D&D 5E Concurrent initiative variant; Everybody declares/Everybody resolves [WAS Simultaneous Initiative]

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ok, thanks for the answers and the additional example. I have some more questions, though. Here is one part of the combat encounter that I referred to earlier.

Scenario A:

• Three goblins are standing together
• Bard PC is about 30 ft. away from them
• Paladin PC is about 15 ft. away from them
• The goblins’ declared action is that they are going to scatter looking for cover and then shoot at the paladin.

My concern for the moment will be the bard’s declared action. When we ran this with cyclic initiative, the bard got to go before the goblins. He ran right up into the goblins’ face and cast Thunderwave. (Not that is matters, but the bard rolled well and the goblins didn’t. This was cool because dead flying goblins.) So my first question is, (A1) with simultaneous initiative ala Hemlock would that even have a chance of working? My analysis: If I “strictly enforce” Everything Happens at Once ™, then it would seem to me that the answer is no – the goblins would scatter while the bard was approaching, so this isn’t even worth trying. OTOH, since initiative contests are possible, then perhaps this should be treated as one.

I'll stop you right here for a second just to say yes, this is exactly how I would run it. If the Bard is trying to run up and send goblins flying, then he does so to every goblin who doesn't beat his initiative. (Or if they all beat his initiative, then he aborts his action and doesn't use a spell slot because he was too slow.)

However, this would then bring up two more questions. (A2) If there is an initiative contest, does this result in the winner getting to take his entire turn (e.g., bard’s move and cast) before the loser gets to do anything or is the contest somehow at a finer granularity?

In principle you could try to do it at a finer level of granularity, but I wouldn't for a TTRPG. I have a computerized project I'm working on in which I was just considering earlier today what kinds of initiative systems I might want to provide as options, and in addition to regular PHB turn-by-turn cyclic initiative and declare/act "simultaneous" initiative, it might be fun to factor movement speed in somehow in just the way you suggest, so that when you watch the battle it appears to be basically in realtime. But I haven't done so in my computerized project, and I wouldn't even consider doing so in actual table play without computers.

Of course there's also a whole middle ground wherein the DM could just make an ad hoc ruling which results in something reasonable, e.g. "okay bard, you can try it but you'll have disadvantage on your initiative roll because you have to run so far so quickly while prepping your Thunderwave." Use your judgment as DM.

(A3) How much of the bard’s action declaration can be contingent on the initiative result? (E.g., Do I allow, “If the goblins stay still, I run up to them and cast Thunderwave, but if the goblins scatter before I can move, then I stay where I am and shoot at the bugbear in front of the paladin.”, or does it have to be more like, “I run toward the goblins (unconditionally). If I get to them before they scatter, then I cast Thunderwave, otherwise I turn and shoot at the bugbear in front of the paladin.”?) Or if there is some other way that this should go that I am not seeing, just ignore the questions and describe that instead.

I allow moderately complex declarations. There's probably a point at which I would say, "No way, that's too complicated," but I don't know what it is because no one has ever tried to do so. Of the options you listed, all of them seem reasonable to me and I'd allow any.

Since I'm using rounds to basically represent OODA loops, I basically figure that any intention the player can state in a couple of sentences is probably one that a combatant can form as a discrete intention (the "decision" part of OODA) so I'm inclined to be generous. I think it's totally reasonable that a bard would be able to see whether the goblins are responding quickly enough for him to blast them with Thunderwave before they can scatter--humans aren't that good at judging relative accelerations but we're decent at judging relative velocities and distances.

Scenario B: (only interesting if the answer to A1 is “no”)

For me, A1 is "yes".

How about for you? How would you rule?

 

[Kevin Tyler Holgate]

Fair. That'd be a case where I would roll initiative to resolve; otherwise I'd just go with the trigger.

Rolling initiative on a tie takes time. Why not have a quick reference list. For instance... Higher Dex would win triggers based on reflexes, but Higher Charisma would win a social based triggers. Then its as simple as deciding on a secondary qualifier in case of ties since players are unlikely to have multiple stats the same.

Example: Delaying with a Trigger of the big goblin running away. The Ranger wants to fire off an entangling shot, but the Warlock plans on throwing off a few Eldritch Blasts and try to finish him off. Since the Trigger is the Goblin running away, the first test would be Dex... but they have the same score. I as DM decide that either Wisdom or Intelligence would be the next qualifier and give precedence to the Ranger. He slows down Big Goblin and the Warlock blasts him to bits a second later (I would give the warlock the choice not to act as well, in this situation).

If the Trigger event was something like the Big Bad beginning his narrative, I would give precedence to the Warlock to give him the opportunity to shine, and consequently interrupt Big Bad with hellfire.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

So what? This thread isn't about rolling initiative every round.

Lanefan alleged some problems and then said, "Re-rolling each round is one way to solve this". That didn't make any sense to me, because re-rolling each round doesn't have anything to do with the simultaneity issues he raised. I can't read his mind and learn that when he says "re-rolling each round", he actually means "this other rule I use".

