D&D 5E Cinematic Initiative Variant (CIV)

[DND_Reborn]

So, after some discussion in my thread about what the combat round feels like/represents to you, I've done a lot of thinking about initiative and what might be a good alternative.

A couple things I want to address first:
1. This is not a roll = time system. So, going on 20 or higher doesn't mean "You are acting in the first second of the round" or anything.
2. For me, being able to take all your possible actions at the same time is a problem. I prefer possible breaks in the action that don't rely solely on the narrative.
3. I am well aware this is a more complex system. It is a natural result and if you want to keep it simple (perfectly understandable) this likely won't be much interest to you.

Okay, so here we go... (first draft, so be gentle LOL! )

Your Initiative Modifier equals your proficiency bonus + your choice of DEX, INT, or WIS modifier. (Alternatively, you can choose one just for your table instead of making it player's choice). Alert adds +5 as normal. Class features also add as normal (e.g. Tactical Wit). I prefer to add proficiency bonus with the idea with greater experience, your ability to exploit the opportunity to act is better, and thus more likely to come sooner.

(Side note: not required, but something I would do is reduce proficiency bonus to +0 for CR 0, and only +1 for CR 1/8, 1/4, and 1/2. CR 1 and higher would use normal proficiency bonuses.)

Everyone rolls d20 + their Initiative Modifier. Highest roll goes first.
UPDATE: Everyone rolls d10 + 10 + their Initiative Modifier. Highest roll goes first.

Now, here is where things change:

When your turn comes, you take one action (or a single attack), bonus action, OR move. You resolve your action (or attack) and afterwards immediately roll a d20 (update: removed bonus after first roll) and add your Initiative Modifier. If the result equals or exceeds your current initiative, you can take another action that you have remaining. If your new total is lower, you have to wait to take your next action. After that, you roll again and continue until you are out of actions.

NOTE: reactions can be taken at any time when a trigger happens as usual. They don't require a roll.

Ok, let's look at an example:

Let's say you are a 5th-level Fighter. You have Extra Attack and are fighting with two weapons, so can use your Bonus action for an attack with your second weapon. Your proficiency modifier is +3 and your DEX modifier (your highest of DEX, INT, WIS) is +2, so a total of +5 to Initiative. You encounter a lone Ogre, which has only a +1 Initiative modifier (+2 prof, -1 DEX).

Spoiler: Round 1

You roll and get a 16, for a total of 21. The ogre gets a total of 14, so you act first.

You are 15 feet apart and your first action is to move to engage the Ogre on Initiative 21.
You draw your weapon as a free object interaction (as part of your movement) and have 15 feet of movement left.
You are going to attack as your next action, so roll a d20, and get an 18 for a total of 23.
Since this is higher than the current 21, you get to attack now.
You make an attack and hit for 10 damage.
With Extra Attack, you are going to attack again, so roll another d20, but this time get a total of 12. You will have to wait for your second attack.

Since you are already engaged with the Ogre it doesn't need to move and it attacks you on Initiative 14.
It missed!
Fearing you are more of a threat than it anticipated, the Ogre decides to flee. It rolls another d20 and gets a total of 9. It can move away on 9.

On 12, you get your second attack, but you miss (bad roll!).
You will next use your bonus action to Attack with your second weapon. You roll a d20 and get a total of 15.
Since this is higher than the current 12, you get to take your bonus action attack now.
You hit and score 7 damage!

The ogre is really worried since it missed you and you hit it twice, so on 9 it flees.
You immediately use your reaction to make an opportunity attack and score another hit for 8 damage!
The ogre then moves 40 feet away, running for its life!

Since you still have 15 feet of movement left, you give chase and close the distance to only 25 feet.

End of round 1.

Summary:

• You move on 21.
• You attack on 21 (roll 23) for 10 damage.
• Ogre attacks on 14 for a miss.
• You attack on 12 for a miss.
• You bonus action TWF attack on 12 (roll 15) for 7 damage.
• Ogre moves on 9.
• You react OA on 9 for 8 damage.
• You use remaining move

IMO this gives a more dynamic feel for the round instead of just you move, make your three attacks, the ogre attacks, and then you get an OA as it runs away.

