What is your way for doing Initiative?

[Blue]

But don't most spells that target others end on their turn, not yours?

There isn't a single case of a spell with a duration "until the start/end of your target's turn". There are some spells that a target can save or make checks on some other turn - that is an additional way to get rid of it, separate from duration.

And the ones that would be most affected, the single round duration spells, almost never have any other modifier to duration.

 

[5ekyu]

When you drive to work in the morning, you make a lot of decisions right? Where to walk, what lane to drive in, where to cross the road, how fast to drive, where to park... right? You are in control of much of it right? But I bet you can predict pretty well exactly what time you will get to work every day. Especially after 30 years of going to work. Even if you change jobs, or get a new car, or a new bus-line or subway opens you still can predict pretty well when you will get to work right?

The things you have no control over, an accident or break down or other people have a bigger impact of when you get to work than the decisions you make. It's not because you don't have control. Its not because the choices you make are not meaningful; it is simply because of all the choices you make are optimized to get you to work. Sure, you could make a different choice, and take longer to get to work, but why would you do that?

I've been playing D&D and other tactical and strategic games with this player for about 40 years now. There is no reason he is not going to make a combat choice that is not optimized (unless he chooses to role-play a character that would do otherwise). Most of the rest of the players are not going to make a choice that is not optimized (unless it is in-character). As the DM I'm going to play the NPCs/Adversaries in a meaningful way. Usually that means close to optimized, but not always.

Then think about a combat, you really can break it down to X vs Y and various types of combatants; melee, ranged, tank, control, buff, etc (whatever names you want to give them). Then you have locations like open area or ones with cover and traps and hazards. All of those are just factors that can be accounted for in an optimized solution.

If your brain works in a way, and you have played ten or hundred of thousands of scenarios, you can "see" the likely outcome before combat begins.

I know, I know, you are going to tell me to mix it up. And I do. But, another one or two predictable variables like terrain, etc are just more factors. Even re-rolling init is just another factor. More factors, more complexity.

The biggest things that "cloud" the predictability is randomness that does not average out over the length of a combat and unknown enemies. Re-rolling initiative is something that yields highly variable results given the short number of data points in a combat (i.e. half a dozen rounds). Even the PC with advantage and +7 initiative doesn't always go first or even in the top half.

To reiterate, it is the players choices that have the biggest impact on success and failure in combat. But it's because they have to account for the randomness and chaos of combat. Not because the players are not experienced enough to make optimal choices. The players get to make the choice, do we play it safe and heal the paladin, or do we take a chance that next round I might go last and not be able to heal him before the BBEG gets a lucky hit if I fail to paralyze him this round?

Thats a whole lots of going on to so miss the point.

Changing the initiative order round by round does not change the number of actions characters get - more than say any save made or failed will.

So that means the brainiac statistics that tell you what "rounds" NPC will fall or what "rounds" PC#1 will need healing are not changing by whatever predictive means you are using.

Yet you say it does, that the combat results change and apparently these statistics go all unpredictable.

If i am to take you at your word that the brainiac was making optimal chouces before and is also doing so now yet the combats play out to no longer match the previous results, it really seems like the hew system has empowered that init die roll thingy to get more out of the combat than he could before (or more for the enemy - its hard to say cuz while you ssid it wasnt giving the same outcomes you did not actually say it was evenly divided, overally favored the enemies or overall favored the players.)

So, hey, whatever happens at your table i cannot say one wsy or the other but if you are gonna claim this house rule (which does not change action per round) when combined with a million years of awesome gameplay produces different overall stats on performance, then you have definitely shifted some of that impact of player choice to the dice.

Thats great if thats your thing.

Its just not the direction we choose to go.

But, you do you.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

There isn't a single case of a spell with a duration "until the start/end of your target's turn". There are some spells that a target can save or make checks on some other turn - that is an additional way to get rid of it, separate from duration.

And the ones that would be most affected, the single round duration spells, almost never have any other modifier to duration.

Ok, thanks. One thing I would like to point out is that by re-rolling initiative, it can also work in the caster's favor.

Example: Chill Touch (since someone, I forgot who, brought it up... )

Two effects are dependent on your next turn: 1) the target can't regain hit points and 2) if it is undead, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against you.

Say the first round I am going on 5 and my target (a skeleton) is going on 3.
I cast Chill Touch and hit.
The target takes damage, and when it goes on 3, cannot regain hit points and has disadvantage when it attacks.

The next round the skeleton is going on 6, and I don't go until 2.
Since my turn hasn't started yet, those effects are still in play.
In other words, I benefit from the spell twice!

In the cyclical system as is, I would go first again on 5 and the spell effects would end.

