Freeform initiative alternative

[Charwoman Gene]

I run my Play-by-posts like this. Works really well.

I'd suggest it to my tabletop GM but I am in voluntary exile.

 

[firesnakearies]

I think I'm going to try this. But slightly differently in the initial rolling. Every PC and each monster/similar monster group will roll their own initiative. We then compare the highest initiative result from each side. Whichever side has the highest wins initiative, and then each PC or creature from that side who beats the highest initiative roll of the losing side gets to act. Then the entire losing side acts, then the entire winning side, and then it's just back and forth with each side acting at once on their own group turns.

So if there are five PCs who roll 18, 16, 13, 11, and 5, and five monsters who roll 22, 19, 17, 15, and 14, it would go...

Monster 22 and 19 act first.
Then ALL of the PCs.
Then ALL of the monsters.
Then repeat the last two over and over for the whole encounter.


This is just like what weem described, except it doesn't automatically favor the PCs every time. If one or more monsters roll higher than all PCs, then they get to act first, just like the PCs would if they rolled higher than all monsters.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

This is just like what weem described, except it doesn't automatically favor the PCs every time. If one or more monsters roll higher than all PCs, then they get to act first, just like the PCs would if they rolled higher than all monsters.

Hmm, so if one player rolls a 20, the monsters all roll in the teens, and the remaining players roll single digits, then all the monsters go before all the PCs but one. But if you add one monster who rolls a 21, then all the PCs go before all the monsters but one. Seems weird, but I suppose it's just one corner case.

My current thought is to have all the monsters take 10 for initiative. Then in the initiative sequence, any consecutive group of creatures on the same team can act in any order. Chances are almost all the PCs will roll above all the monsters' "passive initiative" scores or below all. If necessary, I may bias monster tactics to consolidate groups.

And if that turns out to be too complicated, I'll fall back to the average passive initiative score for the monsters.

 

[Whimsical]

I also was going to suggest setting the monster initiative as a set DC, 10 + average init modifier, that the players roll against. This will speed combat a smidgeon faster since the DM can have the initiative DC as part of the monster block or encounter notes.

 

[tuxgeo]

Been doing this for a long while now. Here's my write-up from back then (here at EN World)...

< vast snippage hereabouts >

This is the method I use, but it is NOT my invention. You can see it here... http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.ph...silent-killer/

< and remainder snipped as well >

Broken link, ending in "index.ph...silent-killer" -- that's not a whole URL.
Fixit pliz?

 

[IronWolf]

Broken link, ending in "index.ph...silent-killer" -- that's not a whole URL.
Fixit pliz?

Here is the correct URL:

Initiative: the Silent Killer

 

[weem]

Broken link, ending in "index.ph...silent-killer" -- that's not a whole URL.
Fixit pliz?

My bad, I had gone and grabbed it from an old post that had shortened I guess. IronWolf got it though

 

[Holy Bovine]

I know my posts come off as defensive - and I don't mean to be, I just want to make sure the idea is not dismissed (by anyone) as not different enough or of only good use as a problem solving tool - it is cool in many different ways, for different reasons.

Defensive? Not at all. You've got me intrigued by it and I'm getting a better understanding of it as you post.

This method of initiative management has been a game changer for my various groups and many others.

One quick story - my brother lives 3 hours away from me, but runs a game for 7 people, all of whom we have known and gamed with for a loong time. Very cohesive, well experienced group. One night on the phone I was explaining to my brother how well this method had been working for us, and he said he might just have to give it a try... but he said the guys did really well anyway, and that he wasn't sure they would be down to try it.

The next time I went up there (about 2 months later), I ran into some of these guys before I saw my brother and right away, after the hello's they were diving into how awesome "your initiative system is". They were really into it. Of course, I corrected them and said it wasn't mine (though I seem to be it's biggest advocate over this last year).

Anyway, it won't be for everyone i would guess, but I have not seen anyone use it and later switch back once they have tried it for a few encounters.

If people try and it don't like it? Well, at least they tried it, and that's awesome!

One question I have - assuming you play 3E or 4E with the feats that give initiative bonuses - have you found people regretting them once the new system was in place? What about things like the Warlord's (in 4E) Combat Leader ability (+2 initiative to all allies)? It looks like these kinds of abilities lose a lot of their appeal in such a system. Not a horrible thing but I was wondering about your experiences in this.

 

[weem]

One question I have - assuming you play 3E or 4E with the feats that give initiative bonuses - have you found people regretting them once the new system was in place? What about things like the Warlord's (in 4E) Combat Leader ability (+2 initiative to all allies)? It looks like these kinds of abilities lose a lot of their appeal in such a system. Not a horrible thing but I was wondering about your experiences in this.

(I'm playing 4e with this method, fyi)

Getting an initiative bonus is about getting to act first, or at least before as many of your enemies as possible... the desire for the bonus, in other words, is a desire to go before them initially. There's really no difference after that between the methods when it comes to number of actions right? In either method, a higher init bonus/roll increases your changes to act first... after that, everyone is going to get about the same number of actions depending on where in the round the encounter ends. If the last mob dies just before you act, the others who went in this round may (or may not) have had one more action than you (if they got to go before the mobs)... but this is true in either method (that there is a difference of 1 action potentially).

Now, with the NEW method, there is actually a chance to get 2 more actions than someone else in your party. That would be if 1) your went before the mobs, you would have one more action than those that didn't AND 2) if the encounter ends during the PC's round and you happened to get your action in BEFORE that happened (encounter ending). In this case, you would have had 2 more actions than those who a) didn't go before the mobs and b) didn't act in the PC's round before the encounter ended.

I don't think this is a significant enough difference to make people desire or avoid initiative bonus feats any more for one method than another. I also don't think it devalues any class features either. In fact, you could argue that they are more valuable in the new method since there is a chance to have 2 more actions in an encounter than a given PC (instead of 1).


<edit>

And to more specifically address the question, no, I have had no one avoid those feats or regret any choices or features that give init bonuses at all

</edit>