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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Overall it looks pretty close (I'm short on time and just read the bold bits). I think it still doesn't mention legendary actions, and bullet #3 is different from how I do it: I have no issue with someone Delaying again, as you can see from the OP--Jack explicitly Delays once, and Cranduin and Vlad explicitly Delay once and implicitly Delay again (the DM knows the goblins have already gone so he lets Jack resolve his action immediately before Cranduin and Vlad declare, which means they were Delaying).

(2c) is an interesting variant but also not how I would do it, specifically with the "damage aborts ranged attacks if you fail a concentration save" thing.

RE: "Movement: Declarations of movement are not exactly precise. Fudge it." I'm not sure where this perspective originates. I wouldn't let someone move more than their movement allotment, so I don't think I would "fudge it." However, I don't require them to declare movement to a spatial location; declaring movement intention is just fine. "I stay next to Cranduin" is fine by me, as long as Cranduin doesn't Dash.

I didn't read it closely enough to spot any other differences.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What is the difference between these two examples? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that they are exactly the same, except the player in the second example didn't have to go to the effort of actually thinking through the situation in advance.

The difference is that condition resolution has a clunkier flow. The DM can't just resolve actions, he has to interrupt himself in the middle of action resolution to add new complexity (solicit additional declarations) in the middle of the round.

(Also, there's now a divergence between the character's thoughts and the player's thoughts, because you're pretending the PC saw this possibility coming all along and is ready for it, but the player becomes aware of it only after the character does. That feels clunky to me too; I'd rather make the PCs' thoughts reflect the player's.)

Not for me, no thank you.

EDIT: After some more thought, it occurs to me that in other situations, it might not be the exact same decision, and maybe CD and CR are not mutually exclusive. One could allow CD to reward players for thinking ahead, and still have CR as a safety net for players who aren't that advanced.

This is a solution in search of a problem. If you want to help new players, help them. You don't need to switch to a conditional resolution system with extra steps in combat just to give them advice. If a new player says, "I'll attack the same zombie as [some other player]," you can help them out right then and there by clarifying, "Okay, and if she kills the zombie before you get set up, do you want to wait or run over to whatever is closest and start attacking it immediately?"

If your goal is to help new players learn to proactively think ahead, help them learn to think ahead. Additional benefit: they may learn to think more than one round ahead. With conditional resolution, you're teaching them to think reactively.

I will stick with declare/resolve. Declare/resolve-declare-resolve-declare-resolve doesn't appeal to me.

 

[dave2008]

I disagree. High risk, but not high reward. 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.

Of course with this system everyone can move to cover before being shot by the ranged attack (if cover is available).

 

[GX.Sigma]

[sblock="Perpetuation of slightly off-topic, thread-derailing argument"]

The difference is that condition resolution has a clunkier flow. The DM can't just resolve actions, he has to interrupt himself in the middle of action resolution to add new complexity (solicit additional declarations) in the middle of the round.

I don't see why that'd be a problem, since resolution will consist of the DM resolving each action, one at a time, speaking aloud while the PCs listen. So, it wouldn't be much of an interruption to ask for a little clarification like that.

If you want to help new players, help them. You don't need to switch to a conditional resolution system with extra steps in combat just to give them advice.

I don't think it's adding an extra step. Declaring a conditional action is itself an extra step. I'm just moving that step to a different point in time (and, often, removing that step altogether).

If a new player says, "I'll attack the same zombie as [some other player]," you can help them out right then and there by clarifying, "Okay, and if she kills the zombie before you get set up, do you want to wait or run over to whatever is closest and start attacking it immediately?"

This seems like more of a clunky interruption. With my method, you're giving the player that exact same decision (a) less frequently, and (b) at a more natural time, i.e. when it actually matters. If anything, I'm trying to reduce the time it takes to declare actions--that's the main reason I'm looking for an alternative initiative system in the first place.

To clarify: It's not just new players. I have multiple friends whom I've been gaming with for years, and they can still barely remember how to make an attack roll. These are smart people; they're not incapable of learning the rules, they just don't want to. They just want say "I hit the bad guy with my axe" and move on. That's the level of involvement they're comfortable with.

But even if all the players are willing and able to play with conditional declaration, the low skill cap is problematic. I mean, a 'great' player will be no better at it than a 'good' player. It's just a mental calculation--you either get the correct answer, or you don't. The only reason you could get anything less than a perfect solution is if you make a mistake. The only reason you could make a mistake is if you didn't spend enough time and effort thinking about it. In other words, the optimal practice is to take more time before declaring your action.

If the hardcore players are going to do it perfectly 99% of the time, why even waste the time and energy on it?
If the casual players don't want to put the time and energy into it, why punish them for that?[/sblock]

Not for me, no thank you.