I am hoping a side-effect of this system is that since players don't take all their actions at once, they are more engaged in the round waiting for their next action.

There are still a lot of things I have to consider:

How do things like Haste work?
What happens if your planned action is no longer appropriate (ex. you were attacking an enemy but your target is dead and now it is your turn)?
What about readying your action or delaying an action?
And more to come I am certain...!

That's it for now. I have to run this by my groups and get feedback from them as well, playtest it some, etc. It might be too much, or it might track quickly enough that the complexity is worth it. We'll see, but the floor is open for comments, questions, concerns, and general discussion.

EDIT 12/23/20: Updated OP to reflect changes after play testing.

 

[Lanefan]

Wouldn't it just be quicker to roll a separate initiative for each action a character has, rather than stopping and re-rolling mid-round all the time? By this I mean if a Fighter gets three attacks in a round it rolls three independent initiatives before the round begins, one for each attack. (and to slow down those characters who have crazy init modifiers, maybe make it that only the highest such roll gets any modifiers at all; any other rolls just use the number on the die)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Wouldn't it just be quicker to roll a separate initiative for each action a character has, rather than stopping and re-rolling mid-round all the time? By this I mean if a Fighter gets three attacks in a round it rolls three independent initiatives before the round begins, one for each attack. (and to slow down those characters who have crazy init modifiers, maybe make it that only the highest such roll gets any modifiers at all; any other rolls just use the number on the die)

It might be quicker but the process doesn't work quite the same. For one thing, what about if you action surge? I am trying to avoid declarations, and I really don't want someone rolling 6 d20's all at once. Secondly, do you record the rolls in order or use descending order (basically giving you advantage)? Lastly, it also creates more predictable action choices when you know when all your actions are coming--by waiting until the end of your current action, no one knows when your next action is coming.

For example, if you rolled a 14, 6, and 20, does it become 14, 6, and 6 (using the idea of later actions must follow the lowest roll) or do you do 20, 14, and 6--arranging them in descending order?

Off-hand, I think rolling multiple dice and tracking the results would be slower than rolling once and re-rolling at the end of your current action. But, it's an idea playtesting (if we decide to try it, anyway) will help determine--maybe you'll be right?

Anyway, what do you think about the flow of action that is possible? It makes situations like the Nathan/Samurai fighting scene (from the other thread) actually possible as actions are more "simultaneous" or interspersed with each other.

 

[Lanefan]

It might be quicker but the process doesn't work quite the same. For one thing, what about if you action surge? I am trying to avoid declarations, and I really don't want someone rolling 6 d20's all at once.

Ah - I kinda got the impressions this would be a somewhat-declaration-based system; except that if your declared action no longer made sense when it came time for it to happen you could change it.

As for rolling lots of dice at once, that's the point. Roll 'em all at once instead of doing a bunch of separate rolls.

Secondly, do you record the rolls in order or use descending order (basically giving you advantage)? Lastly, it also creates more predictable action choices when you know when all your actions are coming--by waiting until the end of your current action, no one knows when your next action is coming.

For example, if you rolled a 14, 6, and 20, does it become 14, 6, and 6 (using the idea of later actions must follow the lowest roll) or do you do 20, 14, and 6--arranging them in descending order?

Descending order, of course.

The idea being that if someone with 3 actions is going up against someone with one, in theory the 3-action person would act before the foe, about the same time as the foe, and after the foe. The foe's one roll would be the randomizer to some extent.

Off-hand, I think rolling multiple dice and tracking the results would be slower than rolling once and re-rolling at the end of your current action. But, it's an idea playtesting (if we decide to try it, anyway) will help determine--maybe you'll be right?

