What is your way for doing Initiative?

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

thats all fantastic and i wish we had time for you to add five more paragraphs about how simple math works but the final nutshells are it would seem one of the three...

(snip)

but again, thats just us.

Very true, but talk about too many paragraphs! Man that was a lengthy post. And I only overkill the simple math because I have had other forums were people didn't follow the quick explanations for things.

In my group I hate to think of everyone calling out I want to do this, and I want to do that, and I am going to do this before he does that! What utter chaos!!! And giving them the choice of who goes when in a 6-second round might work for you but is hardly realistic (yeah, I know... "fantasy" game blah blah blah). Combine the time required to attack, defend, move up to your speed, cast a spell pulling out components (if you play you have to have them in hand to cast, many people don't...), yelling to other players to coordinate, and so on, and you require a level of teamwork that is insane in a span of 6 seconds. Even professional sport teams can barely manage such a flurry of types of activities while maintaining some form of strategy, especially when you consider maneuvers performed by them are typically in short "spurts" and not over 30 seconds or much longer. I know I assume during some downtime characters do train and practice, I never would assume the entire group would spend hours daily to even try to come close to the level you are implying. But as you say, it works for your group (I would LOVE to see it implemented) and that is all that matters.

However, for us, calling down the numbers from 7 to 1, not calling groups of numbers (or heaven forbid from 25 or so down!), even with the ties works much faster. I can only reason why, but in practice it is much faster for my group and all the players agreed, happy with the change. We want the unpredictability of re-rolling every round as cyclical offers way too much opportunity for abuse. That said, I do often have characters taking the Ready action to implement tactics, and it works pretty well.

 

[Quickleaf]

I use the normal system. For my current group, the predictability is a feature; it helps my players keep track of effects, helps with their understanding of the scene, and allows someone to slip away to use the bathroom, grab a soda, or handle a phone call and be back in time for their next turn.

When I have chance to do advance planning, I prefer to pre-roll monster / NPC initiatives to speed things up.

 

[5ekyu]

Very true, but talk about too many paragraphs! Man that was a lengthy post. And I only overkill the simple math because I have had other forums were people didn't follow the quick explanations for things.

In my group I hate to think of everyone calling out I want to do this, and I want to do that, and I am going to do this before he does that! What utter chaos!!! And giving them the choice of who goes when in a 6-second round might work for you but is hardly realistic (yeah, I know... "fantasy" game blah blah blah). Combine the time required to attack, defend, move up to your speed, cast a spell pulling out components (if you play you have to have them in hand to cast, many people don't...), yelling to other players to coordinate, and so on, and you require a level of teamwork that is insane in a span of 6 seconds. Even professional sport teams can barely manage such a flurry of types of activities while maintaining some form of strategy, especially when you consider maneuvers performed by them are typically in short "spurts" and not over 30 seconds or much longer. I know I assume during some downtime characters do train and practice, I never would assume the entire group would spend hours daily to even try to come close to the level you are implying. But as you say, it works for your group (I would LOVE to see it implemented) and that is all that matters.

However, for us, calling down the numbers from 7 to 1, not calling groups of numbers (or heaven forbid from 25 or so down!), even with the ties works much faster. I can only reason why, but in practice it is much faster for my group and all the players agreed, happy with the change. We want the unpredictability of re-rolling every round as cyclical offers way too much opportunity for abuse. That said, I do often have characters taking the Ready action to implement tactics, and it works pretty well.

"In my group I hate to think of everyone calling out I want to do this, and I want to do that, and I am going to do this before he does that! What utter chaos!!! "

Yeah I can see that if that's how your group works you would not like giving them as many choices.

Me, I just go "who's next when the time comes up and play proceeds without any of that crsp you just described.

There is not some "argue about it phase" in my system, after all.

Part of it tho, our perspectives, stem from having played in many different games where sequence is determined do very differently that a bigg fuss over the particular fetishes over which five is better and whether modifiers of -2 to +9 vs a d20 is better than modifiers of 0 to +2 vs a d6 are better or worse seems more like Angel's dancing on pins compared to the diminished differences in character traits or actually going for whatever one sees as more realistic.

5e and your JGd6 both fall into actor based initiative (who is doing stuff determines when it gets done) with modified die rolls - although of course your JGd6 is awesome and new and cool and very sway.

