D&D 5E The "Bonus" Turn for high Initiative

[Ancalagon]

Interesting POV...

So, in other words, higher initiative always gets to go "last" since the others won't get to act at all-- the "bonus turn" comes at the end of the fight.

My only caveat is this: "provided you survive to the end (or are conscious and still in the fight)."

I'd rather it come earlier, personally. I like other systems, such as Shadowrun 2E, that rewards high initiative with extra actions. In that game, "speed" really kills LOL! I wouldn't want a bonus every round, though, so I thought just in the first round would work well.

even by that logic the person with the highest initiative will get more turn! Let's say that in a party of 4 PCs, each member has an equal chance of going down. Let's say that this happens in round 3, and party victory happens in round 4. Initiative structure is PC1, PC2, Giant, PC3, PC4. The giant has picked a target at random and is now bashing them in.

If PC 1 or PC2 go down in round 3, they still will have had 3 rounds of action. However, PC3 or PC4 would only have had 2 rounds!

Going first is a huge advantage. A fighter could launch and action surge and take out a foe before he could even get to act. A paladin could smite to do the same. A wizard could cast a wall spell, dividing the foes in 2. A cleric or bard could buff the entire party. There is no need for "bonus rounds", none.

 

[Shiroiken]

Initiative is beneficial, but often overrated. Going first usually allows you to have an additional turn over your enemies, but that's really all it is due to the cyclical nature of initiative. While I'd rather return to the 2E days of declaring intent (cast a spell, attack, withdraw, etc.) before rolling initiative, I must admit that the current system is fairly balanced and works smoothly.

 

[Garthanos]

So, it's great to have a good initiative modifier, right? Well, I guess, at least for that first round... but after that, it is really inconsequential. With the RAW system of cyclical initiative, it is always "you go, they go, you go, they go..." and so on.

If we win then one of the things which may have contributed is we only have to soak 1 fewer round of hits conversely if we lose by even partial round worth of damage the enemy having initiative is what killed us. You are kind of doubling down on something already a significant advantage

 

[Torquar]

Making DEX even stronger? Pass.

 

[S'mon]

Open for discussion: is this a decent idea? too much/OP? I am toying with it for now, and would like some constructive feedback (please not just "this is a bad idea"--tell me why! ).

I'd say it was a bad idea and very much OP. My son does love his Primeval Thule Rogue Assassin PC with Ice Reaver charge that lets him make an attack before initiative - it's incredibly powerful, and that is limited to one melee attack. He then took Alertness so he can usually attack twice before the enemy, or three times with surprise, which he gets quite a lot, getting two Assassinations and one sneak attack in before the enemy can act. He's been known to kill minor BBEGs before they get a turn.

 

[Morrus]

I disagree. Yes, initiative is cyclical, but if someone's dead or disabled before their turn comes up again due to the people that acted before them in a round, how is that not an advantage to going first?

Because it's cyclic, everybody is going first or last, depending where you place your arbitrary 'starting' point. In the first round that's at the start of the fight, but thereafter it makes no difference. No spoke on a bicycle is first or last.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I do a thing like this in my own homebrew game system, which is derived from Star Wars Saga Edition. Initiative is a skill, so initiative checks can get quite high. There is a feat that allows you to, if your Initiative check result is above 20, take your turn, reduce your initiative check result by 20, and then go again.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Interesting POV...

So, in other words, higher initiative always gets to go "last" since the others won't get to act at all-- the "bonus turn" comes at the end of the fight.

My only caveat is this: "provided you survive to the end (or are conscious and still in the fight)."

I'd rather it come earlier, personally. I like other systems, such as Shadowrun 2E, that rewards high initiative with extra actions. In that game, "speed" really kills LOL! I wouldn't want a bonus every round, though, so I thought just in the first round would work well.

I really like the idea in Shadowrun myself, but 5e isn't designed like Shadowrun. In Shadowrun, boosted reflexes come at a hefty cost. You can pretty much build your concept around getting extra turns in combat.

You'd need a major redesign of 5e to allow the same in a balanced manner.

