc. Next round, roll 'em again.

Any system that locks in the turn order each round or allows the amount of co-ordination given by "side" initiatives gives way too many advantages to the players, as it allows them to plan ahead in ways their PCs likely couldn't do in the fog of war. Even pre-rolling initiatives ahead of time would be bad for this.

Lanefan

Well on the other hand, if a party had fought together for a while, it'd be likely that the characters would have a set of common tactics they've developed, and a way of intuiting what the other person is likely to do.

When i play doubles in tennis, i learn to work with that particular partner and try and set them up for their strengths, as well as keeping an eye out to cover for their weaker areas.

Makes sense to me a party would let the wizard send down a fireball before the fighter charges in.

 

[CubicsRube]

I do that sometimes as well. However, one group I had would do everything they could to kill fleeing monsters and it actually made some combats longer.

Yes. Some do. I use a "chase" set of skill rolls. They can roll athletics or acrobatics vs a dc for the enemies. If they pass then they can make an attack. If they fail they get a tick on an individual chase clock and lose ground. If they fail a number of times (depending on the circumstances) then they drop out of the chase.

In short, i abstract it to skill rolls.

I leave the level of bloodthirst up to the players to decide

 

[alienux]

We don't even try to avoid such pauses. We recognize that it's a game & that at times there's mechanical details to attend to.

This exactly.

 

[Lanefan]

Well on the other hand, if a party had fought together for a while, it'd be likely that the characters would have a set of common tactics they've developed, and a way of intuiting what the other person is likely to do.

When i play doubles in tennis, i learn to work with that particular partner and try and set them up for their strengths, as well as keeping an eye out to cover for their weaker areas.

Makes sense to me a party would let the wizard send down a fireball before the fighter charges in.

Fair enough, but as we all know no plan survives first contact with the enemy...

And yes, the fighter can always hold her ground while the wizard clears the decks, if the wizard is slow off the mark (i.e. rolls poorly on init.).