A variety of systems use Action-based init - where **what** you are doing determines when it gets done. One cases uses initiative for **declare** what you are doing (lowest first so the high init knows more when he makes his choice) and then the order of resolution is done by categories with actions with a category simultaneous. That sequence goes a long way to set the tone of the game. Doctor Who sequence is Talking then Wiggly Bendy Science then Running Then Attacking. Meanwhile, Buffy might be Close Attacks then Run then Guns then quick magic.

Other systems have you choose actions in the order of init (or blind) then everyone rolls their action checks and the higher the success the quicker you got your action off.

Other systems just use initiative mods (from variety of dources) without any dice.

Many allow the option of a "hasty" action allowing you to resolve your action sooner but at a penalty to its success.

We can go on... but from this perspective, having played many many games and campaigns in these other systems - our guys just font see the merit in playing which dice gsmes to then see the character differences muted in an attempt to get to a "better" init especially if 9ne imagines that "realism" is Involved.

Then again, more has been written about angels on pins than init so maybe it's a bigger deal than I would give it credit for.

 

[LordEntrails]

That's... really not that difficult. The uncertainty in combat is not in guessing what the other participants will do, trebly so if you know the player. The uncertainty is in how successful their actions will be. The vast majority of combatants actions in D&D will be unchanged in any given encounter regardless of initiative with the sole exception of the first round (i.e., when spells are likely to be their most potent).

That does not read to me like an issue with initiative - nor necessarily something I would want to put in *rules* to prevent.

But each table has it's own tastes. I mean, you are literally citing a need to add the d20 rerolls to stop a player from figuring out things and presumably making informed choices- whereas we go heavy towards more choices and less power to thecd20 at our table. "Power to the people, not the dice" is our thing.

Neither of you are getting it, which is ok because I didn't really explain it.

First, the player likes re-roll initiative. It adds more variables to the combats, which are otherwise fairly boring for him. It's not that he can just predict what the other players will do, but without much effort he knows what is otherwise going to statistically happen. 'The two npcs will die on turn 2, and this PC will need healing on turn 3 and ...' With fixed initiative he knows that he can attack this round and their is only a 7% chance he will be knocked unconscious before the cleric can heal him. Or that if the wizard casts XYZ then that means that the party defeats the bad guy in x rounds.

With re-roll init, their is more uncertainty and chaos. It takes nothing away from the players ability to effect and enjoy combat. It adds enjoyment for everyone at the table.

Even with this, you might not agree or understand. That's ok. Try to think of some general standing on a parapet overlooking ten thousand creatures engaged in battle below them. And that general already seeing every possible outcome of the battle based upon the possible actions of each and every creature. An oracle per se who can see the future. After how many battles and years of directing such things does it get boring? Re-roll adds a bit of wonder back, it clouds the future just enough.

 

[5ekyu]

Neither of you are getting it, which is ok because I didn't really explain it.

First, the player likes re-roll initiative. It adds more variables to the combats, which are otherwise fairly boring for him. It's not that he can just predict what the other players will do, but without much effort he knows what is otherwise going to statistically happen. 'The two npcs will die on turn 2, and this PC will need healing on turn 3 and ...' With fixed initiative he knows that he can attack this round and their is only a 7% chance he will be knocked unconscious before the cleric can heal him. Or that if the wizard casts XYZ then that means that the party defeats the bad guy in x rounds.

With re-roll init, their is more uncertainty and chaos. It takes nothing away from the players ability to effect and enjoy combat. It adds enjoyment for everyone at the table.

Even with this, you might not agree or understand. That's ok. Try to think of some general standing on a parapet overlooking ten thousand creatures engaged in battle below them. And that general already seeing every possible outcome of the battle based upon the possible actions of each and every creature. An oracle per se who can see the future. After how many battles and years of directing such things does it get boring? Re-roll adds a bit of wonder back, it clouds the future just enough.

Obviously, whatever you say is happening at your table with brainiac is nothing I can speak to - but if I were told by my players that my encounters were boring and predictable, the last place I would go for solutions would be to change " when we roll stuff."

I really would not think that random order of events makes a significant change in the overall statistics of the outcomes... but let's say it does.