You're already getting an extra turn in 5e when you win initiative. Lets assume that the PCs will win the encounter (which is usually the case), that the combat will last 3 PC turns, and for simplicity that we are using group initiative.

1) PCs win initiative:
PCs - Enemy - End Turn 1 - PCs - Enemy - End Turn 2 - PCs - WIN!

2) Enemy wins initiative:
Enemy - PCs - End Turn 1 - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 2 - Enemy - PCs - WIN!

3) PCs win initiative (initiative > 20) in your proposed system:
PCs - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 1 - PCs - WIN!

4) Enemy wins initiative (initiative > 20) in your proposed system:
Enemy - PCs - Enemy - End Turn 1 - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 2 - Enemy - PCs - WIN!

In scenario 1, the enemy gets 2 turns during the encounter. In scenario 2, the enemy gets 3 turns.

In scenario 3, the enemy gets 1 turn. And in scenario 4, the enemy gets 4 turns.

As you can see by comparing scenarios 1 and 2 to 3 and 4, your system introduces a level of initiative contingent swinginess that 5e wasn't designed to handle.

That's not even considering the fact that in scenario 4 the enemy's actions are so front loaded that the PCs are likely to be forced to take a more defensive stance (damage mitigation) and therefore that encounter is likely to last even longer, and be deadlier.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If we win then one of the things which may have contributed is we only have to soak 1 fewer round of hits conversely if we lose by even partial round worth of damage the enemy having initiative is what killed us. You are kind of doubling down on something already a significant advantage

Good point. So getting the edge the first round potentially saves you some "pain."

Making DEX even stronger? Pass.

Our initiative isn't just DEX. Player's can use DEX, INT, or WIS, their choice.

Because it's cyclic, everybody is going first or last, depending where you place your arbitrary 'starting' point. In the first round that's at the start of the fight, but thereafter it makes no difference. No spoke on a bicycle is first or last.

Exactly.

I do a thing like this in my own homebrew game system, which is derived from Star Wars Saga Edition. Initiative is a skill, so initiative checks can get quite high. There is a feat that allows you to, if your Initiative check result is above 20, take your turn, reduce your initiative check result by 20, and then go again.

Hmm... I like feats. A feat might be the way to go.

I really like the idea in Shadowrun myself, but 5e isn't designed like Shadowrun. In Shadowrun, boosted reflexes come at a hefty cost. You can pretty much build your concept around getting extra turns in combat.

You'd need a major redesign of 5e to allow the same in a balanced manner.

You're already getting an extra turn in 5e when you win initiative. Lets assume that the PCs will win the encounter (which is usually the case), that the combat will last 3 PC turns, and for simplicity that we are using group initiative.

1) PCs win initiative:
PCs - Enemy - End Turn 1 - PCs - Enemy - End Turn 2 - PCs - WIN!

2) Enemy wins initiative:
Enemy - PCs - End Turn 1 - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 2 - Enemy - PCs - WIN!

3) PCs win initiative (initiative > 20) in your proposed system:
PCs - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 1 - PCs - WIN!

4) Enemy wins initiative (initiative > 20) in your proposed system:
Enemy - PCs - Enemy - End Turn 1 - Enemy - PCs - End Turn 2 - Enemy - PCs - WIN!

In scenario 1, the enemy gets 2 turns during the encounter. In scenario 2, the enemy gets 3 turns.

In scenario 3, the enemy gets 1 turn. And in scenario 4, the enemy gets 4 turns.

As you can see by comparing scenarios 1 and 2 to 3 and 4, your system introduces a level of initiative contingent swinginess that 5e wasn't designed to handle.

That's not even considering the fact that in scenario 4 the enemy's actions are so front loaded that the PCs are likely to be forced to take a more defensive stance (damage mitigation) and therefore that encounter is likely to last even longer, and be deadlier.

I don't mind the swinginess personally.[/QUOTE]

 

[DND_Reborn]

Thanks all for the feeback. You've given me some food for thought and options if we decide to try it.