Worst case scenario is I go after the skeleton on the round I cast Chill Touch and then go before it the next round, so I never gain the benefits of the effects. All-in-all, it averages out though.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

So he metagames because he's got the Monster Manual memorized?

Look, I understand that you're happy with rerolling initiative, but the behavior you're describing from your player here requires knowledge of AC and hp to make those sorts of predictions. If he's using that at the table to the extent that you're describing, it's just metagaming. The solution isn't to roll initiative every round. If as soon as you put the figurine on the table your players know it's hp, AC, saving throws, etc., the solution to that isn't to roll more initiative dice. It's to prevent that metagame knowledge from being useful. The solution is to mix things up. Use Ogre stats for Human warriors, or Hobgoblin stats, or Bugbears, or whatever.

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.

If your table likes it, do it. I'm absolutely not saying that you shouldn't play the game the way you want. That doesn't mean that initiative is not being overvalued or overestimated at your table.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

I agree. It's a good idea, but I still want the players to go in the order they rolled, so I probably won't apply it. I might give it a try, just to see how it plays out... we'll see.

I also usually have 7 players at the table. Half of which have trouble focusing on the game. I figured giving them a bit more control of the game might help them focus on what was happening. Essentially I got tired of every round having to remind people it was their turn, then waiting for them to decide what they were doing. Especially when there were other players waiting for their turn. Anything more “complicated” than RAW initiative would grind my game to halt with extra rolling.

I shouldn’t put it all on my players though. I just plain suck at keeping track and hate doing it. I just wanna get to smashing players as quick as possible.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I don't recall if I mentioned this before but for my group, I also have the players declare their actions/intentions before rolling for initiative. Because we re-roll every round it does result in some characters using the Ready action because they might end up having to wait for another character to act. Once actions are declared, they can only change them to Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or not act at all if they change their mind when their turn arrives. I let players coordinate a bit, through a short phrase, such as "I'm fireballing the ledge!" if a caster plans to cast fireball on enemies by the ledge and doesn't want to risk catching a party member. A fighter might decide to Ready his attack for after the fireball has been cast.

But with cyclical initiative, I could easily see too many options for tactical abuse by the players. If I always know my fighter is going before the other player's raging barbarian, you better believe I am going to try to shove the target and knock it prone! That raging barbarian then gets advantage to attacks. Oh, and did I mention he is benefiting from the Extra attack feature, has GWM, and three levels of Rogue so 2d6 Sneak attack damage? So, it makes even more sense for me to act in a utility role and let the barbarian optimize his hits. That is huge!

How about this one? The wizard is always going before said barbarian due to rolling higher on the initiative roll. The wizard's player snickers, casts Sleep using his highest level slot, and puts three targets to sleep (so they are unconscious). That player then fist-bumps the barbarian's player and they both have a nice laugh. The barbarian, already in his rage from a previous round, moves to the three targets (which are adjacent), has advantage on his rolls using his GWM and sneak attack and hits all three for automatic crits (one hit on each with due to Extra Attack and GWM bonus action to attack a creature reduced to 0 hp).

Those are only two instances of how cyclical initiative can be completely abused by the characters (and, heck, even by me as DM if I want to be a complete... you know...). By making characters declare and then roll each turn, it greatly reduces such abuse.

But hey, many of you might not see this as abusive, so no worries.

 

[Lanefan]

We handle ties initially with natural rolls beat augmented. So, if one player has a +1 and rolls a 3, total is 4. If another has no modifier and rolls a 4, he goes first by virtue of it being an unaugmented roll. If both were augmented, the one with the lower mod goes first as his die roll was higher. If the modifiers to the rolls are also ties, such as two players both with +1 rolling 3's, then I can refer to the ability score (Dex, Int, or Wis) that created the modifier. Sometimes, for example, the one character might have a Dex 16 and the other Wis 17, both would be +1 to their rolls, but the 17 is better so acts first. If the ability scores are ALSO ties, the actions so simply simultaneous.

Most often, comparing the natural roll against augmented is enough, rarely do I have to go much further but sometimes we do. You can break it down as minute as you want, really.

So in short you do force a sequence. OK.

But I have to ask: why? Wouldn't it be simpler to just have all '4's resolve at once rather than worrying about tie-breaking? Sure, for practicality reasons go around the table and deal with them one at a time but with the understanding that it's all happening at once and that yes, you and your foe can simultaneously kill each other.

I've done it that way forever - a tie is a tie. Yes there's corner cases where ties need to be broken (usually with spells trying to resolve at the same time, either one of which could interrupt the other) but they're uncommon - maybe one a session at most.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

So in short you do force a sequence. OK.