Point taken. I'm happy to continue this conversation, but it seems unlikely we're going to convince each other. We have such different goals for these rules, it makes more sense to split them than to combine them. I want to complete the project of codifying your system--it's helping me to understand it better; I hope it helps other people too. Maybe later I'll work on my own houserules of your (house)rules (lol).

On that note:

as you can see from the OP--Jack explicitly Delays once, and Cranduin and Vlad explicitly Delay once and implicitly Delay again (the DM knows the goblins have already gone so he lets Jack resolve his action immediately before Cranduin and Vlad declare, which means they were Delaying).

Ah, I missed that. So, "implicit delay" is a tool the DM can use to resolve actions in a more natural flow. Interesting. I'll put that in. Personally, I'm resistant to the idea of multiple delays because it might make the round feel longer than 6 seconds; have you encountered any problems with that?

(2c) is an interesting variant but also not how I would do it, specifically with the "damage aborts ranged attacks if you fail a concentration save" thing.

Are you OK with interrupting spells, or should that not even be a part of these rules yet?

RE: "Movement: Declarations of movement are not exactly precise. Fudge it." I'm not sure where this perspective originates....I don't require them to declare movement to a spatial location; declaring movement intention is just fine. "I stay next to Cranduin" is fine by me, as long as Cranduin doesn't Dash.

OK. I guess that's what I meant, I just wasn't sure how to express it as a rule. This helps.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That's actually a great Segway to explain what I mean by not having a target. So say there are 2 goblins. An archer declares he is targeting the closer one. The closer goblin declares he is going to hide. The archer rolls a 20 on his attack. The goblin rolls a 20 on his stealth. The tiebreaker system is brought out. The goblin wins it. Does the goblin succeeding at his hiding before the archer attacks him invalidate the archers whole turn or is he free now to target the other goblin?

Been away for a bit, but this seems like a good place to jump in.

If this were my game, it always depends on the circumstances, but we probably wouldn't make a Dexterity (Initiative) check here.

1) If the arrow is nocked and ready to shoot, then the arrow is released as the goblin is moving to hide.

-If the goblin is simply hiding (like in brush), then the arrow hits as originally rolled. This is because when the goblin was targeted (and the arrow loosed) it could be seen. Hiding doesn't change the trajectory of the arrow (or the goblin).

-If the goblin is ducking behind cover, though, then the chance of hitting the goblin is greatly reduced if it gets their first. In that case, they'd make a check and if the goblin wins, the effect of cover is calculated against the archer's attack (although since it was a 20, it's going to hit anyway, but let's assume it was a 19 instead).

The archer can't change his mind, since he's making the attack as the goblin is ducking into concealment/cover.

2) If the arrow was not nocked and ready to shoot, then it depends on how far the goblin has to go before it attempts to hide. Nocking an arrow and aiming takes longer than you might think.

In which case the goblin would be hidden before the shot is taken (and applicable penalties apply, since it cannot be seen when the shot is aimed and taken), and the archer could choose an alternate target.

The point is, when you're working through action like this on the fly and in your head(s), it needs to be fairly simple and logical. In general, my approach as a DM is to reward strategic thinking and actions (such as ducking behind cover), but also to be able to react on the fly when appropriate. Dexterity (Initiative) checks should be rare.

There's certainly not a problem if you want to make the opposed Dexterity (Initiative) check here, but we wouldn't.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Only because you called it one thing then talked about another.

Simultaneous initiative (or at least the possibility of some things being able to happen at the same time) is what I'm after; that and a way around cyclic turns.
But what if the 4 h.p. puts you down. Did you get your swing in for the 7 in return or not, and if so did that 7 put the foe down?

There should be three possible answers:
- the 7 got the foe first, he's down and I'm still up
- the 4 got me first, I'm down and he's still up
- the hits were simultaneous and we're both down

The game as is cannot possibly generate the third option, which to me is a very serious bug. On reading some of these other ideas I wonder if they might only generate the third option, which would be equally as bad.

Lanefan

By using an opposed Dexterity (Initiative) check, all three are possible. Simultaneous hits would be the least likely result, but a tie can occur.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Rather than allowing conditional declarations I would consider allowing a change in action, but at disadvantage or perhaps at the cost of your reaction - maybe both. The idea is that you want there to be a cost for having to make last minute adjustments.

We base it on the circumstance. We'd like to avoid the "game" of combat and instead allow the rules to adjudicate the actions in the combat. So if circumstances make it reasonable to alter your action, then go right ahead. If that change seems to put you at a disadvantage, then so be it. But I wouldn't want a rule that requires it.

So if you're charging across the battlefield at an orc, and your ranger buddy puts an arrow through its throat and drops it, you can alter your charge to attack another orc somewhere more or less in front of you (say, like a 20 or 30 degree arc on either side of your original target). On the other hand, if the only other possible target is an orcish sorcerer on a ridge 90 degrees to your left and at least 150 feet away, then you can (and almost certainly will) change your course of action, but it probably won't resolve this round.

