D&D (2024) What do you want in the revised DMG?

[DND_Reborn]

Meant to hit "reply", not "post reply"...sigh...

Luckily, you can edit LOL!

 

[Lanefan]

No problem. I've posted about it before but here it goes:

1. Each character's "turn" is broken up into the separate actions they take.
2. You roll d20 + (DEX, INT, or WIS modifier) + features/feat for Initiative for your FIRST action.
3. After resolving your FIRST action, your roll d20 (NO MODIFIERS AT ALL!) for your SECOND action. If the new roll is equal to or greater than your current FIRST roll, you act immediately. If it is lower, you act on the new roll.
4. Repeat until you run out of actions. (Movement--which can be broken up, Action, Bonus action).
5. Simultaneous rolls/actions can be resolved in simple to complex fashion, as your group desires.

Notes:

A. If you have Extra Attack (or Multiattack) each attack is its own action.
B. Movement is used until your Speed is gone. So, if you move 10 feet to engage a creature as your action, you still have 20 feet remaining for later actions in the round.
C. Reactions are resolved as normal.

Is the base initiative rerolled each round? For example, does Player A below always start each round with init. 22?

Benefits:

1. By breaking up each player's turn, the actions seem to create the narrative. For an example (with Initiative totals preceding) see the spoilers. Note: This is a pretty linear example, but in the game the distribution of actions can create very vivid scenes!

Spoiler: Example with normal Initiative

Initiative rolls:
Player A: 22
Player B: 19
Monster A: 14
Monster B: 1

Player A moves to engage Monster A, and attacks.
Player B attacks Monster A, then moves into better position.
Monster A multiattacks Player A.
Monster B moves to engage Player B, and attacks.

Roll first Initiative for round 2.

Here, once Player A has gone, he as really nothing to do until the round is over and must wait for Player B and the DM to resolve everything else.

It also seems very much herky-jerky IMO instead of flowing from one action to the next.

Spoiler: Same example with Cinematic

Initial rolls:
Player A: 22
Player B: 19
Monster A: 14
Monster B: 1

22 = Player A moves to engage Monster A. Rolls for second action (12)
19 = Player B attacks Monster A with longbow. Rolls for second action (3)
14 = Monster A attacks Player A. Rolls for multiattack (18)
18 (is equal to or better than 14 so acts immediately) = Monster A attacks Player A with multiattack. Rolls for third action (1)
12 = Player A attacks Monster A. No bonus action or speed remaining, no further action, round over.
3 = Player B moves to a better position. No bonus action or speed remaining, no further action, round over.
1 = Monster B moves to engage Player B. Rolls for second action (17)
17 (is equal to or better than 1 so acts immediately) = Monster B attacks Player B. No bonus action or speed remaining, no further action, round over.
1 = Monster A attacks Player A with multiattack. Rolls for fourth action (14) because it has speed remaining. The monster will not move, so the round is over.

Roll first Initiative for round 2.

IMO here we see more of a flow of action as one action moves into the next. A sense of excitement is generated when you read just the actions:

Player A moves to engage Monster A.
Player B attacks Monster A with longbow.
Monster A attacks Player A.
Monster A attacks Player A with multiattack.
Player A attacks Monster A.
Player B moves to a better position.
Monster B moves to engage Player B.
Monster B attacks Player B.
Monster A attacks Player A with multiattack.

2. Players are more engaged because they don't resolve everything for their character in one turn. This is a BIG benefit IMO.

Indeed.

Anyway, here is the original thread during its inception over a year ago, but it has been revised slightly since then, but the general nuance has remained the same.

D&D 5E - Cinematic Initiative Variant (CIV)

So, after some discussion in my thread about what the combat round feels like/represents to you, I've done a lot of thinking about initiative and what might be a good alternative. A couple things I want to address first: 1. This is not a roll = time system. So, going on 20 or higher doesn't...

www.enworld.org

Strangely enough, @Lanefan, you were the first to comment on it.

Could be - memory like a steel sieve, that's me.

Other house-rules have added complexity over time, but also allows for more tactical play. Someday I might right up a more robust description.

FWIW, it you are perfectly happy with initiative in 5E, this probably isn't for you. I devised it to make the action in the game more narrate itself by the order of what actions happen when. As I've said, we've been using it and refining it for over a year now, and personally I would hate to go back to the normal initiative of resolving all a creature's actions at once.

Fair enough. Were it me I'd add in the idea of rerolling the base init. each round to break the symmetry.

Another thought - what about maybe doing all the rolling up front? So, instead of rolling the next action's init. when the first one happens, roll 'em all at the start of the round, one per action/move, and arrange to suit. Thus, at the start of the round someone with two attacks and a move would roll 3d20 and arrange in order to suit: "OK, I attack on 20 and 15 then move on 8"*.

* - important to me is that for a move, the init here would specify when you arrive at your destination; you're actually moving in this example from init's 14 through 9 in case it matters where you are when if something might interrupt you. I've really come to dislike what I call "mini-teleport" movement, where you're here then suddenly you're there.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is the base initiative rerolled each round? For example, does Player A below always start each round with init. 22?

Yes, it is rerolled each round. That is why in the example spoiler I wrote "Roll first initiative for round 2." I HATE cyclical initiative in any form! It is really unrealistic and well... you get the idea.

So, yes to this:

Fair enough. Were it me I'd add in the idea of rerolling the base init. each round to break the symmetry.

LOL, this was your FIRST suggestion in the original thread as well! At least you're consistent.

Another thought - what about maybe doing all the rolling up front? So, instead of rolling the next action's init. when the first one happens, roll 'em all at the start of the round, one per action/move, and arrange to suit. Thus, at the start of the round someone with two attacks and a move would roll 3d20 and arrange in order to suit: "OK, I attack on 20 and 15 then move on 8"*.

