Enemy Turns ?

[Prestidigitalis]

See OnlineDM's quote from the DMG above - it's usually easily accomplished using readied actions, and something the players can do just as handily if they co-ordinate.

Huh. I haven't read the DMG, so I didn't know about that. But there is one big difference that makes the two cases not truly comparable.

The DM usually has a bunch of creatures that already share the same initiative position, and therefore automatically coordinate. For the players to do it, some of them will have to waste their higher positions in the initiative order, and there is substantial chance that events will keep at least some of their readied actions from triggering.

I would be especially concerned about this given the DMs I have seen who can get a bit draconian with regard to the wording of readied action triggers.

 

[corwyn77]

Huh. I haven't read the DMG, so I didn't know about that. But there is one big difference that makes the two cases not truly comparable.

The DM usually has a bunch of creatures that already share the same initiative position, and therefore automatically coordinate. For the players to do it, some of them will have to waste their higher positions in the initiative order, and there is substantial chance that events will keep at least some of their readied actions from triggering.

I would be especially concerned about this given the DMs I have seen who can get a bit draconian with regard to the wording of readied action triggers.

If you're concerned with faster characters losing their high positions you could just have the slower characters delay until they wrap around.

 

[DracoSuave]

Huh. I haven't read the DMG, so I didn't know about that. But there is one big difference that makes the two cases not truly comparable.

The DM usually has a bunch of creatures that already share the same initiative position, and therefore automatically coordinate. For the players to do it, some of them will have to waste their higher positions in the initiative order, and there is substantial chance that events will keep at least some of their readied actions from triggering.

I would be especially concerned about this given the DMs I have seen who can get a bit draconian with regard to the wording of readied action triggers.

Higher positions on the initiative order only matter on turn 1. IF the monsters are all collated into one block of monster-go, the players are also so collated, so it's little loss if say, the rogue, loses his 'high initiative' to swap places with a cleric who can, next round, swap back.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Higher positions on the initiative order only matter on turn 1. IF the monsters are all collated into one block of monster-go, the players are also so collated, so it's little loss if say, the rogue, loses his 'high initiative' to swap places with a cleric who can, next round, swap back.

Exactly. If you have a rogue at 25, cleric at 16, fighter at 14, and your band of orcs at 10... the initiative numbers of those PC don't really matter anymore. All that matter is "three PCs go first, the orcs after them". So the rogue moving into position and then "readying" an attack once an ally moves into flank does make him "lose" his rank 25 initiative down to now 16 or 14 (whichever ally moved into flank)... but it doesn't affect anything because it's still "three PCs go first... the orcs after them".

 

[Lord Xtheth]

what I normally do is I take the highest init roll of my players and the highest init roll of my monsters. I let the players all go at their init, and all my monsters go at the same init.
The players each have thier own turn, but they all discus amongst themselves what course of actions would be most advantageous for all of them. My monsters coordinate in the same fashion.

Its really easy, and the players seem to like that kind of controll of their collective turn. "We're all dying! Let the healer go first!"

 

[OnlineDM]

what I normally do is I take the highest init roll of my players and the highest init roll of my monsters. I let the players all go at their init, and all my monsters go at the same init.
The players each have thier own turn, but they all discus amongst themselves what course of actions would be most advantageous for all of them. My monsters coordinate in the same fashion.

Its really easy, and the players seem to like that kind of controll of their collective turn. "We're all dying! Let the healer go first!"

I agree that if players are all going together or monsters are all going together it absolutely makes sense for them to decide who goes first and to change this up from round to round as needed. This is how delaying and readying work, after all.

However, I don't like having all my players go at once and all my monsters go at once in every battle. If I have four players and three groups of monsters, it's entirely possible that the initiative order will be:

1. Player A
2. Monsters A
3. Monsters B
4. Player B
5. Player C
6. Monsters C
7. Player D

If initiative comes up like this, that's fine. Monsters A and B can go in any order and players B and C can go in any order (and after the first round the same is true for players A and D). But I wouldn't want to put players B, C and D up with Player A as you seem to advocate - that means that their initiative rolls don't matter. (The party could metagame this so that their highest-dexterity character loads up on things like Improved Initiative and no one else ever bothers to think, "Hmm, maybe having 12 in Dex instead of 8 would be nice because it would help my initiative...")

I've also found it to be a little bit boring and a little bit swingy when all of the players go as a group and all of the monsters go as a group. It's a lot easier to gang up on either one player or one bad guy if everyone on your team goes at the same time. If it happens randomly, fine, but if not then I would never force it to happen.

 

[the Jester]

A pc died in my game last weekend because the party all delayed and tried to coordinate their initiatives, so while you can do that, it isn't always the best option. Sometimes the bad guys are delaying or readying too, or a new combatant is coming in, or there is a trap that is waiting to trigger that you don't know about, or...

 

[Saeviomagy]

Each monster has it's own turn. This is necessary to make sure that if 10 goblins run past the fighter, each one cops an opportunity attack.

Now, as others have pointed out, when the DM moves monsters, he can feel free to use delay to move whichever one he feels like first. He can also use ready to do things like "the monsters move to surround you, then they all attack... with flanking!"

However he should play fair and if you do something like move away once all the foes have finished their move (and there's a bunch of ways to do this), they're all going to lose their readied actions.

In the game I play in, the players use ready and delay to improve initiative ordering all the time and the monsters will too. The main issue is that monsters readying leads to individual monsters with different initiatives to the rest of the pack, but the tactical dimensions added are worth it to us.

 

[frankthedm]

The DM usually has a bunch of creatures that already share the same initiative position, and therefore automatically coordinate. For the players to do it, some of them will have to waste their higher positions in the initiative order,

Then ask the DM to let the party take a single initiative roll. If you have players who are so lone wolf they view delaying to act together as a waste, it would be best to not let them roll separate initiatives.

I would be especially concerned about this given the DMs I have seen who can get a bit draconian with regard to the wording of readied action triggers.

Readies are supposed to be specific. "I attack when my ally gives me a flanking bonus on this enemy" rather than "I'll have an attack waiting for whenever it is convenient".