D&D 5E Intiative Score (DMG variant rule)

[Xeviat]

I've been using initiative score just for monsters. It makes it easier for me to set up encounters.

 

[Don Durito]

I don't understand what either 'all the way' or 'spell interruption' means here.

I like to think of it as a fully formed and implemented houserule (really a heavily modified Greyhawk Initiative) if that is what you're asking.

You've basically taken Greyhawk initiative and reverse engineered older forms of initiative which were very similar (although it's hard to say whether what you describe is exactly the same as any particular edition as initiative was often confusing and usually houseruled in some way or another..

One of the key components of early D&D (although often ignored to the games detriment) was the possibility of interrupting spells. This to my mind is a the most important aspect of having the declaration phase. You declare a spell and then if you get interrupted before then and take damage you lose the spell.

This was taken out in 3E and replaced with the opportunity attack on spells in melee (which is an inferior version of the idea) and then in 4E and 5E interrupting basically fell by the wayside (although concentration sort of brings it back in a weaksauce way). This was an option in Greyhawk initiative (an option of an option).

This means if the wizard casts a fireball, then it may well be the best option is for the Fighter to say "I stand in front on the wizard, and cover him with my shield" - see also 13th Age's awesome rules for intercepting. Basically getting off powerful spells becomes a team effort. It also means that if an enemy spell caster is casting a spell (or seems likely to), the fighter can consider charging through the enemy lines, potentially taking attacks to try and interrupt that spell. Positioning and choice of targetting become much more tactical and much more important.

 

[ad_hoc]

One of the key components of early D&D (although often ignored to the games detriment) was the possibility of interrupting spells. This to my mind is a the most important aspect of having the declaration phase. You declare a spell and then if you get interrupted before then and take damage you lose the spell.

No, declaring actions isn't 'readying' them.

The characters do their actions on their turns.

I guess we use the declaration phase differently than you. That doesn't mean we aren't going 'all the way'. Our system is complete and works well for our purposes.

 

[toucanbuzz]

...We have found that having the group all decide on what they're going to do at the same time speeds up the game. The resolution of the round goes quickly as well which feels cinematic....

I played 10 years of AD&D this way, and then nearly 10 years of 3.5/5th with a fixed turn system. While I use a different homebrew (players roll an initiative die based off their declared action), it's also my experience after 3 years of play with the homebrew our gameplay speeds up dramatically when all 4 (or more) players and the DM are deciding actions simultaneously rather than one at a time. This issue has been debated heavily in other threads, so I won't go into greater detail. I simply want the OP to see D&D is built for customization to your table.

If the OP is looking for a greater thrill (less predictability) yet preserving gameplay speed, this is one way to do it.

 

[Don Durito]

No, declaring actions isn't 'readying' them.

The characters do their actions on their turns.

I guess we use the declaration phase differently than you. That doesn't mean we aren't going 'all the way'. Our system is complete and works well for our purposes.

I asked you a question based off the similarity to earlier editions. You were confused about the question so I explained the context and how historically declaring spells so they could be interrupted was considered an important feature of a declaration phase.

If you don’t like the idea then for gods sake don’t do it. Make’s no difference to me. (And it’s a big departure for 5e anyway.)

Not really seeing any justification for the tone of your reply.

 

[dave2008]

I asked you a question based off the similarity to earlier editions. You were confused about the question so I explained the context and how historically declaring spells so they could be interrupted was considered an important feature of a declaration phase.

If you don’t like the idea then for gods sake don’t do it. Make’s no difference to me. (And it’s a big departure for 5e anyway.)

Not really seeing any justification for the tone of your reply.

To be fair, by asking "did you go all way," has in implication of incompleteness which has a negative slant. @ad_hoc probably felt a bit attacked and didn't like the tone of your question. You may not have intended it to be an attack. but as a neutral 3rd party here I can tell you it can come of that way.

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW it's unfortunate if @Don Durito felt attacked, but I see nothing of any "tone" in @ad_hoc's response. His response seems very reasonable IMO.

It is an unfortunate consequence of forums that rears its ugly head now and again.

 

[JeffB]

Rolling every round doesn't change any of the terms, but it may get you some funky results every once and a while (as you noted), but that doesn't seem like to much of a big deal. Alternately, just changed it to rounds. And everything becomes "end of the round," or "end of the next round," or "in 1d4 rounds" or whatever. That is very easy to implement on the fly, I know from experience as I to prefer it to "at the end of its next turn" sometimes.

I agree this is easy to implement, but does have big effects on the grand scheme of things in how powerful or not the PC's abilities and monsters are. Ultimately it's far easier for me to run a different game than change another completely to suit my needs. This is the issue with 3.X and a major driving factor behind the OSR movement. Changing rules has big ramifications down the line that may not be obvious at first but affect gameplay significantly. While 5E is less problematic, it is very tight balanced around it's Initiative, action economy, CR system and per short/long rest mechanics. When you start screwing around with all the spells, PC abilities, monster attacks, changing how initiative works, etc, what's the point?

I can "on the fly" O/TSR versions of the game much easier than 5E, and it's combat resolution foundation is built in the manner I prefer.

 

[dave2008]

@Morrus may I suggest and initiative wiki for collecting all of these threads on initiative alternates, or would there be a place for that in he "best of" wiki?

 

[dave2008]

While 5E is less problematic, it is very tight balanced around it's Initiative, action economy, CR system and per short/long rest mechanics. When you start screwing around with all the spells, PC abilities, monster attacks, changing how initiative works, etc, what's the point?

I just don't find that to be the case. D&D, and 5e is very flexible if you are flexible. We've been screwing around with it from the beginning (our latest is to use 4e powers) and it hasn't messed things up. We just keep on rolling.

Personally, I think the mistake people make when trying out variant / optional / homebrew rules is they feel the need to account for every possible scenario. That isn't needed, you just have to account for what happens at your table.