Off and on I've toyed with the idea of using a non-d20 roll for initiative checks. The implementation of this would necessarily require some conversion work with the rules that pertain to initiative. I had thought to resort to a percentile roll, with appropriate houseruling of Improved Initiative and changing modifiers to Dex score itself instead of score modifier, but this seemed like creating an overblown solution to the main issue I have with d20-based initiative checks, which is resolving ties between PCs, and consuming a little bit of extra time to ask players for this or that number to see who got to act first.
But then I considered, why not go the opposite direction, and embrace simultaneous actions? Use the d% for initiative rolls, add Dex score not modifier (and Wisdom score for monks) and so on. And go one step further: In this paradigm, a given round is divided into discrete phases...everyone who takes their turn in the same phase is considered to be acting simultaneously. Not that they are acting on the same single tick of a clock's second hand. "Simultaneous" only means their actions cannot as a consequence directly counter or prevent anyone else's actions in the same phase. This doesn't mean two actions happening simultaneously cannot influence each other as their immediate consequences interact with each other, but as a matter of course, one character should not be able to completely "supersede" another if they are supposed to be acting at the same time.
Now, these phases consist of a range of 10 initiative counts. Again, this is not a measure of time, only a statement about whose actions might coincide with whose. Everyone with a 10's initiative acts simultaneously, everyone in the 20's count acts simultaneously (and before all the 10's), the 30's initiatives act before the 20's and 10's, and so on.
As an illustration, two fighters square off against six goblins. Here is the order of initiative:
89 ftr #1
57 ftr #2
54 goblin #1
51 goblin #2
45 goblin #3
38 goblin #4
37 goblin #5
28 goblin #6
(These numbers are completely arbitrary and broken up into phases for convenience)
Fighter #1 acts first, and in his turn he drops goblin #5 with a lucky critical hit from a javelin. Easy enough--goblin #6 doesn't even get to do anything this encounter. Proceeding down the list, we have Fighter #2 and two goblins. The GM as a courtesy lets the player act first, and his PC drops goblin #3 who happens to be the nearest monster to him. So goblin #3 doesn't get to do anything either. Goblins #1 and #2 now get to act, and they rush and double up on Fighter #2, and wound him pretty good. Goblins #4 and #6 now get to act, in that order (#3 being too busy being dead to do anything else) and they also gang up on Fighter #2.
Next round:
89 ftr #1
57 ftr #2
54 goblin #1
51 goblin #2
38 goblin #4
28 goblin #6
Fighter #1 comes to the aid of his friend, and takes down goblin #1. Fighter #2 on his turn (GM courtesy again) lashes out at goblin #2 and drops him. Goblin #1 defends his buddy, crushing Fighter #2 and put him into negative HP. BUT now, Goblin #2 still gets to act. He may be dead on his feet, but as we are doing simultaneous actions, Fighter #2's kill shot is only fully resolved at the end of the phase. Goblin #2 throws himself at Fighter #2, reducing the poor PC to negative Con, and then promptly drops dead himself. Goblins #4 and #6, cowards that they are, run away and live to fight another day. The End.
There is an extra portion of "action entanglement" inherent in this approach to initiative. This can be readily observed in situations in which two characters acting "simultaneously" in a single phase want to take actions which one may expect to be mutually exclusive of each other. To whit, if character A's intended action is fully resolved first, character B's action is either rendered impossible, pointless, or even detrimental. But if character B's intended action is fully resolved before A's, the opposite occurs. The simplest and most straightforward example that could be given here is that A and B both want to move to the same square and act on the same phase. Rules As Written forbid both A and B from getting their way, since no creature is permitted to end their turn on an occupied square. "Someone has to go first." There seems to be a paradox at first--but is there really one, at least one that cannot be creatively resolved by a GM?
If the GM is willing to play around with the RAW--as is his right--he could easily rule that both creatures fail to enter the square, but each ends their movement in the last square just before the destination, and each suffers 1d6 subdual damage from the unintentional mutual bull rush. Or if the size difference is more than one category's worth, the GM might rule the larger creature wins by default, or he may rule that the creature with the greater speed wins, or whatever.
To explore a more creative example, suppose the party rogue has decided to disable a certain trap in the room which causes the room to be suddenly partitioned off by walls of force into lots of tiny little airtight cubicles (and his action results in a botch which will trigger the trap anyway). In the same phase, the party wizard desires to escape the room--into which a big nasty has just entered--and proceeds to cast a teleportation spell (with everyone having remained in physical contact the entire time) to get the entire party to safety. In summary--the rogue cannot both trigger the trap and escape the room via teleportation (via connected contact with his wizard friend). Why worry about who acts first, when you as the GM can make up a creative ruling on the spot that resolves the paradox in a humorous (or maybe terrifying) fashion? The wizard escapes alone, the wizard and everyone BUT the rogue escapes, or every PC escapes but the energy surge from the many walls of force being triggered fries the teleportation, and the party arrives in a very strange and unknown place.
Certainly these house rules go against the mostly-universal "d20 principle" that underlies Pathfinder as d20 game system. Certainly the same effect could be achieved by retaining the existing rules and dividing the d20 roll into "phases" of smaller ranges: 1-5; 6-10; 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and so on. Slightly less elegant, I think. Or maybe even keep it the same. 1-10, 11-20, 21 to 30 (and if it's ever needed, 31-40). I guess it all depends on how much "simultaneity" a GM is willing to put up with.