There's no one on this thread advocating the thing you're criticizing: rolling every round without Lanefan's house rules attached.

In the big picture, the thing I'm criticizing is people talking about their pet initiative systems as if they cure hangovers and julienne fries. And there are entirely too many people on this thread doing that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Rolling initiative on a tie takes time. Why not have a quick reference list.

One of the nice things about skipping initiative except when it matters is that rolling initiative is always exciting. "Does Vlad Fireball the goblins before they can shoot Jack?" "Does Jack get to cover before the goblins can shoot him?" "Does the Death Slaad manage to Planar Shift to the Astral Plane, taking Nox's Robe of the Archmagi with him, before the skeletons can kill him?"

Players don't begrudge spending time on exciting things, only on boring things.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lanefan alleged some problems and then said, "Re-rolling each round is one way to solve this". That didn't make any sense to me, because re-rolling each round doesn't have anything to do with the simultaneity issues he raised. I can't read his mind and learn that when he says "re-rolling each round", he actually means "this other rule I use".

He kind of told you straight-up that he had additional rules.

Re-rolling each round is one way to solve this, though cumbersome unless you go to a much smaller die size (I suggest d6) and cut back on or entirely remove modifiers. What's proposed in this thread is another, and while I'm not sold on the idea I applaud the sentiment behind it.

In the big picture, the thing I'm criticizing is people talking about their pet initiative systems as if they cure hangovers and julienne fries. And there are entirely too many people on this thread doing that.

Might work better if you were critiquing the pros and cons of an actual, specific proposal instead of just griping about people having different preferences than yours. Just sayin'. Otherwise I don't know how or if to respond.

 

[Lanefan]

In the big picture, the thing I'm criticizing is people talking about their pet initiative systems as if they cure hangovers and julienne fries. And there are entirely too many people on this thread doing that.

Well, it's better than saying we have our own initiative systems but they really aren't any good so why did we bother...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I don't understand.

Are you implying that your PCs roll initiative *every round* ordinarily?

That's not how initiative works. Ever. You roll initiative *once* at the beginning of a combat scenario and then use that initiative score every round until the combat ends or something causes that numbers to change (which doesn't happen in 5e, but was a constant thing that could happen in 4e.)

Am I missing something here?

Actually, in AD&D that's exactly what happened. And it's still something that some people still prefer (if they are using initiative) because it mixes up combat more.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Ok, thanks for the answers and the additional example. I have some more questions, though. Here is one part of the combat encounter that I referred to earlier.

Scenario A:

• Three goblins are standing together
• Bard PC is about 30 ft. away from them
• Paladin PC is about 15 ft. away from them
• The goblins’ declared action is that they are going to scatter looking for cover and then shoot at the paladin.

My concern for the moment will be the bard’s declared action. When we ran this with cyclic initiative, the bard got to go before the goblins. He ran right up into the goblins’ face and cast Thunderwave. (Not that is matters, but the bard rolled well and the goblins didn’t. This was cool because dead flying goblins.) So my first question is, (A1) with simultaneous initiative ala Hemlock would that even have a chance of working? My analysis: If I “strictly enforce” Everything Happens at Once ™, then it would seem to me that the answer is no – the goblins would scatter while the bard was approaching, so this isn’t even worth trying. OTOH, since initiative contests are possible, then perhaps this should be treated as one. However, this would then bring up two more questions. (A2) If there is an initiative contest, does this result in the winner getting to take his entire turn (e.g., bard’s move and cast) before the loser gets to do anything or is the contest somehow at a finer granularity? (A3) How much of the bard’s action declaration can be contingent on the initiative result? (E.g., Do I allow, “If the goblins stay still, I run up to them and cast Thunderwave, but if the goblins scatter before I can move, then I stay where I am and shoot at the bugbear in front of the paladin.”, or does it have to be more like, “I run toward the goblins (unconditionally). If I get to them before they scatter, then I cast Thunderwave, otherwise I turn and shoot at the bugbear in front of the paladin.”?) Or if there is some other way that this should go that I am not seeing, just ignore the questions and describe that instead.

Scenario B: (only interesting if the answer to A1 is “no”)

• Three goblins are standing together
• Bard PC is about 30 ft. away from them
• Paladin PC is about 15 ft. away from them
• The goblins’ declared action is that they are going to shoot at the paladin and then scatter looking for cover.

Does this change any of the answers to the questions posed for A?

Ok, I’ll stop there for now. I think understanding how these situations would work will go quite a ways toward clarifying things for me.

So your initial example is one of the exact things that I disliked and why I eliminated initiative.

It's not really "everything happens at once." It's "everything happens in a logical order."

At my table, as the players are declaring their actions, they are also asking questions. I will tell them what the monsters are visibly doing. In your example, the bard would not know that the goblins will scatter and look for cover. However, as he starts running toward them, he'll see that and can make a decision about what to do.

An initiative contest would not be called for here, because it takes longer for the bard to run 30 feet than it takes for the goblins to start to scatter.

