D&D 5E Ideas for Initiative house rules

[GMMichael]

But when adding complexity means doing so in a direction that is the opposite of reality - that's when I balk. What is the point of it then? To confuse any players you have who actually know anything about how weapons work?

Good question! But...who's adding what complexity in the opposite direction of reality?

 

[Don Durito]

Good question! But...who's adding what complexity in the opposite direction of reality?

Speed factor intitiative in which daggers are faster than pole-arms. Surely that's obvious?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

To avoid the swoosh of initiative, I try to have the players roll at the beginning of the session and then at the end of any combat.

 

[Zaukrie]

How well/quickly can you perceive/take advantage of (or even anticipate) those openings? That's what Initiative could represent when using Int or Wis.

I must not have been clear...I thought I was responding to muscle speed, physical reaction time....I thought I was clear that other things about reaction time and combat were more important, so I think we are agreeing.....

 

[DND_Reborn]

as is conversely ignoring the fact that a dagger is much better when you're actually inside the guard - a level of detail that D&D has never attempted to model

IIRC AD&D actually did do something for this. Maybe tomorrow I can dig up my DMG and see if I can find the reference.

 

[Redwizard007]

Why is combat about reaction time? It's about openings and advantages, and skills, and training. Way more than reaction time.

The d20 roll works for the "openings and advantages."
The mechanic right now for "skills and training" is Improved Initiative.
Dex bonus is "reaction time."

Seems to work out ok.

 

[Blue]

This is a good thing, as it adds to the randomness factor.

This is a bad thing. If a player casts a spell and there's a decent chance it has zero effect because of randomness per round, please tell me how that adds to enjoyment at the table, which is the only true measure if it's a good thing or bad thing. Even with if some times it has a double effect, it's a net unhappiness as the lost turn plus resources spent is a bigger disadvantage.

 

[Zaukrie]

This is a bad thing. If a player casts a spell and there's a decent chance it has zero effect because of randomness per round, please tell me how that adds to enjoyment at the table, which is the only true measure if it's a good thing or bad thing. Even with if some times it has a double effect, it's a net unhappiness as the lost turn plus resources spent is a bigger disadvantage.

Have you used non-cyclical init? It almost never happens that a spell does nothing. If it is a concern, one solution is that if it is meant to have a negative effect on an opponent for its next turn, make it next turn.....From my experience and everything I've read from people that use it, it is so rare a problem as to not matter.

 

[GMMichael]

Speed factor intitiative in which daggers are faster than pole-arms. Surely that's obvious?

Yeah. This is the speed factor that actually matters.

When people make daggers faster than Greatswords it just gets ludicrous.

Ah. The above quote is the context I was looking for.

The thing is, daggers-attacking-before-polearms isn't . . . (wait, is this thread totally derailed yet?)
. . . the opposite of reality. Put your evenly-matched Dagger Fighter weapon-to-weapon against the Spear Fighter. If the DF lunges first, the DF "attacks" first. If the SF lazily dips his spear to impale the DF first, he "attacks" first. The reality of the question, if we're hard-pressed, is, "who can land a blow first, if both characters attack at the exact same time?" Which is not a question that Initiative answers.

 

[Blue]

Have you used non-cyclical init? It almost never happens that a spell does nothing. If it is a concern, one solution is that if it is meant to have a negative effect on an opponent for its next turn, make it next turn.....From my experience and everything I've read from people that use it, it is so rare a problem as to not matter.

Say you roll d20+X and your foe is rolling d20+Y. Chance you will go first is 50%+5%*(X-Y). With an additional 5% chance one way or the other for whomever would win the tie if your results were the same.

So the chance you go after an opponent in one round and before them in the next round is.

(1-(.5+.05*diff)) * (.5+.05*diff)

That is, 1 - the chance of going first (because you are going second) multiplied by the chance to go first.

(.5-.05*diff) * (.5+05.diff) = .25 - .0025 * diff^2. (The .5 .05*diff and the -.5 * .05*diff cancel out.)

Basically, this happens 25% the time, reduced by the difference in your initiative. If you have +2 more bonus than them, it's reduced by 1%.

Now, maybe playing with a cyclical initiative you are already shying away from 1 round spells that could end up doing nothing. But "it almost never happens" isn't true. The conditions come up for this roughly a quarter of time according to the math.