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

Have you read the 5e DMG attentively from cover to cover?

  • Yes, I read the DMG from cover to cover as a DM

    Votes: 121 57.1%
  • I only read the portions I need as a DM and discover the rules over time

    Votes: 85 40.1%
  • I don't read the DMG because I'm a player

    Votes: 7 3.3%
  • I read the DMG even though I'm a player

    Votes: 7 3.3%
  • No but my DM informed me of all the available choices

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No but my DM informs me of the choices available in his/her campaign.

    Votes: 2 0.9%

Asisreo

Patron Badass
Disagree. Side initiative is the recipe for random TPKs because the monsters get can two consecutive rounds of combat agains the PCs. We abandoned that in the early 80s very fast. Individual initiative is available in the Basic Moldvay book.

Side initiative is a relic of old school rank & file battlefield war-games. I fully understand why Gygax-Arneson used that. They were creating the game from scratch. For me, it has no place in a game (D&D) about skirmish fights at the squad level. If combat is a bit little longer I don't mind.

The problem is elsewhere. Too many games concentrates on putting fights back to back to award XPs and level up, then complain about combat time. Drop XPs per encounter in favour of story XPs or set XPs after a number of games. It will change how you and your players play the game.
I've used grouped initiative since day one of DMing 5e and my players have yet to TPK because of it. It does get scary and players have even died from it, but it's only ever the wizard or sorcerer who decided they wanted to be the front-liner for no reason.

It's actually an elegant solution to the problem "my high AC player can't get hit unless I design spellcasters every encounter." High AC characters getting surrounded has two things. 1. They can't move and 2. They get attacked roughly 8 times on the first round and even at 25% to-hit for the monsters, they're likely to get hit once.

Edit: assuming roughly 8 monsters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Hussar

Legend
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.

Well, the upside is that if you're like me and run larger encounters pretty regularly, with the PC's going individually then all the monsters going consecutively, I'm pretty much guaranteed to kill PC's.

Note, I CdG downed PC's if I'm using intelligent foes. So, if I use "all same monsters use same initiative", it's pretty much guaranteed that your character will die the second zero HP is reached. The only way it isn't happening is if you happen to get downed by the last or almost last opponent. Otherwise, dead PC.

Using individual initiatives allows for far more tactical opportunities.
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
Well, the upside is that if you're like me and run larger encounters pretty regularly, with the PC's going individually then all the monsters going consecutively, I'm pretty much guaranteed to kill PC's.

Note, I CdG downed PC's if I'm using intelligent foes. So, if I use "all same monsters use same initiative", it's pretty much guaranteed that your character will die the second zero HP is reached. The only way it isn't happening is if you happen to get downed by the last or almost last opponent. Otherwise, dead PC.

Using individual initiatives allows for far more tactical opportunities.
It's possible to run large encounters without absolutely destroying your party. Even when prioritizing downed PC's, large encounters actually feel more tactical.

For one, the fight begins before combat does. Positioning and ambushing is key to being successful. If you're surrounded, you're in big trouble. Likewise, being cautious enough to not let things get the jump on you is very important. When you suspect a fight, prep the battlefield with your own traps and such. When it's about to begin, be sure to take cover whenever you can. Spellcasters need to cast their AOE's pretty often, otherwise it can get overwhelming if there's still 10+ enemies on the field. High AC characters can still get significantly damaged by melee combatants just by the sheer number of attacks.

And don't get me started on the battles themselves. Remember, only identical monsters get the same initiative, not all of them. You can set up, say, 10 zombies rushing for melee while 5 skeletons are shooting from a distance and 2 spellcasters. Now, as a sorcerer you could cast fireball and get the 10 zombies since the fighter hasn't gotten into melee yet but the skeletons' turns are right after yours and they'll probably focus fire you. Or maybe you should take out the spellcasters because they might have something particularly nasty.

Besides, a common complaint is that players don't take death seriously because of revival spells so the more chances to remind my players of their mortality, the better.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Well, the upside is that if you're like me and run larger encounters pretty regularly, with the PC's going individually then all the monsters going consecutively, I'm pretty much guaranteed to kill PC's.

Note, I CdG downed PC's if I'm using intelligent foes. So, if I use "all same monsters use same initiative", it's pretty much guaranteed that your character will die the second zero HP is reached. The only way it isn't happening is if you happen to get downed by the last or almost last opponent. Otherwise, dead PC.

Using individual initiatives allows for far more tactical opportunities.

As I said above, encounter design is important in my view and this seems like an issue of encounter design that is being corrected with a demonstrably slower initiative system. I'd fix it on the encounter design end personally rather than slow down the game. I'd also expect the players to make more use of spare the dying in such a setup, and would imagine I'd see more grave clerics to deal with NPCs/monsters attacking dying PCs.
 





Remove ads

Top