D&D 5E (Homebrew) Dynamic Initiative System, 4 year feedback

[DND_Reborn]

I think it looks good over all. I (sort of) agree with @Stalker0 about the spells, but I would make it spells with a single component (V or S... I don't know of any that are M only) is fast, then make all other spells slow.

Alternatively, to regress back you might want to make single component spells fast, and all other spells d6+spell level? In a lot of ways, I do like tying speed to spell level so casters will know their super spells will likely happen at the end of the round. If you do spell interruption (personally I would) then it allows for interruption during the "casting", starting at the die roll, ending just before the spell goes off.

Ex. A casting of Fireball would be d6+3. If the player rolled a 4, the spell could be interrupted on a 4, 5, or 6. On 7, the spell is done and cast.

 

[Zaukrie]

I really don't know about systems that make it more likely speellcasters don't get a turn. Weapon attackers don't get interrupted. I'm not sure how that increases fun.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I really don't know about systems that make it more likely speellcasters don't get a turn. Weapon attackers don't get interrupted. I'm not sure how that increases fun.

It just depends on your view about how spells work in the game.

IMO, spells (especially with somatic and verbal components) should take time to complete. Higher level spells (in general) should take longer to complete. Getting out material components should also take some time and add to the process. While the caster is doing all the things, a successful hit or failed save would require a concentration check to continue the casting.

If your view is more that spells are "instantaneous" then it would be harder to interrupt them as they are cast.

 

[Zaukrie]

It just depends on your view about how spells work in the game.

IMO, spells (especially with somatic and verbal components) should take time to complete. Higher level spells (in general) should take longer to complete. Getting out material components should also take some time and add to the process. While the caster is doing all the things, a successful hit or failed save would require a concentration check to continue the casting.

If your view is more that spells are "instantaneous" then it would be harder to interrupt them as they are cast.

I get all that......but why only punish one type of character? I've always been less of a fan of interruption than most others.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I get all that......but why only punish one type of character? I've always been less of a fan of interruption than most others.

Well, because (originally at least) spells were very powerful. It was the same reason MUs had d4 for HP. It was a balance of power issue.

IMO spells are still very powerful in 5E compared to weapon attacks and so I don't mind the interruption mechanics. After all, spellcasters can do things other classes have no chance of doing, so that is their benefit and interruption their balance point.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I think this is better, its getting to the core of what you want to do but stripping away the extra that's not adding much. I would take it a step further, just make all spells "slow" except for the verbal onlys.... its two much of a pain to figure out which spells have 2 components vs 3.

Interesting idea. We originally had all spells at d10, but it seemed to penalize casters who did have that arsenal of "quick" spells. That would speed things up.

You could probably also have incapacitated people always go at the end of the round just to again remove the figuring out exactly when they actually go vs when they might go.

Also an interesting idea. The danger would be that it could make effects where the save occurs during the victim's turn, like "hold person," more deadly in that they would tend to last longer. EDIT: actually not a problem if you track effects on the initiative they occur (e.g. if hold person tags you on initiative 6, you save on initiative 6 next round...then if they saved, they could act, albeit end of round with their "if I get free" declaration.)

The d20 (we've bounced between a d12 and d20) gives a small chance the player might act during the 1-10 count that others would. But, will definitely take a look.

Also, curious why you go with "low is good" for this system, instead of flipping the dice around and make "high is good". Is that just to avoid counting backwards?

Yes.

Found it easier to count up in groups (e.g. 1-3, 4-6, anyone higher?) than down.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I really don't know about systems that make it more likely spellcasters don't get a turn. Weapon attackers don't get interrupted. I'm not sure how that increases fun.

It hearkens back to AD&D days when spells could be interrupted but also tended to be drastically more powerful. Hold Person, for example, used to affect 1d4 targets and paralyze them 2 rounds per caster level, no saves to break it each round, all for a 2nd level spell.