The reason is to create some tension also because until your action comes on your first initiative, you have no clue when you might get to go again next!

Since we've been doing this, I've had players go first on 18, then roll nothing but 18, 19, or 20 for each action until they were done! Crazy, but it happened!

* - important to me is that for a move, the init here would specify when you arrive at your destination; you're actually moving in this example from init's 14 through 9 in case it matters where you are when if something might interrupt you. I've really come to dislike what I call "mini-teleport" movement, where you're here then suddenly you're there.

I am really glad you mention this since it is actually an element we've been toying with, but haven't made concrete yet!

In the above spoiler example, for instance, when Player A moved on 22 to engage Monster A, his next action was at 12, so that might be when he actually got there. BUT here's the rub: Monster A goes on 14, and Player A doesn't arrive until 12...

So, the narrative could change to Monster A goes on 14 to engage Player A (they are really meeting someplace in between), and if the DM rolls a 14 or better, gets to attack immediately as the next action.

It can work, we're playtesting it and trying to iron out any wrinkles.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I am really glad you mention this since it is actually an element we've been toying with, but haven't made concrete yet!

In the above spoiler example, for instance, when Player A moved on 22 to engage Monster A, his next action was at 12, so that might be when he actually got there. BUT here's the rub: Monster A goes on 14, and Player A doesn't arrive until 12...

So, the narrative could change to Monster A goes on 14 to engage Player A (they are really meeting someplace in between), and if the DM rolls a 14 or better, gets to attack immediately as the next action.

It can work, we're playtesting it and trying to iron out any wrinkles.

Or, simply, Player A got there at 22 but Monster A was waiting for them to approach and got the jump on the attack at 14. Then Player A returns the favor at 12. I'm not seeing the need to view that as a "mini-teleport" or worry about somehow meeting in-between. Right? Or am I misreading something.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Put the magic items in the monster book and then there's no need for the DMG.

Points for being the one who comes out and says it.

Honestly the DMG should probably be replaced by something more useful within the core. The bests parts of various editions are Timeless and don't need updating.

The question should be what third book should the core have?

Personally I'd replace the DMG with a Manual of the Planes as the third core book.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Or, simply, Player A got there at 22 but Monster A was waiting for them to approach and got the jump on the attack at 14. Then Player A returns the favor at 12. I'm not seeing the need to view that as a "mini-teleport" or worry about somehow meeting in-between. Right? Or am I misreading something.

That is pretty much the way we've been playing it for months now and it works fine IMO.

But, like I wrote earlier we are "exploring" the idea of a movement-timing element. I don't know if in the end we'll keep it or some version of it or not. We'll see.

 

[Lanefan]

Or, simply, Player A got there at 22 but Monster A was waiting for them to approach and got the jump on the attack at 14. Then Player A returns the favor at 12. I'm not seeing the need to view that as a "mini-teleport" or worry about somehow meeting in-between. Right? Or am I misreading something.

If player A starts moving on 22 and also arrives on 22, that's a mini-teleport and is what I'd like to do away with.

The way I handle such things is, using this case as an example and if monster A was happy with its current position, monster A's 14 would get knocked down to a 12 because it has to wait for player A to get there*, at which point both player and monster would attack simultaneously.

* - though if monster A had any other viable targets within reach on 14 one of those would get attacked instead.

 

[Azuresun]

I think the only thing I'd want is a revision to the adventuring day bit where it now gives multiple examples of adventuring days and makes it super ultra clear that there is no "right" way to do it. And if that doesn't drive a stake through the heart of the "6-8 encounters per day or you're Doing It Wrong" misconception that's so prevalent, put it on page one in big sparkly letters.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If player A starts moving on 22 and also arrives on 22, that's a mini-teleport and is what I'd like to do away with.

The way I handle such things is, using this case as an example and if monster A was happy with its current position, monster A's 14 would get knocked down to a 12 because it has to wait for player A to get there*, at which point both player and monster would attack simultaneously.

* - though if monster A had any other viable targets within reach on 14 one of those would get attacked instead.

I mean, I get what you are saying but let’s break it down a bit: Moving up to 30 feet, for a capable adventurer, might take what… somewhere between 1 to 3 seconds? Is that really important to simulate more granularly in a 6 second round combat system that is largely abstracted to begin with? I guess as an optional “combat movement” rule, some might latch onto it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The way I handle such things is, using this case as an example and if monster A was happy with its current position, monster A's 14 would get knocked down to a 12 because it has to wait for player A to get there*, at which point both player and monster would attack simultaneously.

There are multiple ways we've tried handling this:

1 - Delaying your action. Monster A, going on 14, can delay and attacks on 12 when Player A finishes moving. No reaction used.
2 - Readying your action (RAW). Monster A, going on 14, readies it action to attack as soon as Player A enters its reach. Reaction used. This also foils use of Extra Attack and Multiattack.
3 - Moving to Engage and roll for next action to Attack. Monster A moves on 14, spending some of its speed to close the gap to Player A. Now Monster A will have to roll another initiative for its next action.

1 is what we have done mostly. It is easy to do and no spending a creature's reaction frees it up.
2 works fine, but sometimes the use of reaction is hampering to later "action" in the narrative.
3 is ok, but the question arise of how much speed did Monster A use to close the gap? How much of Player A's speed was used to reach a point between the two starting locations?

We do play with a virtual grid via PowerPoint, and most of the time I will make a judgement call in case 3.

In the case of simultaneous actions, we resolve them as the higher modifier goes first, otherwise the actions are resolved actually simultaneously.

We have other rules, for things like charging, and made actions such as Hide, Help, and Disengage "move actions". But those are all in addition to cinematic initiative and works well with it.