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

[Rune]

To be clear, are you disagreeing with my point that declaration/resolution creates a risk/reward transaction that's not present in the core rules? Or are you just talking about the balance issues of melee vs ranged?

Good point. As I showed in my examples, this system actually does penalize ranged attacks a bit (if you declare a ranged attack, and then someone gets in front of you, you have to shoot with disadvantage), but not as much as melee attacks.

Since 5e does already favor ranged attacks, I've already been thinking of ways to nerf ranged weapons. I think this system might make it easier to bring in some nerfs:

• Much higher chance to hit things you weren't trying to hit
• You can't move and shoot in the same round
• Ranged attacks can be interrupted like spells

What about having Sharpshooter require a ready an action to shoot when there's a clear shot (thus eliminating the possibility of using its benefits on extra attacks)?

 

[Rune]

It occurs to me that, if you're looking for a more granular approach to concurrent initiative (if your into that), you could factor weapon, movement, and casting speeds into the opposed initiative checks.

It would look like this:

Variant 1

1: All creatures declare actions and movement in whatever order.

2: Points of conflict requiring opposed Dexterity (Initiative) checks to resolve are determined.

3: Each participant modifies their check by a number based on their opponent's movement and action thus far in the round.

3a: Each 5 ft. of a participant's movement thus far adds 1 to their opponent's roll. Standing from prone adds 3.

3b: Each standard action a participant has attempted thus far adds 3 to their opponent's roll.

3c: Each bonus action a participant has attempted thus far adds 1 to their opponent's roll.

4: The combat round is resolved with the outcomes of initiative-contested events determining the order of relevant events and all other events occurring concurrently.

Example: Orc Killington declares he will move 60 ft. over to Wizard Squishypants and attack him, using his bonus action Aggressive ability to help close the distance. Fighter McHackenslash readies an action to intercept Orc Killington before he reaches Wizard Squishypants and shove him to the ground. Wizard Squishypants is unconcerned; even if Fighter McHackenslash fails, he still can cast Shield immediately. He decides sending a few Magic Missiles to Orc Killington's face would be an appropriate course of action.

Only the readied action forces an opposed Dexterity (Initiative) check, so Fighter McHackenslash plots a route that intercepts Orc Killington 40 ft. in, while only costing himself 15 ft. This means Fighter McHackenslash will get +9 (40 ft. of movement, plus a bonus action) to his check, while Orc Killington will get +6 (15 ft. of movement, plus a standard action to ready). If Fighter McHackenslash had chosen to intercept 10 ft. earlier, he would only get +6 (30 ft. of movement with no bonus action).

Variant 2

As above, except the action being currently attempted is included in all modifiers. Also, replace 3a with:

3a: Each 5 ft. of movement adds 1+(30-participant's movement speed)/25 to their opponent's roll, rounded down after totaling the distance moved. The minimum modified per 5 ft. moved is 0. Standing from prone counts as moving 15 ft. (So, a 25 ft. speed adds 1.2 per 5 ft. moved and, thus, +1 for 5 ft., +6 for 25. A 35 ft. speed adds 0.8 per 5 ft. move and, thus, +0 for 5 ft., +1 for 10 ft., +4 for 30 ft. A 60 ft. speed adds 0 for any distance moved.)

Additionally, 3b and 3c only apply to non-attack, non-movement, and non-casting actions. In addition, 3c also applies to non-attack and non-casting reactions.

Finally, add:

3d: Each attack attempted thus far (including the current one) by a participant adds 1 to their opponent's roll if the attack was made with a light weapon (or no weapon), 3 with a heavy weapon, and 2 with all others. If a weapon has the load property, each attack that had to be loaded instead adds double the modifier.

3e: Each spell a participant has thus far cast as a standard action (including the current one) adds 1+1 per spell level to their opponent's roll. Bonus action and reaction spells add (1+1 per spell level)/3, rounded up.

Example: Orc Killington declares he will move 60 ft. over to Wizard Squishypants and attack him, using his bonus action Aggressive ability to help close the distance. Fighter McHackenslash (a dwarf, since it's about to become relevant) readies an action to run over to Orc Killington and shove him prone before he can attack. Wizard Squishypants was hung over and forgot to prepare Shield today and also doesn't feel like moving around much, so he decides to ready an action to unload a few Magic Missiles into Orc Killington's face before he can get close enough to attack, hoping to drop him. Because, screw you, Fighter McHackenslash, for not having a hangover, also.

The relevant checkpoints are determined to be Wizard Squishypants's spell at a point somewhere along Orc Killington's route (Wizard Squishypants decides on 5 ft. away) and, if he fails that check, or fails to kill Orc Killington, Fighter McHackenslash's attempt to shove Orc Killington prone before he can attack.