I use an initiative contest for a split second situation. Did this occur before that? Like did your killing blow against the goblin occur before their killing blow struck your ally?

In your second example, if the goblins are shooting first, I still maintain that it would take the bard longer to get to the goblins than the goblins to shoot at the paladin. But they wouldn't have had time to start to scatter. The bard could attempt to jump in front of one of the arrows if he really wanted to, and that would be an initiative check. Also, the goblins might change their action and scatter when they see the bard start to charge. It's a good tactic because to fire a bow (or a crossbow) while aiming takes a few seconds. Long enough that they can't easily get away before the bard gets there. They do have their Nimble Escape ability, so they would be able to dash after their attack, leaving the bard some number of feet away, but goblins are cowardly so I'd probably have them make a morale check (Wisdom save) to make their attack before running.

The round starts with the declarations and questions, but it doesn't mean they can't react (in real time) as the actions are taking place. The point (for me) is to eliminate the start-stop and artificially sequential nature of combat.

Bard: I charge the goblins.
DM: OK, they start to scatter
Bard: I'll go after the largest one, or if two are closer together I'll charge them.
DM: OK, two went to your right, one to the left, so you charge toward the two on the right. The one on the left shoots the paladin from behind cover (rolls) and hits. The other two race into the brush on the other side. Make an initiative check.

The bard and the two goblins make an initiative check. The bard wins by 7 and 9. Since they are the same speed, that's the amount of ground he's gained on them so he's now 23 and 21 feet away from those two goblins. With the bard chasing them down, however, they aren't comfortable attempting to shoot the paladin so they keep running. The bard can opt to use a different spell if he'd like, since he's not in range for thunderwave, or he could use a thrown weapon, continue chasing, opt to dash to catch up (and I allow all characters to charge, and one of the options when charging is to tackle, push or whatever. He wouldn't be able to cast a spell, though). If he chooses to dash, they would probably make another initiative check to see if they Dash too, but he'd have advantage on the check.

In this case, the goblins stop and draw their weapons, counting on their ability to get away. They launch their attack, the bard casts thunderwave, who succeeds first? Another initiative check. If the bard wins, the thunderwave spell may knock the goblins out of melee range, preventing their attacks. If the goblins win, then they might kill or disable the bard before completing the spell (or, in my campaign, interrupt the spell which still has at least a 50% chance of success, but might have a wild magic effect).

Of course, the paladin wouldn't have just been standing there, but I think that should give you the general idea.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Do you break up the movement phases and the attacking phases?

Or does movement have a higher precedence than attacking or something?

I do. Not by fiddling with numbers, etc. but just considering the action and the order it's likely to occur. Think in terms of football (American or otherwise, that is, soccer), basketball, hockey, etc. Movement takes time. Figure out what the actions are that are being taken, how much ground is being covered, and which is likely to occur first.

The reality is, this is more or less how AD&D worked. Spells took a certain amount of time to cast (in segments which at the time were 6 seconds and a round was a minute). Some spells could take until the next round to complete. Nothing inherently has precedence. Instead, stuff takes time. Dashing 60 feet down a hall takes longer than the orc at the other end shooting their crossbow. Loading the crossbow first, though, takes some time. Probably too long. That's where I would call for an initiative check.

Shooting an arrow or a crossbow when somebody is bearing down on you within 30 feet is difficult. Either you are going to have disadvantage on your attack (foregoing aiming well), or you're likely to get clobbered before you can move. You're standing still and your opponent is on the run, so your chance of getting away is much less. Attempting to run after shooting the arrow would require an initiative check in my game to see.

Again, it's also important to remember that as the action is occurring the players can also potentially change what they are doing. I still maintain round-by-round adjudication of actions, but it is also possible to wait too long and end up in the next round. That's much less of an issue, though, because the entire combat flows much more organically, and crossing the round barrier isn't that big of a deal.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

He kind of told you straight-up that he had additional rules.

He raised a problem: lack of simultaneity. Then he said re-rolling each round was a solution to that problem. Then he conceded that re-rolling each round raised a new problem: it's cumbersome. Finally he proposed lowering the die size and cutting back on modifiers as a solution to that problem. That was the flow of the logic as I understood it, and still understand it reading the sentence as it is written. (Seriously, read it for yourself. That's how it goes.) The first step from problem to solution didn't follow for me, so I challenged it.

He didn't say that these other rules are what solve the simultaneity problem. And they don't solve the simultaneity problem, so I had no reason to think he might have intended for them to be taken as such. It turns out he has yet another rule to solve it, "don't break ties", but he didn't mention that until after I questioned his statement. If you're telling me that I ought to have divined that's what he meant from the words he originally gave me, then you have a wildly inaccurate albeit flattering estimation of my telepathic abilities.

Might work better if you were critiquing the pros and cons of an actual, specific proposal instead of just griping about people having different preferences than yours. Just sayin'. Otherwise I don't know how or if to respond.

How is "this specific rule of re-rolling every round doesn't solve the specific problem of lack of simultaneity that you say it does" not such a critique?