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

[Ainamacar]

Apparently what rerolling initiative means to people varies a bit. For my 3.5 group it was d20-style initiative (i.e. no speed factors, etc.) that gets rerolled each round. The unpredictability that brought to each round was incredibly enjoyable, but the rolling itself was cumbersome. We ended up using a lightweight initiative and condition tracker that rolled initiative for every combatant each round with a single click. Of course, the program rolled for the first round as well so physically rolling initiative stopped being a thing for us, which was a bit unfortunate. We decided that was a trade-off worth making and never looked back.

This did not work well at all in 4e because power durations tended to be both short and their effectiveness dependent on exactly when a creature's turn started or ended. So while in 3.5 the balance effects of rerolling initiative tended to feel like "rounding errors" that averaged out, in 4e the assumptions made when designing many powers in the first place were grossly violated.

Although I didn't play 2e, my experience with similar systems is that the book-keeping (even with some external aid) tends to outweigh the dynamism unless everything else is kept extremely lightweight. YMMV.

I voted for optional rule, and hope the final form of 5e works well with my preferred form of initiative rerolling.

 

[Quickleaf]

I actually think default initiative should be simultaneous, actions should be declared at the start of each combat round as a group, and initiative is not rolled unless its necessary to figure out who goes first (and then it's an opposed check...or auto-win if you're readying). A creature's turn simply becomes "whenever that creature acts." Obviously, this would mean damage gets resolved after all actions are taken...with readying being an exception.

Why I like this?

It gets the players talking and strategizing creatively about how to approach the battle.

It does away with one sided alpha striking victories due to lucky rolls. If you want to alpha strike now, you need to strategize and get surprise, you can't rely on having a high initiative check.

It does away with tracking initiative.

It still allows for readying actions and opportunity actions, but it does away with the need for held actions since players can coordinate among themselves freely without constraints of initiative order.

It allow for...the enemy cleaves you with its axe knocking you prone, but as you fall back it is impaled on your sword.

 

[herrozerro]

I voted yes, but I guess I really meant an optional rule. Playing a lot of savage worlds and its variable initiative has made me come around to the whole idea.

 

[KidSnide]

I prefer to have the players role and use character initiative to divide PCs into 2 or 3 groups that all go at once (with monsters going in between). IME, you waste a lot of time running through the initiative order player-by-player.

-KS

 

[Minigiant]

I voted no.

But I am not against rerolling after X number of rounds, like 10 rounds. I did that in one 4e game and it was fun.

 

[Li Shenron]

Generally speaking, I like unpredictability in the game, so I would be interested in playing a game with initiative re-rolled every round.

But it has to be well fitting with the rest of the combat rules, and right now I'm not really sure this is the case in 5e... There are things that work well with cyclic initiative, for example reactions and "ready an action", which may not work well with random initiative.

That said, if it was an optional module, it would probably address those cases specifically, and the designers would figure out how to make them work properly, so why not?

 

[Kobold Stew]

How does any other version of D&D have you "not" thinking in that way?

Is there any version of D&D that doesn't use hit points? Hit points are an abstract means of indicating a character's ability to continue in combat -- i.e. they do not simply represent "meat". And many combat actions, directly or indirectly, are a means to erode hit points. Since hp =/ meat, action =/ swing: I can erode hit points by pressing against a shield with my weapon if I choose so to describe it and my roll is a success -- there is no need to limit yourself with the simple equation. It's easy to do, and there's nothing wrong with it, but it serves as a shorthand for a more detailed and more varied experience, that (with player imaginations, etc.) some would find a better representation of the chaos of battle.

 

[Jester David]

It'd be a neat module paired with weapon speed and casting time. But it would greatly slow down play. You'd need a good group that's quick and possibly some game aids to speed things along.

 

[the Jester]

How does any other version of D&D have you "not" thinking in that way?

One minute melee rounds in 1e and 2e make the idea of "one creature's turn = one swing of the axe (or whatever)" absurd, and both 1e and 2e used the one-minute round.

I voted "optional rule"- I think there's a lot of unnecessary complication that rerolling initiatives introduces to the game without much improving things. I do like the rerolling in early editions, and when 3e came along with its cyclic initiative, I initially thought I would hate it... until we played one or two combats with it, and we all went, "Wow, that's quick and awesome." So in a more complicated version of D&D I prefer the cyclic initiative.

 

[Obryn]

Well done!

This right here gives you a reason, outside of fluff, to take a different type of weapon. This also eliminates the use of adding in those stupid rules that this ability only works with this type weapon.

As the poster above you notes, you're also going right back into declaring actions, which I'm fine with in AD&D/RC D&D, but am in no hurry to see as the default in a new version of D&D.

Also, making little weapons faster than big weapons is exactly the opposite of what should happen.