But I have to ask: why? Wouldn't it be simpler to just have all '4's resolve at once rather than worrying about tie-breaking? Sure, for practicality reasons go around the table and deal with them one at a time but with the understanding that it's all happening at once and that yes, you and your foe can simultaneously kill each other.

I've done it that way forever - a tie is a tie. Yes there's corner cases where ties need to be broken (usually with spells trying to resolve at the same time, either one of which could interrupt the other) but they're uncommon - maybe one a session at most.

Honestly, with a 6-second round it does make more sense for a tie to simply tie and go simultaneously, but the natural versus augmented works quickly enough to not slow things down when it occurs. Even delving deeper (modifier, ability score) only takes a few seconds when the pop-up.

I've been toying with just making it the d6, no mods at all. It is a 6-second round, so you go on second X according to your roll. I am sure that would probably work just as well as anything else. Of course, I like the idea someone wrote with extra attacks, rolling a die for each attack to determine when it strikes. Who knows, there are tons of options and I'll discuss some of the stuff from the thread on Wednesday with my group.

 

[Mercule]

Look, I understand that you're happy with rerolling initiative, but the behavior you're describing from your player here requires knowledge of AC and hp to make those sorts of predictions. If he's using that at the table to the extent that you're describing, it's just metagaming. The solution isn't to roll initiative every round. If as soon as you put the figurine on the table your players know it's hp, AC, saving throws, etc., the solution to that isn't to roll more initiative dice. It's to prevent that metagame knowledge from being useful. The solution is to mix things up. Use Ogre stats for Human warriors, or Hobgoblin stats, or Bugbears, or whatever.

That'd be the start. Really, this is the sort of behavior that keeps lighter systems on my radar -- Fate, especially. I'm currently happy with 5E, but I would go insane with even one player that used metagame knowledge to that extent. Don't get me wrong, I love tactical games, especially board/war games that reward a certain level of system mastery and/or "4D chess". That's just not what I want from an RPG.

As you say, to each their own. In this case, it sounds like the metagaming actually is a problem at the table.

But with cyclical initiative, I could easily see too many options for tactical abuse by the players. If I always know my fighter is going before the other player's raging barbarian, you better believe I am going to try to shove the target and knock it prone! That raging barbarian then gets advantage to attacks. Oh, and did I mention he is benefiting from the Extra attack feature, has GWM, and three levels of Rogue so 2d6 Sneak attack damage? So, it makes even more sense for me to act in a utility role and let the barbarian optimize his hits. That is huge!

...

But hey, many of you might not see this as abusive, so no worries.

I'd totally see it as abusive and it'd totally drive me from the game. I haven't had it as an issue for a couple of reasons:

1) I've made it extremely clear that I have no interest in running a game that's super crunchy or where PCs are cycling through ever more powerful magic items. I don't begrudge people for wanting that, I'm just not the GM for it. The end. Note: That doesn't mean I don't work with the players to make the game interesting for all, just that I have some boundaries and I'm up front about them.

2) I tend to prefer villains who are PC races. That means they're as unpredictable as PCs and have the same sorts of wildcard capabilities. Who cares if you know the math on the routine encounters when the ones that actually matter are wildcards.

3) When I do use monstrous opposition (which is common, just heavily spiced with PC races), I narrate the appearance, rather than being clear about what things are, unless the PCs would know. I don't overdo it, but I'm also more than willing to run with anything the PCs say. When running LMoP, I was describing the orcs (or was it goblins) that are all over the place, and actually called them orcs. The players kept slipping and calling them goblins (or orcs, can't remember which way, anymore). I corrected them a few times, and they even caught themselves and corrected. But, they kept doing it. After a couple sessions, I ran with it and just started calling them goblins because that's what the players had called them during a half-hour of straight planning. I've done this with other monsters and magic items (sure, it's a dragon slayer, whatever) on a number of occasions. The players know I'm doing this and are cool with it.

3) In practice, the problem with "I know I go before X" is more theoretic than realized. I was concerned, as well, mainly because I'm so strongly opposed to the aggressively crunchy game style. Even for the tactically minded and borderline char-ops players I have, I don't think I've yet seen any time it's been an issue. Whether that's because of the above or not, I couldn't say. It just hasn't been an issue.

 

[Mercule]

As for how I actually handle initiative... I use an app. It rolls the NPCs automatically and individually (go ahead and try to plan around 25 goblins each with their own initiative count) and I ask the players for their number. Just keep hitting "next" to call whose turn it is.

I guess that also means no one actually knows the initiative order until the end of the first round. No one has ever tried to write it down, but I'd probably tell them "no", if they did, which would make it hard for them to remember/plan.