D&D 5E House Rules That Make The Game Better

[steeldragons]

Your home-brew being so popular in this thread really confuses me due to the particular part i quote.

I had no indication that is was all that popular. But ok.

Just because all the pc's go before the enemy should never lead to them getting to choose what order they act in.

Why not? They're the players. What their characters do/want to try to do is kinda...ya know...their thing.

For starts your instantly letting your characters know that they have won the initiative, a piece of tactical knowledge i would certinally look to abuse

Guess I just play with folks a little more...mature? Less concerned with "abusing" things. But I fail to see how, if all PCs have a higher initiative than what I have, what else am I supposed to be doing than letting them know they go first?

i.e say they've walked into a room where they know they've bitten of more than they can chew e.g tactical retreats, if the party are unsure in what order they will act in 1 of the frontline characters may charge into the room whilst the others flee, any reason to do this is removed when you know for a fact your group will act first.

If it is something obviously more than the party can chew, then how do you figure needing to run away is, somehow, "removed" if they are acting first?

Also by letting them decide what order they act in the mage casting fireball will always get perfect value were as if he acted after the 2 intelligence fighter who's bound to charge into melee with his great axe he would struggle to get the same value.

Again, type of players/playstyle and maturity, I suppose come in here. I expect my player of an Int. 2 fighter to act as an Int. 2 fighter. I expect the other players, knowing this about the character, will somehow try to stop him from charging in if the mage plans to throw a fireball...but maybe they won't...maybe he'll listen...maybe he won't and the characters can bitch him out after for "screwing up their plan, you moron!"...or the mage's player can decide, all on his own without any need for my interference, to cast his fireball anyway.

Again, this is all player decisions. As DM, I really shouldn't need to burden myself to "direct" any of this.

1) If they want to calculate by the numbers, halfling rogue goes first, then mage with the +2 dex. mod, then Int. 2 fighter...and play that way/in that order...that's fine.
2) If they've won initiative outright, they're all still going before any of my guys. So what difference does that make versus, say, clockwise round the table: fighter, rogue, mage. That's fine too...from my side of things...because they're all going/rolled higher initative than my side.
...or
3) let the players take their 30 seconds to a minute to confer for a quickie plan/consensus, and then me saying "Ok, so what's happening?" Player 1 says: "Dilbert ducks behind Smasho who stands ready to dive in as soon as Ballistopholes finishes his spell." Finety fine fine.

Any of those can happen before I, as DM, am rolling anything...if I've lost the initiative, outright. If it's a case of some PCs going first and some going after me, then, obviously, that can't happen.

But, if all of the party [with or without their mods] beats out what I roll [+any of my enemy guys' mods], then what difference does it make HOW the players want to handle it? They're all still going first...so why add complexity -from my end! the players are welcome to complicate things among themselves as much as they want- where it's not necessary.

I can see the time saving values but all your doing is making the game tactically easier and less realistic to how combat would unfold in real life?

Ah! I see where the confusion is.

1) The game is not any "tactically easier" as any other since the whole party is not ALWAYS winning initiative. AND init. changes from round to round. So how is this so much more easy/taking something tactical away from the game? It can change next round without even blinking.

and 2) I play a fantasy RPG in a fantasy world. What is "[more or] less realistic to how combat would unfold in real life" is really not at all a concern/factor. EDIT to add/clarify: I DM off a meter of "makes sense." Telling me what the realistic real world results of something are, is generally not more important than/going to change my mind if it doesn't "make sense" in the given scenario.

Someone has to go first. Someone has to go next. SOmeone has to go last. That's the system. That's how the game plays. Mentally/imagery- wise, yeah, some things are all happening at once and some are happening before others. I'm not really fussed which is which, nor are all that many players I've encountered, as long as combat is exciting, fast moving, maybe a bit cinematic at times, and fun.

So, there's where you're having difficulty/confusion is arising: Assuming that what you deem important [a.k.a. "fun"] in the game is what other people hold in similar/equal esteem. No big. It trips us all up from time to time.

 

[S'mon]

I think of a typical PC group as akin to a special forces team - they are used to coordinating and they should certainly be able to decide what order they act in! Though by default I go round-table or in DEX order. My monsters get to coordinate too, if they are used to working together as a team.