What you are saying then is that the initiative rolls round after round are a bigger impact in the outcomes than the characters and the player's choices were?

If that were the case in my games, I would see that as a flaw and a problem - not a feature to be lauded. I want the characters and the players choices yo be the biggest most meaningful factor, not the initiative dice.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

"Yeah I can see that if that's how your group works you would not like giving them as many choices.

Me, I just go "who's next when the time comes up and play proceeds without any of that crsp you just described.

There is not some "argue about it phase" in my system, after all.

Yeah, um, I am hardly restricting their choices as you seem to think. They can still perform whatever actions the game allows. I just choose to not be so willy-nilly about it.
If your players are so pleasant and wait for each other, "Oh, no, please, you first." "Oh, why thank you, but no, I insist you go first." then kudos.

My system is fairly identical to the mechanic of rolling a d20 (never claimed otherwise, in fact it was purposefully designed this way) but with a smaller range of numbers works more efficiently for our group. I told them about it, we tried it a few sessions, and when I asked for feedback, everyone agreed it was quicker and sped the game up. That was my goal and it works for us.

Sure, other games use other types of systems, but D&D is an Initiative-based system and through its various forms I have mostly pleased with it. I was never thrilled with the die bump up from d10 to d20 when 3E came out, as we ran into a similar problem back then playing 3E. Going back to the d6 and dividing by 3 tightens the range of numbers nicely and works well.

I would apologize for some of the earlier snarkiness, but your tone wasn't one to warrant such consideration.

Re-roll adds a bit of wonder back, it clouds the future just enough.

You got it. That is why I have never used a cyclical Initiative system in any game I played and never will.

 

[Satyrn]

I’m considering switching to this simpler way of handling initiative. In your experience, Did combat encounters become easier?

Edit: I imagine that surprise would become a huge advantage.

Surprise is just not something my table bothers trying for, DM or players, so I don't remember how it impacted fights. I think "getting Surprise" just meant the DM said that side goes first, no initiative roll needed, with advantage on attacks and imposing disadvantage on saves. That's how I'd rule it at this moment, if we were playing right now, anyway.

Combat did become a little easier, too, but not by much. The degree to which it will probably depends on just how much your players actually coordinate each round. Some rounds we highly coordinated, others not at all. The effect really depends on the players. I think we

If Combat gets to easy, the players might self-correct choosing to coordinate for more fun, less powerful actions. They probably won't.

As DM, giving the players this extra strength through coordination made feel more comfortable in coordinating the enemy attacks to greater effect, too. This ought to be the first thing you should try if you find combats getting too easy because of this method.

 

[Lanefan]

You got it. That is why I have never used a cyclical Initiative system in any game I played and never will.

Same here.

We use straight d6 for each action (thus if you get two attacks in a round you roll a d6 for each), rerolled each round. Your system for 5e sounds kinda similar to ours for 1e.

How do you handle ties? Do you let them all resolve at once or do you somehow force a sequence?

On a different tack: having effects that last "until your next turn" isn't a problem with re-rolled d20 init in 5e; all you need to do is change it to say the effect lasts "until the same init. next round" and then make whoever caused the effect responsible for tracking its duration. So if I stun you on 15 this round it's on me to tell you it wears off when 15 comes up next round, regardless of what my init. next round turns out to be.

Simple, huh?

 

[Maxperson]

Surprise is just not something my table bothers trying for, DM or players, so I don't remember how it impacted fights. I think "getting Surprise" just meant the DM said that side goes first, no initiative roll needed, with advantage on attacks and imposing disadvantage on saves. That's how I'd rule it at this moment, if we were playing right now, anyway.

That's how it worked in prior editions. In 5e, though, you roll initiative even if you are surprised, but you can't take an action in the first round. The initiative is important in 5e since some abilities key off of going before anyone has had a turn, and if your turn comes up during a surprise round you can start taking reactions, even if you can't act.

 

[Satyrn]

That's how it worked in prior editions. In 5e, though, you roll initiative even if you are surprised, but you can't take an action in the first round. The initiative is important in 5e since some abilities key off of going before anyone has had a turn, and if your turn comes up during a surprise round you can start taking reactions, even if you can't act.

Sorry, I wasn't quite clear. I was talking about how my table handled getting surprised under our Group Initiative house rules.