D&D 5E Ideas for Initiative house rules

[Zaukrie]

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.

Except very few spells meet your condition. The vast majority of spells just fire and are done. Have you actually played with non-cyclical, and experienced what happens at the table? I understand the math, I'm suggesting that in actual play it is rare (and, as I said, you can make it so that rather than 1 round, many effects are next turn, or next attack, or other ways of mitigating the rare time it matters).

 

[Redwizard007]

Except very few spells meet your condition. The vast majority of spells just fire and are done. Have you actually played with non-cyclical, and experienced what happens at the table? I understand the math, I'm suggesting that in actual play it is rare (and, as I said, you can make it so that rather than 1 round, many effects are next turn, or next attack, or other ways of mitigating the rare time it matters).

Let me preface this by admitting that I have NOT played with this style of initiative in 5e AND that I don't have any books in front of me to check the wording on a large selectionof spells. That being said, this style seems to slightly favor instantaneous spells over spells with a duration (because you always know exactlywhat you get,) however it has even odds to extend or reduce a particular duration. Further, i can't recall many spells that only last a single round. That means that the impact shouldn't be significant. I would be curious to see how this plays out over an adventure.

 

[Zaukrie]

Let me preface this by admitting that I have NOT played with this style of initiative in 5e AND that I don't have any books in front of me to check the wording on a large selectionof spells. That being said, this style seems to slightly favor instantaneous spells over spells with a duration (because you always know exactlywhat you get,) however it has even odds to extend or reduce a particular duration. Further, i can't recall many spells that only last a single round. That means that the impact shouldn't be significant. I would be curious to see how this plays out over an adventure.

Trying non-cyclical is the easiest of changes to try, really. I think the biggest issue is the time/immersion thing for some people. I like the increased drama of not know when people act. But, it isn't for everyone. And, I don't think it needs to be every combat. For me, different combats get different systems (though in practice we only started doing different systems with this group).

 

[Blue]

Would having a power that bumped you initiative up or caused bad guys to bump down be good or just another complexity?

I was thinking that the fighter could spring this in the middle of a combat and jump 5 or 10 in the order and getting a chance to act before the bad guy could get a chance at him. Maybe the rogue really wants to go first and sneak attack the BBEG, or the mage drops the bad guy initiative down to after his turn and allows him to move back.

Problem may be that I tend to have group of bad guys go on the same turn where all 8 goblins act on a 15 and moving one out of turn may add more problems. I guess having things reset after that one turn may help.

When I run in person, I put out cards* in initiative order at the beginning of combat and never think about the rolled numbers again. Once ranked, it never changes, and the relative gaps between ranks is meaningless.

Having these numbers having to be tracked, and occasionally (but not always) changing the order of action would be added complexity. That's not to say that the benefit can't outweigh the negative of the complexity, just that it has a way to gio just to pull even.

 

[Blue]

I'm curious about the reasoning behind Int modifier to initiative, as suggested by multiple posters. What about the Intelligence stat makes you feel that it should be impactful here?

INT based - it's not twitch reflex speed, it the ability to evaluate and react that starts action.

 

[Stalker0]

INT based - it's not twitch reflex speed, it the ability to evaluate and react that starts action.

Yep, I think of it as "Mental Speed".

 

[Redwizard007]

INT based - it's not twitch reflex speed, it the ability to evaluate and react that starts action.

Yep, I think of it as "Mental Speed".

For me that would mean wisdom (at least the way d&d is set up,) but there is enough gray area that i can see where you are coming from.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

There's three possibilities: 0 effect, 1-action effect, or 2-action effect. In theory 1 should happen most often, with 0 or 2 happening less often and with an equal chance of either.

And though there's an ever-growing sense that casters expect their spells to work as intended (as in, always exactly hit their target area, always run their full course, etc.) every time, I don't buy that line of thought. Spells, particularly those cast under duress e.g. in almost any combat situation, should be able to fail, or miss (or hit the wrong target), or otherwise not quite go as intended; similar to someone shooting missiles into combat - most of the time it works but sometimes things go wrong.

Here, where there's an equal chance of getting more bang for your buck as there is of less, I fail to see any reason for complaint.

 

[Lanefan]

When I run in person, I put out cards* in initiative order at the beginning of combat and never think about the rolled numbers again. Once ranked, it never changes, and the relative gaps between ranks is meaningless.

Question: do your players ever make tactical decisions based on that locked-in turn order?

If yes, then you've a) lost the fog-of-war effect and b) are letting meta-game considerations affect play. Great if that works for you and your group, but it doesn't work for me.

 

[toucanbuzz]

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.

I solve this with a homebrew instead of initiative:

Creatures with Reach 10' or more, or a Polearm Master weapon, can make an attack of opportunity if a creature without either of those enters their threat zone. To compensate Polearm Master, the first use doesn't consume a Reaction.