For the first check, Wizard Squishypants gets +11 to his check (55 ft. of movement), while Orc Killington only gets +4 (a standard action to ready, plus a 1st level spell cast as a readied reaction).

If that fails to keep Orc Killington out of his face, Fighter McHackenslash moves to Orc Killington (let's say, 25 ft.) and they make their opposed check. Fighter McHackenslash gets +15 (60 ft. of movement, plus a single heavy weapon attack), while Orc Killington gets +10 (25 ft. of movement from a character with 25 ft. speed, plus a standard action to ready, plus a reaction to trigger the readied action).

Now, both of the above are way too granular for my tastes, but, what can I say? I just wanted an excuse to wright "Orc Killington," "Fighter McHackenslash," and "Wizard Squishypants" a bunch of times.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Briefly, yes, assuming he declares something more complicated ("charge") than your initial proposal, and the guard doesn't also declare something more complicated than your proposal (like "I'll run away, shooting back if I don't need to Dash"--I generally wouldn't have a guard declare something this complex unless he was a veteran of lots of mobile skirmishes). If the Barbarian wins initiative, he gets an attack and an opportunity attack but winds up not in melee; if he loses initiative, the guard gets a free shot at him this round but next round they're in melee.

That outcome seems pretty reasonable to me on two counts, based on my fencing experience--you can almost always charge someone successfully (although you might get stabbed on your way in); and those who are thinking ahead about their options react faster and better than those who are just responding to what's right there in front of them in the instant. The Barbarian's player is being rewarded for player skill, which sounds reasonable to me. (And the Barbarian's player probably won't develop that skill right off--the first three or ten combats will probably play out as per your original post, which again is why I wouldn't have the guard automatically use sophisticated tactics either.)

If it doesn't sound reasonable to you, don't allow it.

^I didn't notice this post at the time, but this is an interesting conversation. Perhaps it would help to explain what I'm looking for in an initiative system and why:

I've played D&D with hardcore gamers who like to optimize, master a system, and play to win. I've played D&D with complete newbies who are just excited about roleplaying, and wouldn't so much as skim a rulebook even if I asked them to. In both of these groups I've played with, the cyclic initiative system has always been a problem.

For the roleplayers, rolling initiative broke the flow of the story. It broke the cohesiveness of the group, isolating each player to a one-on-one microconversation with the DM, rather than the group dynamic that makes the whole rest of the game so fun. It forced them to learn rules they didn't care about, to avoid the embarrassment of getting something wrong while the whole table is waiting for them to finish their turn. They weren't "listening," they were "waiting for their turn to talk." They didn't want to play a wargame (certainly not a Chess game), they just wanted to go on an imaginary adventure with their friends. D&D combat is not fun for them.

For the powergamers, it slowed down the game. It made it a Chess game. They would wait for their turn to come around, assess the game state, figure out the most efficient use of their resources, and make the most optimal move. And that made combat take forever, it was really boring for everyone when it wasn't their turn, and everyone ended up complaining that "combat takes too long," and bought new editions on a promise of "faster combat." The thing is, I don't think these people really wanted to play Chess any more than the roleplayers did--but the most optimal way to play the game is to play it like Chess.

If the game is asking the player to choose between "winning" and "having fun," the game is poorly designed. The powergamer's goal is not to play the game in the most fun way, their goal is to win. If the path to winning isn't fun, it's not a fun game for them. Plot twist: I'm one of these powergamers. D&D combat is not fun for me.

The reason I really like the concept of declare/resolve is that it improves the experience for both of these groups. For the roleplayers, they can interact with combat the same way they interact with everything else, they can work together more easily, and the mechanics feel more like a story. For the powergamers, it changes the strategy (without removing strategic depth) from a Chess-like game that rewards forethought and mechanical precision, to a Poker-like game based on chance, probability, and bluffing. I don't know if it'll be any "faster" than combat with cyclical initiative, but I don't think that's even the real problem.

In other words, I think more hidden information and higher variance can lead to a game that feels more exciting and engaging for everyone, is easier for new or casual players to get into, and is just as strategic and interesting for more invested players.

those who are thinking ahead about their options react faster and better than those who are just responding to what's right there in front of them in the instant. The Barbarian's player is being rewarded for player skill, which sounds reasonable to me. (And the Barbarian's player probably won't develop that skill right off--the first three or ten combats will probably play out as per your original post, which again is why I wouldn't have the guard automatically use sophisticated tactics either.)

All I'm trying to say is, yes, it's good to reward player skill, but this is not a skill I want to reward. The more you reward forethought and mechanical precision, the closer it gets to Chess. The whole point of separating declaration and action (to me) is to reduce information and add variance. If you give a powergamer an opportunity to reduce variance and base their decision on more information, they'll take it, and try to "break" it. The process of learning that skill and being rewarded for developing it is great, but once you've mastered it, it makes the game more tedious (so it's actually kind of a punishment for everyone). And if some players have mastered it and some players haven't, the game becomes unbalanced. I want my game to be robust at all levels of play.

But I admit, I am using hyperbole to make a philosophical point, as a game design purist.

In a general sense, overkill is a positive feature, especially with ranged attacks. It's not like you know when you fire your arrow that somebody else is going to have fired another arrow at the target in the meantime and killed it. Nor will you necessarily even realize immediately when something has​ been fatally wounded, not until it topples over. Speaking as a DM, I'd be more resistant to someone trying to declare contingency ranged attacks than contingency melee attacks vs. dash, although I don't have any codified methodology to draw a bright line between what I would and wouldn't allow there.

Declaration/Resolution makes melee weaker since the enemy may not even be there. With range, it much less likely to matter if the guy moves first or not. And 5e already slightly favors ranged.

This is a very good point. How's this for a rule:

Ranged attacks are considered to be "fired" at the very beginning of the Resolution phase. The attacker has no control over the attack after declaring it. So, for example, if the target has moved behind total cover before the archer's initiative comes up, the attack misses. If another creature moves into the line of fire before the archer's initiative comes up, there is a chance for the attack to target that creature instead (let's just say equal chance for each possible target--if you're shooting into or across a scrum, there's a very low chance you'll hit who you're aiming at--and equal chance of hitting allies than enemies).

On the other hand, melee attacks are not executed until the initiative result at which they are resolved. An action declaration such as "I'll run in and attack that guy with my axe" can be given more flexibility during resolution (e.g., if the target is no longer there, the attacker can change his movement and attack a different target, or even take a Dash instead of an Attack action to get to the intended target).

 

[ClearlyTough69]

One other question. Over the course of a campaign, don't low Int PCs begin to resent having to declare first (or close to it most times)?

Yes, I see this as a potential weakness. For me the biggest drawback is that the declaration order, at least amongst the PCs is very static. One solution, is to make a declaration roll, analogous to an initiative roll: roll a die and add your Intelligence modifier. Small numbers declare first. Choose size of die to get your preferred weighting between the modifier and blind chance.

Love the whole idea behind this thread - makes me want to dust off my roundless combat system. It has similar opportunities for overkill and tactical fun.

 

[robus]

Ranged attacks are considered to be "fired" at the very beginning of the Resolution phase. The attacker has no control over the attack after declaring it. So, for example, if the target has moved behind total cover before the archer's initiative comes up, the attack misses. If another creature moves into the line of fire before the archer's initiative comes up, there is a chance for the attack to target that creature instead (let's just say equal chance for each possible target--if you're shooting into or across a scrum, there's a very low chance you'll hit who you're aiming at--and equal chance of hitting allies than enemies).

This seems like an initiative contest between the ranged attacker and the target. The target is trying to take cover before the attack hits. Roll initiative to see if the arrow reaches its target first?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

*snip*
In other words, I think more hidden information and higher variance can lead to a game that feels more exciting and engaging for everyone, is easier for new or casual players to get into, and is just as strategic and interesting for more invested players.

All I'm trying to say is, yes, it's good to reward player skill, but this is not a skill I want to reward. The more you reward forethought and mechanical precision, the closer it gets to Chess. The whole point of separating declaration and action (to me) is to reduce information and add variance. If you give a powergamer an opportunity to reduce variance and base their decision on more information, they'll take it, and try to "break" it. The process of learning that skill and being rewarded for developing it is great, but once you've mastered it, it makes the game more tedious (so it's actually kind of a punishment for everyone). And if some players have mastered it and some players haven't, the game becomes unbalanced. I want my game to be robust at all levels of play.

Our goals are very similar. I don't suppose it would help to point out that I haven't seen anyone attempting complicated conditions in practice, and that combat is NOT chess-like?

The reason "charge" sounds reasonable to me is that it maps very intuitively to something someone would actually do. I would be quite surprised if newbie roleplayers weren't about as likely as rule-hungry optimizers to declare a "charge"-type action. There are others on the thread who have mentioned that they'd handle this by having the DM offer to change the rule declaration on the fly, "He's out of reach, do you want to keep running?" I wouldn't do that, again because of my fencing experience, any more than I would suggest to players that they choose a more effective spell. But I view this as a minor detail that hasn't come up often in practice, and which DMs can easily tweak to their own taste.