Part of the idea for us is to focus on the action, rather than whether you resolve an action in every round. You've taken an action - you charged across the battlefield. You expected to have to clobber the orc you were screaming at, but that turned out to be moot. So you kick the orc in the head as you turn to survey the battlefield and consider your next move.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Been away for a bit, but this seems like a good place to jump in.

If this were my game, it always depends on the circumstances, but we probably wouldn't make a Dexterity (Initiative) check here.

1) If the arrow is nocked and ready to shoot, then the arrow is released as the goblin is moving to hide.

-If the goblin is simply hiding (like in brush), then the arrow hits as originally rolled. This is because when the goblin was targeted (and the arrow loosed) it could be seen. Hiding doesn't change the trajectory of the arrow (or the goblin).

-If the goblin is ducking behind cover, though, then the chance of hitting the goblin is greatly reduced if it gets their first. In that case, they'd make a check and if the goblin wins, the effect of cover is calculated against the archer's attack (although since it was a 20, it's going to hit anyway, but let's assume it was a 19 instead).

The archer can't change his mind, since he's making the attack as the goblin is ducking into concealment/cover.

2) If the arrow was not nocked and ready to shoot, then it depends on how far the goblin has to go before it attempts to hide. Nocking an arrow and aiming takes longer than you might think.

In which case the goblin would be hidden before the shot is taken (and applicable penalties apply, since it cannot be seen when the shot is aimed and taken), and the archer could choose an alternate target.

The point is, when you're working through action like this on the fly and in your head(s), it needs to be fairly simple and logical. In general, my approach as a DM is to reward strategic thinking and actions (such as ducking behind cover), but also to be able to react on the fly when appropriate. Dexterity (Initiative) checks should be rare.

There's certainly not a problem if you want to make the opposed Dexterity (Initiative) check here, but we wouldn't.

How do you decide whether or not the arrow was nocked and ready to shoot?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It's mainly the options for interruption of movement (including rendering an opponent unconscious or dead) available to 5e characters that really throw a monkey-wrench in the machinery.

Let's say that Orc Killington wants to rush 30 feet over to Wizard Squishypants and chop him up real good. Fighter McHackenslash wants to intercept Orc Killington's movement en route and shove him to the ground (and then live up to his name).

Those are mutually exclusive objectives that cannot play out simultaneously. If you have opposed initiative checks (in some form or another), but allow ties, it is clear what a success looks like for either side. I have no idea what a tie would look like for Orc Killington and Fighter McHackenslash.

This is why the way I run things, Fighter McHackenslash's declaration would have required both a readied action (or some other triggered reaction could let him do it after all declarations had been made) and a successful opposed Dexterity (Initiative) check.

The default, here, is that the outcomes do happen simultaneously. The option is to give up resources (a reaction plus extra attacks) to force an opposed check and try to make that not so. (The good news for the character is, if you have already heard an opponent's declaration, you already know your readied action will be triggered.)

And in my campaign, provided the speeds are such that McHackenslash (love the name) can get to the Killington first, then he would simply make his shove attempt. There's no reason in my mind for an initiative check of any sort here. If they are both 30 feet away, then it's a different story because you might want to see who arrives first.

Also, even in your example the outcomes do not occur simultaneously. The initiation of the actions might, but it's not the initiation of the action that's important, it's the resolution of the action.

At my table, I will describe any action that can be seen. So there's no need to ready anything.

DM: "The orc with the missing tusk starts to run toward Wizard Squishypants.

McH: "I'll try to head off the orc and shove him to try to knock him prone"

DM (During resolution): The orc's speed is 30, and so is McH, but McH is 10 feet away from WS: "The orc rushes across the field but you intercept him and attempt to shove it (the shove attempt is successful) and you knock it prone."

If McH is 30 feet away, then he might have to make a Dexterity (Initiative) check since the orc is already moving. Or I might simply give him disadvantage on his shove attempt.

I guess what it comes down to is that we use an opposed Dexterity (Initiative) check only when the circumstances are very unclear as to what action would resolve first. Just the fact that your blow is a killing blow doesn't automatically trigger a check, only if it's unclear, based on the circumstances, that either action resolves first.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

How do you decide whether or not the arrow was nocked and ready to shoot?

By the actions and descriptions given both before and during the current round.

For example, it's not uncommon for one of my players to indicate that they are going to nock an arrow when they feel that they are in imminent danger. If the party was just ambushed, and the archer hadn't suspected anything or indicated they were nocking an arrow, and this is the first round, then they don't have one nocked. Also, if it's not the first round of combat, if the character is hanging back in order to make ranged attacks, then the assumption is that after each attack they are immediately drawing and nocking the next arrow.

Everything flows together.