If your players each own lots of d20s (a common situation IME! ) the answer is for each player to roll their dice and then line them up such that each player has a little line of d20s (so I've got 3d20 on 16, 14, and 5 in front of me; Bob might have 2d20 on 20 and 4 in front of him, etc.), with each one pulled off the table as its action occurs. This idea falls apart when modified initiatives go over 20 (or below 1), but were it me I'd do away with nearly all initiative modifiers in any case.

Anyway, what do you think about the flow of action that is possible? It makes situations like the Nathan/Samurai fighting scene (from the other thread) actually possible as actions are more "simultaneous" or interspersed with each other.

Haven't seen that other thread, but I'm generally in favour of anything that breaks up cyclic initiative and better replicates a fog-of-war situation where things are less predictable.

In fact, we already use a similar system (though not for 5e) only it's based on d6s; where if you've got more than one action in a round you roll a separate die for each one. We don't have movement hard-coded as its own separate thing - usually if you're moving in to attack you might get knocked down a point or two on your init die depending how far you have to go, and you'll only get one attack when you get there no matter how many you would have had normally - nor do we have bonus actions. We've used this system more or less in its current form for 35+ years now, and it works well enough.

 

[prabe]

I kinda like it. I agree that haste is a potential problem; I'd have to look at the spell before guessing at solutions (if it defines what it gives you, I think you could just include them as things you could do, that you'd roll initiative for). I don't think "plan is no longer relevant" is much less likely to happen with this system than cyclic initiative, except that moving is a separate thing, so someone might move to a target and then have that target drop (to an AoE effect or something) before getting in an attack. Also, I think the rules need to be written to state you can only move once per round (also you can only take one bonus action per round). Unless you want to do something like split movement into two sections or something--which kinda reflects the RAW take on splitting movement around attack/s.

Obviously (at least to me) all of the above is from reading it, not playtesting it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ah - I kinda got the impressions this would be a somewhat-declaration-based system; except that if your declared action no longer made sense when it came time for it to happen you could change it.

You could make it a declared system, but I was sticking more to regular 5E where you choose your action when your turn comes. It works either way, though.

Descending order, of course.

The idea being that if someone with 3 actions is going up against someone with one, in theory the 3-action person would act before the foe, about the same time as the foe, and after the foe. The foe's one roll would be the randomizer to some extent.

IMO this gives too much advantage to multiple action creatures, which is why I decided on a single roll, with all additional rolls coming later in the round. So, if a PC with four "action" options (say move, attack twice, and bonus action) could roll badly and not get to act until much later (and would get to finish all their actions then).

Also, if you do the one die per action in the beginning, you need to decide every possible action you might take. What if you don't take them all? You are rolling more dice than you should, in essence.

Now, if you want the chance of going sooner, rolling all the dice and going in descending order is fine, too; but it just isn't what I am looking to do.

If your players each own lots of d20s (a common situation IME! ) the answer is for each player to roll their dice and then line them up such that each player has a little line of d20s (so I've got 3d20 on 16, 14, and 5 in front of me; Bob might have 2d20 on 20 and 4 in front of him, etc.), with each one pulled off the table as its action occurs. This idea falls apart when modified initiatives go over 20 (or below 1), but were it me I'd do away with nearly all initiative modifiers in any case.

Sure, that could work. But I think just rerolling after your action (and going again if your new roll is equal or better than your current one) or leaving the die to note when you act again works just as well. As I said, it also avoids situations like action surge and the need to declare your actions.

If my groups want to playtest it, we'll probably try out both methods and see which we prefer for ease of use.

Haven't seen that other thread, but I'm generally in favour of anything that breaks up cyclic initiative and better replicates a fog-of-war situation where things are less predictable.

Here it is then:

D&D 5E - How Do You View the Combat Round in 5E?

In AD&D 1E, a round was a full minute long. A lot was assumed to be going on during the round and when your turn came, it was your chance to get in a real strike or do something significant. Unsuccessful attacks and feints, parries, dodging and weaving, etc. were all part of the "back-and-forth"...

www.enworld.org

This is the post by @toucanbuzz showing the fight scene.

