D&D 5E Should Next reintroduce new initiative rolls every round?

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Ha!

You literally can't not rip on 4e even when it has nothing to do with the topic.

I don't have to rip on 4th edition because it does that all on it's own.

People talk about time consuming but 4th edition had the most time consuming round by round battles because of all the floating modifiers that would change.

 

[Viking Bastard]

We roll every round but we use group initative. I don't think I'd enjoy tracking individual initative every round, at least not 3/4e-type rolls.

I like the chaotic vibe it brings, however illusionary I suspect it of being. It also means that each side can expect two actions in a row every few rounds, which I think compensates somewhat for group initative's samey you do-he does-you do-he does turn structure.

 

[LostSoul]

My AD&D campaign uses initiative rolls every round. I occasionally pay attention to them. Yes, there are predeclared actions, and those actions often make the dice irrelevant.

The trouble is that the initiative rules are really complex.

A couple of months ago I ran some AD&D. I tried to run the initiative rules by the book, and I found it easy enough, though the rules are complex.

I think we did it more-or-less like this:
(readied missile weapons would go here but this never came up... I don't think)
Missile/melee attacks go here; if you have more attacks, your first one goes first; otherwise check initiative to determine who goes when
Movement (including movement + missle/melee, which I'm pretty sure is a house rule)
Spells & spell-like effects (activating rings, drinking potions)
Charge attacks (with longer weapons going first; if you both have long spears or something, then you check initiative)

We'd declare actions for the round, then roll initiative; that roll would only be checked if it came up (who shoots whom first, etc.). Initiative generally didn't come up that much, which I found to be pretty nice.

I'm pretty sure we had spells going (near) the end at one point, which was a mistake I think we fixed.