 

[doctorhook]

I've been using the Speed Factor Initiative variant and it's actually sped combat up as far as I can tell. Everybody decides what they're doing ahead of time, which means that A) everyone is prepared when their turn comes up, B) regular play transitions into combat really smoothly when the only change is "people take turns saying what they'll do and then doing it" to "people take turns saying what they'll do, roll a die, and then take turns doing it," C) I barely have to write anything down to track initiative, and D) initiative modifiers and effects that boost it become more interesting and relevant.

I'm in love with this variant rule, but I still have too many doubts about how smoothly it works. I'm really curious about your experiences, since you're apparently having a lot of success with it. Could you explain in more detail? Also, how does monster initiative work? Thanks, friend.

 

[Fralex]

I'm in love with this variant rule, but I still have too many doubts about how smoothly it works. I'm really curious about your experiences, since you're apparently having a lot of success with it. Could you explain in more detail? Also, how does monster initiative work? Thanks, friend.

Well, I should preface this by saying I've only done this for a three-character game, so I don't know how it works with a larger group. But I'm inclined to believe it won't be much different from my experience. The main thing is that it removes all the time wasted by players who weren't prepared to take their turns, or weren't paying attention to the fight. Everyone is involved at every point in the encounter, because you're either waiting for someone to finish their turn (which won't be more than a few die rolls since they already declared what they'd do), taking your own turn (and again, your only two options are roll the dice for your declared action or don't take an action at all), or tensely listening for your number and hoping no other people's numbers come up first (especially those of monsters that could potentially ruin your plan for your turn). In addition, it removes all the time the DM spends writing down each player's initiative, because they just keep their numbers in their heads or note them down themselves. Sure, that only would happen at the start of combat, but remember combat tends to be shorter in this edition.

You still have to roll initiative for monsters each round if you're the DM, and that might still need something to write on, but it's not that big a deal. You tell the players what the monsters seem to be planning to do with their turns just like they do to you.

The different weapon speeds and stuff you don't even have to use, though I used them and they were really easy to remember. It made things more interesting than confusing.

The Angry DM also recently endorsed this method, if you'd rather learn about it in a large, ornery rant.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Well, I should preface this by saying I've only done this for a three-character game, so I don't know how it works with a larger group. But I'm inclined to believe it won't be much different from my experience. The main thing is that it removes all the time wasted by players who weren't prepared to take their turns, or weren't paying attention to the fight. Everyone is involved at every point in the encounter, because you're either waiting for someone to finish their turn (which won't be more than a few die rolls since they already declared what they'd do), taking your own turn (and again, your only two options are roll the dice for your declared action or don't take an action at all), or tensely listening for your number and hoping no other people's numbers come up first (especially those of monsters that could potentially ruin your plan for your turn). In addition, it removes all the time the DM spends writing down each player's initiative, because they just keep their numbers in their heads or note them down themselves. Sure, that only would happen at the start of combat, but remember combat tends to be shorter in this edition.

You still have to roll initiative for monsters each round if you're the DM, and that might still need something to write on, but it's not that big a deal. You tell the players what the monsters seem to be planning to do with their turns just like they do to you.

The different weapon speeds and stuff you don't even have to use, though I used them and they were really easy to remember. It made things more interesting than confusing.

The Angry DM also recently endorsed this method, if you'd rather learn about it in a large, ornery rant.

Wait, so Dex doesn't come into it? Would it ruin it if it did?

 

[Fralex]

Wait, so Dex doesn't come into it? Would it ruin it if it did?

No, you still use Dex to modify initiative rolls like usual.

 

[Murkmoldiev]

Never thought of the warlock thing... as no one has ever played a Warlock in my game or even look one over...
Ill have to check that out.

 

[Anthony Terry]

I had no indication that is was all that popular. But ok.



Why not? They're the players. What their characters do/want to try to do is kinda...ya know...their thing.



Guess I just play with folks a little more...mature? Less concerned with "abusing" things. But I fail to see how, if all PCs have a higher initiative than what I have, what else am I supposed to be doing than letting them know they go first?



If it is something obviously more than the party can chew, then how do you figure needing to run away is, somehow, "removed" if they are acting first?



Again, type of players/playstyle and maturity, I suppose come in here. I expect my player of an Int. 2 fighter to act as an Int. 2 fighter. I expect the other players, knowing this about the character, will somehow try to stop him from charging in if the mage plans to throw a fireball...but maybe they won't...maybe he'll listen...maybe he won't and the characters can bitch him out after for "screwing up their plan, you moron!"...or the mage's player can decide, all on his own without any need for my interference, to cast his fireball anyway.