The summary for Round 1 by @toucanbuzz is:

Round 1: Nathan grapples with the sword of enemy #1, dodges a sword blow, blocks an attack by enemy #2, karate kicks enemy #3, and flips his grappled target to the ground in a somersault. Enemy #4 comes charging into the fray but isn't close enough to attack.

With this idea, Nathan would act first and move to engage enemy #1. Rolling his next action, he rolls high enough to act immediately and grapples (or maybe he is close enough, it could be all one action? shrug).

Enemies #2 and #3 both act next and attack (Nathan dodges, etc.) and both miss.

Nathan's next action comes up, and he kicks #3.

Enemy #4 (in the background) has his action and moves into the fight after drawing his weapon.

Enemy #2 attacks again and misses as Nathan dodges.

Nathan's final turn comes and he drops prone, pulling (flipping) #1 into #2.

Enemy #4 finally gets his attack in, which (even though prone), misses as Nathan blocks it.

In fact, we already use a similar system (though not for 5e) only it's based on d6s; where if you've got more than one action in a round you roll a separate die for each one. We don't have movement hard-coded as its own separate thing - usually if you're moving in to attack you might get knocked down a point or two on your init die depending how far you have to go, and you'll only get one attack when you get there no matter how many you would have had normally - nor do we have bonus actions. We've used this system more or less in its current form for 35+ years now, and it works well enough.

I've looked into variants and made others where actions are cumulative during the round, but I am hoping this might work better. Glad your system works well for your table.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I kinda like it. I agree that haste is a potential problem; I'd have to look at the spell before guessing at solutions (if it defines what it gives you, I think you could just include them as things you could do, that you'd roll initiative for). I don't think "plan is no longer relevant" is much less likely to happen with this system than cyclic initiative, except that moving is a separate thing, so someone might move to a target and then have that target drop (to an AoE effect or something) before getting in an attack. Also, I think the rules need to be written to state you can only move once per round (also you can only take one bonus action per round). Unless you want to do something like split movement into two sections or something--which kinda reflects the RAW take on splitting movement around attack/s.

Obviously (at least to me) all of the above is from reading it, not playtesting it.

Thanks. I like the concept (it came to me while driving to work) but it needs a lot of scrutiny before I write up anything "more official".

My initial thought on haste and similar effects would grant you more actions to take. Alternatively, it might grant advantage on your initial d20 roll for your first action as well?

I like the idea of breaking up movement, so if you have speed left over after your first move, you can continue to spend your movement on subsequent actions (such as the fighter chasing the ogre in the OP spoiler).

Yep, lots of playtesting if my groups show interest--if not, it is pleasant to discuss the theory of it.

 

[Oofta]

Interesting idea, I'd have to playtest to know for sure but ... I think most of my players would find it too complex. I'd also be wary of slowing combat down too much even though I appreciate what you're trying to do.

One alternative: start exactly as you stated, but then every subsequent sub-turn is -5. Limits number of roles, if you know what number you started with you can always double check where you were. If you're hasted, it becomes a -2 instead of a -5.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Interesting idea, I'd have to playtest to know for sure but ... I think most of my players would find it too complex. I'd also be wary of slowing combat down too much even though I appreciate what you're trying to do.

One alternative: start exactly as you stated, but then every subsequent sub-turn is -5. Limits number of roles, if you know what number you started with you can always double check where you were. If you're hasted, it becomes a -2 instead of a -5.

Yeah, I know this is really early in the discussion and playtesting (maybe tomorrow) is a must.

Funny, I thought of subtracting from the initial roll as well, but I wanted a system where it is possible to get all your actions in. Like @Lanefan's ideas I'll discuss all the options with my groups and see what they want to try out.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, I know this is really early in the discussion and playtesting (maybe tomorrow) is a must.

Funny, I thought of subtracting from the initial roll as well, but I wanted a system where it is possible to get all your actions in. Like @Lanefan's ideas I'll discuss all the options with my groups and see what they want to try out.

Depending on initiative rolls, you could still get all your actions, especially if hasted.

But let us know how it works!