Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 2938752" data-attributes="member: 32740">Technically anything optional - regardless of its source - that is added to the game is a house rule.  But that's irrelevant.  It's a lousy rule period.I think you'll find that most people do not consider optional rules, even if published in the Core Books, to be considered RAW in any way.It's a roleplaying game sure enough - but it's still a GAME.  Manipulation of the rules for the sake of manipulating the rules is NOT a crime in and of itself.  Whining, metagaming, "it's all about me" players are NOT prevented from being such no matter what rules the DM uses, but a constant randomization of initiative from round to round won't prevent metagaming the rules.  For example, with random initiative rerolled each round, if you have a good dex and take the Improved Initiative feat you can consistently end up at the top of the order anyway.  Or worse.  You can win initiative one round, delay what you do until the end of the round - and then in rerolling initiative for the next round consistently win again and then be able to take a second turn in a row.  If you as a DM pulled that kind of stuff on a PLAYER the screams would be heard for miles.Not railroading - but such can certainly be annoying when they are unneeded, arbitrary and stridently undesired by the players.  The only thing accomplished with rolling initiative every round is greater randomness and chaos.  It seems to me that in this case the players realize this but the DM doesn't.The DM may be a recent convert from older editions or maybe just doesn't really understand the effects of what he's doing.  Whatever the reason the OP should FIND OUT why the DM is so set on this.  There are excellent reasons to use 3E circular intiative that (as of several years ago at least) were only argued by people who wanted to do it differently for no particularly good reason and wanted an excuse (as if they then actually needed one).  Learning what the DM sees in it will be far more useful as a place to start than just handing him pages and pages of argument against the idea.  If the DM's reaction to defending his choice is then something along the lines of, "just like it or lump it", well then you know what the real problem is.  When the basis of the DM's stance is understood THEN you can effectively argue against it.</blockquote>

Verification