I would also say that rewarding forethought and mechanical precision is bad only to the extent that it's being rewarded in an unrealistic way which doesn't map to the game world. If you reward forethought in a way which maps to in-game forethought (Shadow Monk scouting ahead so the party can turn the upcoming ambush by three trolls, by exposing the Dex-y Rogue and Shadow Monk who both have Evasion so that the hidden wizard can pop out and Fireball the trolls by surprise once they've clumped up and the hidden fighter can Action Surge with his longbow and put down one of the trolls on the first round) then the game is both challenging and fun. Cyclic initiative requires the wrong kind of forethought; but I don't think letting the Barbarian keep running if his target moves ("charge") requires the wrong kind of forethought. I think that forethought can happen in-character.

This is a very good point. How's this for a rule:

Ranged attacks are considered to be "fired" at the very beginning of the Resolution phase. The attacker has no control over the attack after declaring it. So, for example, if the target has moved behind total cover before the archer's initiative comes up, the attack misses. If another creature moves into the line of fire before the archer's initiative comes up, there is a chance for the attack to target that creature instead (let's just say equal chance for each possible target--if you're shooting into or across a scrum, there's a very low chance you'll hit who you're aiming at--and equal chance of hitting allies than enemies).

On the other hand, melee attacks are not executed until the initiative result at which they are resolved. An action declaration such as "I'll run in and attack that guy with my axe" can be given more flexibility during resolution (e.g., if the target is no longer there, the attacker can change his movement and attack a different target, or even take a Dash instead of an Attack action to get to the intended target).

It seems a bit complicated for my taste. I would just not allow complex conditions for ranged attacks like "if he's dead I'll shoot at someone else" the way I would for melee attacks. I wouldn't try to invent friendly fire rules like you are here. My intuition says you're going to pay more cost in complexity than the benefit you get in fun.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, I see this as a potential weakness. For me the biggest drawback is that the declaration order, at least amongst the PCs is very static. One solution, is to make a declaration roll, analogous to and initiative roll: roll a die an add your Intelligence modifier. Small numbers declare first. Choose size of die to get your preferred weighting between the modifier and blind chance.

Love the whole idea behind this thread - makes me want to dust of my roundless combat system. It has similar opportunities for overkill and tactical fun.

In practice the declaration order isn't that static. You just have to be flexible as a DM in how you handle declarations. If A has Int 11 and B has Int 17, don't literally force A to declare before B every time. If B wants to blurt out up front that "I'm running away!", then accept that. If B changes his mind because of what A declares I'd let him, as long as monster M with Int 18 isn't in the fight and/or hasn't declared an action.

But yes, you could make declaration order more dynamic if you cared to. If you do try a "declaration roll" system, do write back and let us know what the pros and cons were!

 

[MostlyDm]

In practice the declaration order isn't that static. You just have to be flexible as a DM in how you handle declarations. If A has Int 11 and B has Int 17, don't literally force A to declare before B every time. If B wants to blurt out up front that "I'm running away!", then accept that. If B changes his mind because of what A declares I'd let him, as long as monster M with Int 18 isn't in the fight and/or hasn't declared an action.

But yes, you could make declaration order more dynamic if you cared to. If you do try a "declaration roll" system, do write back and let us know what the pros and cons were!

So far I've run about... 8 or 9 combats with this initiative system, and this has been my experience too. Probably contributed to it due to most of the players being new kids or returning parents, but most declarations have been excited declarations with little heed given to who else is doing what. A few more precise tactical moments, where having the Int rule was useful. A few times where timing was essential and we rolled initiative checks (I don't save them, just roll a contest in a given round, has come up maybe 4 times total.)

So far everyone has been fully engaged and having a lot of fun. Great work, Hemlock. Thanks again!

 

[Rune]

In practice the declaration order isn't that static. You just have to be flexible as a DM in how you handle declarations. If A has Int 11 and B has Int 17, don't literally force A to declare before B every time. If B wants to blurt out up front that "I'm running away!", then accept that. If B changes his mind because of what A declares I'd let him, as long as monster M with Int 18 isn't in the fight and/or hasn't declared an action.

But yes, you could make declaration order more dynamic if you cared to. If you do try a "declaration roll" system, do write back and let us know what the pros and cons were!

I've been thinking of doing this part completely informally in my game (since, as I said earlier, my players never wait to declare, anyway).

Basically, they could declare in whatever order they like and if they declared something that they probably wouldn't with the knowledge of what a less intelligent enemy was going to do, I'd tell them. Additionally, they'd always be free to ask, "Can I tell what they're about to do?"

 

[robus]

Tried to propose this tonight and got a horrified look from the rules lawyer. The players in general were not too receptive I guess I'm the only one feeling the gears grinding as we switch into combat mode. We won't be trying it any time soon it seems.