D&D 5E Have you actually read the 5e DMG?

[dave2008]

In my experience, it is. It's a red flag when I see the DM using individual monster initiative. If I see it happen, I don't play a second game with that DM. Combats run too slowly by comparison to someone who uses group initiative for like monsters.

It is dependent on several factors IMO. A few monsters is no issue, but if I have 20 orcs, there is no way I am going to use individual initiative. I do whatever I need to do to resolve all the monster's turn in no more than 5 minutes of table time total. I usually get it under 2 minutes and 1 minute is not atypical. I can run 2-4 monsters in 1 minute or less.

 

[billd91]

It is dependent on several factors IMO. A few monsters is no issue, but if I have 20 orcs, there is no way I am going to use individual initiative. I do whatever I need to do to resolve all the monster's turn in no more than 5 minutes of table time total. I usually get it under 2 minutes and 1 minute is not atypical. I can run 2-4 monsters in 1 minute or less.

But if I have 20 orcs, there's also no way I'm running all 20 on the same initiative either even if they have identical stats. That's kind of abusive. I'm breaking them up into groups of 4-5.

 

[iserith]

It is dependent on several factors IMO. A few monsters is no issue, but if I have 20 orcs, there is no way I am going to use individual initiative. I do whatever I need to do to resolve all the monster's turn in no more than 5 minutes of table time total. I usually get it under 2 minutes and 1 minute is not atypical. I can run 2-4 monsters in 1 minute or less.

I see no upside to individual initiative on like monsters. It's always going to be by some factor slower than not doing that. A minute here, a minute there, it starts to add up to session time eaten up for no good reason in my view.

 

[Reynard]

I see no upside to individual initiative on like monsters. It's always going to be by some factor slower than not doing that. A minute here, a minute there, it starts to add up to session time eaten up for no good reason in my view.

Is speed of play the most important factor? I don't think it always is.

With Fantasy grounds in particular, I can use individual initiatives for each monster and it does not take any longer than it does to have them all act at the same time. Plus, it has the benefits of a) being more "realistic", b) increasing the chaos of combat, and c) keeping players engaged. I admit it would be pretty touch to do at an IRL table unless you have a super efficient method for tracking initiatives and declaring actions. But then running 20 orcs at the table would be a slow and laborious process anyway.

 

[iserith]

Is speed of play the most important factor? I don't think it always is.

Pace is one of the most important factors in my view.

With Fantasy grounds in particular, I can use individual initiatives for each monster and it does not take any longer than it does to have them all act at the same time. Plus, it has the benefits of a) being more "realistic", b) increasing the chaos of combat, and c) keeping players engaged. I admit it would be pretty touch to do at an IRL table unless you have a super efficient method for tracking initiatives and declaring actions. But then running 20 orcs at the table would be a slow and laborious process anyway.

I use a VTT as well. Group initiative is still faster.

 

[dave2008]

I see no upside to individual initiative on like monsters. It's always going to be by some factor slower than not doing that. A minute here, a minute there, it starts to add up to session time eaten up for no good reason in my view.

I constrain my players to 30 seconds per turn (declare, roll attack, roll damage all in 30s), I generally do each monster in 15-20 seconds. That means a 4 v 4 fight can takes about 3 minutes per round or 10 minutes or less for the entire combat. I don't have an issue with time wasted, IMO. However, the benefit of using individual initiative (when I do it) is that it is more dynamic. If player A resolves her actions and monster 1 resolves its actions after play A and then player B has to resolve his actions. That gives player B roughly 15 seconds to think about what they are doing. However, if it goes player A then monsters 1-4, that gives player B 1 minute to think about what they are doing (or get distracted). I find that when I use individual initiative, everyone tends to stay a bit more engaged and the combats are more dynamic. Also, if monsters 1-4 act between player A & B, player B may be dead before it gets to act. So that is the benefit I have noticed in our group. Obviously your experience is different. That is a beautiful thing about D&D, we are all playing a different game to some extent.

FYI, I actually tend to have the opposite issue and strive to make fights last longer.

 

[Reynard]

Pace is one of the most important factors in my view.

I agree, but there are lots of ways to control pacing, and I think pacing outside of combat is far more important.

I use a VTT as well. Group initiative is still faster.

I'm not convinced, but even so I can say with certainty that large battles with lots of foes that are all bunched up leads pretty easily to play zone out, which means they aren't ready when it is there turn, which means it makes those battles take longer.

 

[dave2008]

I see no upside to individual initiative on like monsters. It's always going to be by some factor slower than not doing that. A minute here, a minute there, it starts to add up to session time eaten up for no good reason in my view.

FYI, to clarify, I don't discount your experience. They are just different than mine. There are goods reasons for our group, but that doesn't mean they work for you and your group.

 

[Asisreo]

Is speed of play the most important factor? I don't think it always is.

With Fantasy grounds in particular, I can use individual initiatives for each monster and it does not take any longer than it does to have them all act at the same time. Plus, it has the benefits of a) being more "realistic", b) increasing the chaos of combat, and c) keeping players engaged. I admit it would be pretty touch to do at an IRL table unless you have a super efficient method for tracking initiatives and declaring actions. But then running 20 orcs at the table would be a slow and laborious process anyway.

Speed of play is one of the most important parts of play imo and combat is already too slow for the majority of coffee addicted working adults. If a 4-5 hour session has 1 combat encounter and maybe 1 social encounter, it feels like it'll take a century before anything truly interesting happens.

Also, using group initiative is actually more fun, imo. Being outnumbered is a real danger and players actually fear getting surrounded and mobbed (you can't move through a hostile creature's space.)

If I'm running 20 orcs, I'm using mob combat with standard initiative. If I want to break them up into groups, might as well do it with different orc types. For instance, instead of 20 orcs, maybe 5 orcs, 2 eyes of gruumush, and a war chief. A dynamic encounter without being completely swarmed all at once.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not saying it's impossible to play a good game with individual initiative, I'm just saying it's a houserule more infamous than monopoly's free parking money.

Not if you use the optional rule for speed factor. That rule replaces the initiative rule in the PHB and doesn't require identical monsters to roll in groups.