Again, this is all player decisions. As DM, I really shouldn't need to burden myself to "direct" any of this.

1) If they want to calculate by the numbers, halfling rogue goes first, then mage with the +2 dex. mod, then Int. 2 fighter...and play that way/in that order...that's fine.
2) If they've won initiative outright, they're all still going before any of my guys. So what difference does that make versus, say, clockwise round the table: fighter, rogue, mage. That's fine too...from my side of things...because they're all going/rolled higher initative than my side.
...or
3) let the players take their 30 seconds to a minute to confer for a quickie plan/consensus, and then me saying "Ok, so what's happening?" Player 1 says: "Dilbert ducks behind Smasho who stands ready to dive in as soon as Ballistopholes finishes his spell." Finety fine fine.

Any of those can happen before I, as DM, am rolling anything...if I've lost the initiative, outright. If it's a case of some PCs going first and some going after me, then, obviously, that can't happen.

But, if all of the party [with or without their mods] beats out what I roll [+any of my enemy guys' mods], then what difference does it make HOW the players want to handle it? They're all still going first...so why add complexity -from my end! the players are welcome to complicate things among themselves as much as they want- where it's not necessary.



Ah! I see where the confusion is.

1) The game is not any "tactically easier" as any other since the whole party is not ALWAYS winning initiative. AND init. changes from round to round. So how is this so much more easy/taking something tactical away from the game? It can change next round without even blinking.

and 2) I play a fantasy RPG in a fantasy world. What is "[more or] less realistic to how combat would unfold in real life" is really not at all a concern/factor. EDIT to add/clarify: I DM off a meter of "makes sense." Telling me what the realistic real world results of something are, is generally not more important than/going to change my mind if it doesn't "make sense" in the given scenario.

Someone has to go first. Someone has to go next. SOmeone has to go last. That's the system. That's how the game plays. Mentally/imagery- wise, yeah, some things are all happening at once and some are happening before others. I'm not really fussed which is which, nor are all that many players I've encountered, as long as combat is exciting, fast moving, maybe a bit cinematic at times, and fun.

So, there's where you're having difficulty/confusion is arising: Assuming that what you deem important [a.k.a. "fun"] in the game is what other people hold in similar/equal esteem. No big. It trips us all up from time to time.

Thanks for replying, and i think my post sounds and has been taken as more aggressive than it was meant too. Questioning the maturity of my group would indeed be wise also, or more lets say their ability to separate it from playing it like a video game.

I would like to say that i doubt your players are that mature and would more suggest you just dont mind if these situations occur but that would again be rude and i have no idea what happens at your table, and the whole fantasy world argument is just crap, in that fantasy world people are designed to each have the own initiative, act one by one and have no idea as to the initiative of everyone else around them, granted a stupid premise but your still changing it and therefor the tactical playing field.

 

[steeldragons]

Thanks for replying, and i think my post sounds and has been taken as more aggressive than it was meant too. Questioning the maturity of my group would indeed be wise also, or more lets say their ability to separate it from playing it like a video game.

That is entirely possible. The latter part is, basically, what I meant/was wrapped up in saying a difference of "playstyle" would also be a factor. I do not have players who are interested in playing D&D like a video game. We don't come to the game with those expectations or experience.

I would like to say that i doubt your players are that mature and would more suggest you just dont mind if these situations occur but that would again be rude and i have no idea what happens at your table, and the whole fantasy world argument is just crap, in that fantasy world people are designed to each have the own initiative, act one by one and have no idea as to the initiative of everyone else around them, granted a stupid premise but your still changing it and therefor the tactical playing field.

That could well be part of it...the "I don't mind" part, but truly, we simply don't look at it in that way. "Group initiative" has been a part of the game up to...I suppose 3e. I never played it.

But the assertion this somehow is "taking something [tactical challenge/interest] away" or making the game "easier" than it is intended just doesn't make sense to me.

Folks seem to like and things are often clearer (especially on the internet) with examples. So let's do that. We'll take you general scenario presented in your first post. I'll add a couple of characters since I would probably not be playing with just 2 PCs.

The party:
Bigdumb the Fighter [BF]: no dex. bonus. Int. of 2 [which would actually be an impossibility in my games. Nothing under a 3 is possible for a PC...or any sentient being for that matter. That's nearly brain dead, as we figure it.].
Everbright the Mage [EM]: let's say a modest +2 dex. bonus for her.
Littletoes the Halfling Rogue

---

 

[davout1805]

I use a variant on the flanking rules