Best Initiative System?

[Mishihari Lord]

My preferred initiative system is a house-ruled version of 2E that my group used:

• everyone rolls d10 for initiative
• actions must be declared minimally, e.g. specify spell cast or weapon to attack with, but not target etc. The action can be changed before you act, but it won't move up your initiative
• add weapons speed or cast time
• everyone acts in order from lowest to highest
• actions can be held 'til later, held actions preempt non-held actions on a given initiative tick
• for iterative attacks, second+ attacks occur on initiative + weapon speed, weapon speed x2, x3, ...
• for spells, a hit before starting the cast results in a lost action, a hit while casting results in a lost spell
• each 10' move adds one to intiative
• the round ends on 20, actions after that are lost (except full-round casts and the like)
• the DM counts up from 1 to 20 and players call out their actions on their count

It probably looks overly-complicated, but it worked very well for us for many years, and it's very simple to use once you're used to it. Held actions and spell loss in particular added a lot of tension and fun to combat.

If my only options were 1E/2e vs 3E/4e, I'd go with 1E/2e. I really loath cyclical combat initiative.

 

[shamsael]

The one from the new Marvel Heroes RPG.

 

[Libramarian]

I definitely the core initiative system should resemble Basic D&D:

1) Declare actions in general terms.
2) Each side rolls d6 for initiative.
3) Resolve actions in the following order. Within each phase, the side that rolled higher goes first.

Missiles > Movement > Melee > Defensive movement (disengaging from melee) > Spells

It fits better with TotM play because the action makes more sense, which aids the DM in adjudicating corner cases. To make it even simpler, don't bother with the roll; each phase occurs simultaneously.

 

[pemerton]

I can't believe all the same people complaining about "tactical elements" in the game and then turning around and thinking that cyclic initiative is so wonderful. Where do people think those tactical elements were anchored in the first place?

Good point about the tactical stuff that is a necessary concomitant of turn-by-turn initiative.

after using side-based initiative for the first time in forever I'm never ever ever ever going back to individual initiative. Keeping track of what order people act in is just too much of a bother for my poor brain these days and having side based initiative helps people act more as a team and get together and make one collective plan rather than sitting around being bored while waiting for their turn.

My 4e players generally keep track of what's going on in others' turns, in part because they are looking to use those game-slowing tactical elements that Crazy Jerome mentions!

It's a long time since I've GMed side-by-side initiative. Before 4e I was GMing Rolemaster, using a continuous intitiative system with individual action speeds. (Between edition variants plus the Rolemaster Companions, RM must have more than 10 intitiative systems published for it. The rules bloat that can tend to accompany ultra-simulationism.)

 

[underfoot007ct]

I prefer the declare your actions + roll every round like in pre-3.x editions. Adds to the chaos of combat.

Why is "the chaos of combat" a positive thing ?

I much prefer a 3e/4e style of init

 

[Lanefan]

Vote: other.

We've always used d6 re-rolled each round, simultaneous actions allowed (e.g. you and your foe CAN kill each other at the same time if that's how the rolls go; and I challenge anyone to make that work with cyclical). We just leave the d6 (or d6's) in front of us so we can all see who goes when. Count down from 6 to 1.

We used the pre-declaration system a long time ago but abandoned it once we realized there were just too many occasions where a pre-declared action made no sense by the time it came up; so now we say what we're doing when our initiative arrives.

Some caveats and mechanics:
- almost nothing exists that can give a bonus or penalty to the initiative you roll
- if you are using two weapons or are for whatever other reason getting more than one action in a round, each action gets its own initiative roll
- if multiple actions are done with the same weapon or item the two rolled initiatives cannot be the same
- multiple missile fire in a round e.g. bowshots gets one roll, with the second or subsequent shots coming at suiltable evenly-spaced points later in the round
- casters start casting on what they roll and finish x segments later, where x is the spell's casting time (all have been adjusted to suit a 6-segment round); and can be interrupted during this time
- casting can carry over into the next round e.g. a 3-segment spell started on a 2 will resolve on a 5 of next round; caster then rolls d4 for that round's init.
- occasionally, where it really matters, we'll roll d6 sub-initiatives to resolve ties within a segment; usually to see if a spell got interrupted or not
- in cases where the DM has to deal with lots of monsters - particularly if they all get multiple attacks - he can batch the rolls somewhat to avoid having to roll and track dozens of d6's. (example: the other night we had a combat vs. about 35 opponents, each of which had a claw-claw-bite attack routine - theoretically the DM would roll 105 separate initiatives - in reality, just not going to happen...)

Reading this over, it looks way more complicated written out than it really is in play. And it handles parties of all sizes.

Why is "the chaos of combat" a positive thing ?

Realism.

In a real fight you act when you can. Randomized initiative reflects this about as well as the system can handle; though I must say I rather like the idea [MENTION=82425]BobTheNob[/MENTION] put forward about drawing from a pot to see who acts next - the only change I'd make would be to roll a die to see if more than one name got pulled, to allow for simultaneous actions.

Lanefan

 

[howandwhy99]

I totally reject mandatory individual initiatives. Since I've learned about optional initiatives I much prefer it. I also prefer 1d6, maybe with no modifiers, maybe with some. Rerolling every round makes the game less predictable too. 1d20 (now with -20 on surprise) is a number count nearing 50 potentially every single round. I don't want to collect initiatives. I simply want to say "Who goes on 4?"

 

[dagger]

I wasn't aware slow combat was a perk for anyone, but different strokes and all, s'pose.

I don't have that problem in my AD&D game...only see it in 3/4e.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As long as we are throwing out variants, another system that I've fooled around with but never tested is some form of "initiative/action gambling."

Lanefan's comment about multiple arrow shots in a round reminded me. In such a system, you need for different things to take different amounts of time in the action economy, however else it may work. Then your declaration phase is not what you are doing, but how much you are attempting. In something similar to what Lanefan listed, you wouldn't state a declaration at all. You'd pick up the appropriate number of d6s, and how many you roll becomes your declaration. The more dice you roll, the more you get to act. But also, the more dice you roll, the bigger penalty to the actions.

This kind of system would work best if the penalty scales rapidly for each die, and if the penalty gets great enough, you are forced to delay those actions as "in progress" this round, and not even get to roll next round while you complete the actions.

The most obvious way is to count rolls up, so that a 1 on a d6 is the absolute fastest, you act on each pip, but you get a penalty to initiaitve for each die you use (making 2 now the best roll), and subsequent actions are added to previous ones. So if you roll 3 dice, you'll potentialy act three times, starting no earlier than spot 4. If you roll 2, 3, and 5, act first at 5 (2+3), then again at 8 (5+3) and then the last time at 13(8+5). Cap that with a total that ends the round, and you have a "blackjack" system of initiative that encourages people to try 2 or 3 things per round, but occasionally risk more or shoot for one thing fast. It would also work better in a system where a single, decisive action can sometimes be important, but not always.

Alternately, make a person using multiple dice start with the highest roll, then add the subsequent actions. More powerful moves, spells, etc. may take multiple actions to complete, but still be possible in a single round--if you gamble and win.

 

[Sadrik]

Cyclical sides. Really. Roll 1d6 (or 1d20) and go with who rolls highest. Re-roll ties. then players and monsters alternate back and forth. No declaring actions.

Also surprise is based on everyone making a wisdom (perception) check DC based on the environment and what the other group is doing. If you fail you lose your first round of actions. Disoriented (flat-footed) should be a condition too.