Or if one really must chuck their d20 and roll it too, one could do initiative checks this way: roll 20 and multiply by 10 in place of the percentile roll mentioned above. Add Dex score and +20 for Improved Initiative and all that. A nominal scale of 200 may not "embrace the simultaneous" like a d% would, but the incidence of initiative ties will be slightly more tolerable, and adding a Dexterity score to a number divisible by 10 will be slightly less annoying.
But then I considered, why not go the opposite direction, and embrace simultaneous actions? Use the d% for initiative rolls, add Dex score not modifier (and Wisdom score for monks) and so on. And go one step further: In this paradigm, a given round is divided into discrete phases...everyone who takes their turn in the same phase is considered to be acting simultaneously. Not that they are acting on the same single tick of a clock's second hand. "Simultaneous" only means their actions cannot as a consequence directly counter or prevent anyone else's actions in the same phase. This doesn't mean two actions happening simultaneously cannot influence each other as their immediate consequences interact with each other, but as a matter of course, one character should not be able to completely "supersede" another if they are supposed to be acting at the same time.
Now, these phases consist of a range of 10 initiative counts. Again, this is not a measure of time, only a statement about whose actions might coincide with whose. Everyone with a 10's initiative acts simultaneously, everyone in the 20's count acts simultaneously (and before all the 10's), the 30's initiatives act before the 20's and 10's, and so on.
As an illustration, two fighters square off against six goblins. Here is the order of initiative:
89 ftr #1
57 ftr #2
54 goblin #1
51 goblin #2
45 goblin #3
38 goblin #4
37 goblin #5
28 goblin #6
(These numbers are completely arbitrary and broken up into phases for convenience)
Fighter #1 acts first, and in his turn he drops goblin #5 with a lucky critical hit from a javelin. Easy enough--goblin #6 doesn't even get to do anything this encounter. Proceeding down the list, we have Fighter #2 and two goblins. The GM as a courtesy lets the player act first, and his PC drops goblin #3 who happens to be the nearest monster to him. So goblin #3 doesn't get to do anything either. Goblins #1 and #2 now get to act, and they rush and double up on Fighter #2, and wound him pretty good. Goblins #4 and #6 now get to act, in that order (#3 being too busy being dead to do anything else) and they also gang up on Fighter #2.
Next round:
89 ftr #1
57 ftr #2
54 goblin #1
51 goblin #2
38 goblin #4
28 goblin #6
Fighter #1 comes to the aid of his friend, and takes down goblin #1. Fighter #2 on his turn (GM courtesy again) lashes out at goblin #2 and drops him. Goblin #1 defends his buddy, crushing Fighter #2 and put him into negative HP. BUT now, Goblin #2 still gets to act. He may be dead on his feet, but as we are doing simultaneous actions, Fighter #2's kill shot is only fully resolved at the end of the phase. Goblin #2 throws himself at Fighter #2, reducing the poor PC to negative Con, and then promptly drops dead himself. Goblins #4 and #6, cowards that they are, run away and live to fight another day. The End.
There is an extra portion of "action entanglement" inherent in this approach to initiative. This can be readily observed in situations in which two characters acting "simultaneously" in a single phase want to take actions which one may expect to be mutually exclusive of each other. To whit, if character A's intended action is fully resolved first, character B's action is either rendered impossible, pointless, or even detrimental. But if character B's intended action is fully resolved before A's, the opposite occurs. The simplest and most straightforward example that could be given here is that A and B both want to move to the same square and act on the same phase. Rules As Written forbid both A and B from getting their way, since no creature is permitted to end their turn on an occupied square. "Someone has to go first." There seems to be a paradox at first--but is there really one, at least one that cannot be creatively resolved by a GM?
If the GM is willing to play around with the RAW--as is his right--he could easily rule that both creatures fail to enter the square, but each ends their movement in the last square just before the destination, and each suffers 1d6 subdual damage from the unintentional mutual bull rush. Or if the size difference is more than one category's worth, the GM might rule the larger creature wins by default, or he may rule that the creature with the greater speed wins, or whatever.
To explore a more creative example, suppose the party rogue has decided to disable a certain trap in the room which causes the room to be suddenly partitioned off by walls of force into lots of tiny little airtight cubicles (and his action results in a botch which will trigger the trap anyway). In the same phase, the party wizard desires to escape the room--into which a big nasty has just entered--and proceeds to cast a teleportation spell (with everyone having remained in physical contact the entire time) to get the entire party to safety. In summary--the rogue cannot both trigger the trap and escape the room via teleportation (via connected contact with his wizard friend). Why worry about who acts first, when you as the GM can make up a creative ruling on the spot that resolves the paradox in a humorous (or maybe terrifying) fashion? The wizard escapes alone, the wizard and everyone BUT the rogue escapes, or every PC escapes but the energy surge from the many walls of force being triggered fries the teleportation, and the party arrives in a very strange and unknown place.
Certainly these house rules go against the mostly-universal "d20 principle" that underlies Pathfinder as d20 game system. Certainly the same effect could be achieved by retaining the existing rules and dividing the d20 roll into "phases" of smaller ranges: 1-5; 6-10; 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and so on. Slightly less elegant, I think. Or maybe even keep it the same. 1-10, 11-20, 21 to 30 (and if it's ever needed, 31-40). I guess it all depends on how much "simultaneity" a GM is willing to put up with.
Or if one really must chuck their d20 and roll it too, one could do initiative checks this way: roll 20 and multiply by 10 in place of the percentile roll mentioned above. Add Dex score and +20 for Improved Initiative and all that. A nominal scale of 200 may not "embrace the simultaneous" like a d% would, but the incidence of initiative ties will be slightly more tolerable, and adding a Dexterity score to a number divisible by 10 will be slightly less annoying.
Last edited:
