D&D 5E Using multiple initiative systems in the same game?

[AnotherGuy]

How do you handle players changing their minds (e.g. due to the situation changing by the time their turn gets resolved) in a "Declare" system like this?

Just to add, we have used toucan's system for well over 10 sessions and it works well, the players like it. The dimension it adds to combat is worth it. I highly recommend one tries this system for a session or two and adjust where you feel it is necessary.

For creatures of sizes greater than medium I add an additional die for every category larger than medium unless it is a spell or the creature logically would move at heightened speeds (and therefore ignore the additional die for category size).

 

[Bacon Bits]

Personally, I still favor side initiative. When I DM, I want the players to coordinate and make a plan. I don't really find it interesting to have that plan constantly foiled by the initiative dice. NPCs nearly always act together in practice at our table, so it just feels more fair to let the PCs do what the DM is already doing. We all know initiative is never realistic because things are supposed to happen simultaneously. We might as well let it be strategic or tactical.

In general, I find initiative to be a poor mechanic in nearly every TTRPG (with the worst offender being Savage Worlds). Either it's important, in which case it feels too important for how random it invariably is, or it's basically irrelevant, in which case it's a waste of table time and a distraction. It's just really not adding an amount of fun equal to the cost in table time for me.

 

[Quickleaf]

They choose how to carry out the Action, but they can't change it in a declare system. Not saying my numbers are perfect, but it speeds up the game a ton, and it's really rare a player can't do anything from actual play because players are surveying the battlefield and anticipating what could happen when they make a decision.

At the moment, after 2 years of declaration initiative, we're trying the original way of doing initiative. Pros and cons. We've already got one player who freezes up nearly every fight with indecision, and it's noticeable. Another gamer has started to pull out his phone during other people's turns (I don't think he realizes he's doing it, checking game books). This wasn't happening during a declare system. Actions were figured out simultaneously and then the combat rounds flowed quickly. However, the predictability of combat turns seems more reassuring to strategic decisions.

That's really interesting. Toucan's system is elegant for sure.

I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the issue of changing decisions and "Declaring." Cause I'm thinking of tons of examples where this could be an issue. I don't know if you can comment on any of these based on your group's experience, but for instance I'm wondering...

• Everyone needs to Declare, but you have a player who is still on the fence about this whole conflict and just wants to "wait and see", maybe jumping in at some point, maybe not, they're just not sure yet because not enough has happened in the fiction to prompt them to a clear course of action – how are they handled?
• Player declares they're interacting with something or someone that, due to the need to resolve things sequentially, no longer exists by the time we get to rolling their turn. For instance, (A) a gnoll already reduced to 0 hp by a "previous" attack, or (B) a door already knocked off its hinges by a "previous" player action, or (C) an enemy's fireball incinerating a McGuffin the PC was reaching for. Do you just say: (A) "you stab that gnoll super dead" or "that gnoll's down but you can target another gnoll in range"?, (B) "you knock down the door together - but no need to roll, it already was resolved on Jason's turn"?, (C) ?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Player declares they're interacting with something or someone that, due to the need to resolve things sequentially, no longer exists by the time we get to rolling their turn. For instance, (A) a gnoll already reduced to 0 hp by a "previous" attack, or (B) a door already knocked off its hinges by a "previous" player action, or (C) an enemy's fireball incinerating a McGuffin the PC was reaching for. Do you just say: (A) "you stab that gnoll super dead" or "that gnoll's down but you can target another gnoll in range"?, (B) "you knock down the door together - but no need to roll, it already was resolved on Jason's turn"?, (C) ?

I'm not Toucan so he may have different ways of dealing with it but to answer some of your questions in how we'd resolve it at our table
(a) You stab another gnoll, you cannot change your stabby action, but you're allowed to select a different target within reach.
(b) Default to the Dash, Disengage and Dodge or knock a door off its hinges completely, knock something else with a similar motion (shove/trip) or substitute a non threatening action such as scrambling for an item in one's backpack etc
(c) Default to the Dash, Disengage and Dodge or substitute a non threatening action such as scrambling for an item in one's backpack etc

Everyone needs to Declare, but you have a player who is still on the fence about this whole conflict and just wants to "wait and see", maybe jumping in at some point, maybe not, they're just not sure yet because not enough has happened in the fiction to prompt them to a clear course of action – how are they handled?

He declares the trigger event and what he'd use (weapon, spell, etc) and rolls appropriately.
Think of it as readying one's action for x event.