Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6714451" data-attributes="member: 6701872">In the times that I use group initiative, it is because I am running a system that present that as the standard rule. I too like that it makes the party coordinating much smoother since all the out-of-play strategy chat is done at once, rather than piece by piece on each of their turns with monster actions they didn't account for monkey-wrenching prior plans - though I do dislike having to resolve all of the monster's actions at one time because I see players' attention to what is going on fade the longer it isn't the party's turn.I asked my group if they wanted to use it for 5th edition, and they said no because they would rather there be at least a chance that we alternate a player, then a few monsters, then a player or two, and so on.I even asked if they wanted to use set initiative ratings so that we would more rapidly know what order participants went in (I think the DMG might call it "passive initiative", or that I am imagining seeing it there as an option), and they said no to that too because they would like monster to sometimes go first and most don't have great initiative monsters.I was thinking about asking them how they feel about an initiative scheme like some minitatures games use where a roll is made to determine which side gets to choose whose side take a turn first, and then participants alternate turns until everyone has gone (like group initiative, but it would result in 1 PC, then 1 monster group, then 1 PC, and so on, instead of all of each side before all of the other side).</blockquote>

Verification