What is your way for doing Initiative?

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I thought about letting people without an action roll a d6 and I didn’t like it. PC will attempt to game it, never rolling to move in hopes of going early and then getting bailed out if it didn’t work.

You have to be smart and decide what is best. Making your players decisions is what makes the game a game.

Make a choice.

Really? Can you give an example? I am tweaking as we speak and I am loving the stuff I am seeing so far.

 

[smbakeresq]

What I want is combat to feel like a group acting.. When you have side initiative (or something like this) you have more of a team feel. I want players figuring out how to work together and I don’t mind some meta-level tactical discussion during combat.

Individual initiative always felt to me like it promoted more of a “it’s my turn to be awesome” feel.

That is does. That's also the reason why I don't like gish builds for most players. Mostly gish builds are born out of "I cant stand not being the spotlight so I need to do everything" as opposed to a cool PC concept. Same thing happened to Warlords in 4e, too many people took the pc role of "Leader" to mean "I tell you what to do every round."

Group play should always be encouraged, eventually it will lead to good group play then smooth, good group play which makes games sing.

 

[guachi]

My preferred way is initiative is a dexterity check where everyone's dexterity modifier is zero.

I don't think dexterity should matter to initiative but setting the modifier to zero still allows abilities like those of the Bard or Champion Fighter to work.

It's not a very exciting change, but there you go.

 

[Sadras]

Yes, you have to fabricate additional house rules and deal with chances dpells and effects might be utterly useless or doubly effective - not something we see as adds.

We used floating init for like two sessions before tossing it cuz of so many unreasonable outcomes.

I'm pretty sure that unreasonable outcomes is actually a feature for combat. Combat is supposed to be chaotic. You aren't always able to capitalise on an effect due to
(a) having to defend yourself against others;
(b) having to catch your breath;
(c) being hampered by terrain and weather conditions;
(d) momentarily turning your attention elsewhere (fallen comrade, someone saying something, noticing something);
(e) the effect was shaken off faster than you expected or was not as effective; and
(f) supernatural/unexplained phenomena (suffering from an effect yourself, seeing an image of long lost friend, hearing your deity's voice)

Other times, combat is just perfect, everything lines up and you're unbelievably deadly or maybe just lucky.

 

[smbakeresq]

Really? Can you give an example? I am tweaking as we speak and I am loving the stuff I am seeing so far.

Sure.

I decide to attack with a d8 weapon at a target standing next to me. I roll a d8 to see if I beat the monster. The DM rolls a d8 and a d6 for the monster to move and attack.

If I beat the monster I attack without problems.

If the monster beats me and it moves away to attack some one else, or someone kills it first, I lose my attack since the monster isn't there and I didn't roll to move.

As a player it is then better to just roll a d8 and try to go first against a monster rolling to move and attack, in this case a d6 and d8. You will win most of the time. The times you don't win and the monster moves away before your attack came up well then you get to roll a d6. The player gets more tactical information then the monsters do

The way it works as written plays out like this at the table. Ranged types and spell users usually just stay put and attack as long as they know someone will be in range even if they role the highest number they can. Melee users and large weapon users, including monsters, usually roll to move and attack just in case. What happens is mostly non-movers will go first, but then cant react to the battle as it develops, which is their choice, while people who roll multiple dice get attacks first but then have more options. What you want is players to be forced to make a choice to risk going first against going later but getting more options to move or do other stuff.

Reach means more in this system, as you can risk not moving more on the chance of going first. Also, Huge, powerful creatures with natural weapons with reach are even more powerful, a dragon for example has massive reach and weapons yet only rolls a d8 for its initiative (if it chooses not to move) as its not using weapons and its reach might be enough. Ropers are tough, they will have an advantage on initiative with a d8 only as they multi-attack 4 times out to 50' while players will be rolling more dice to move and attack.

Rogues will go slower, as they will want to move, attack and then use a bonus action like hide, that's a d6 (move) +d6 (weapon) +d6 (hide, for example.) However, I think this makes sense as a rogue will survey the situation and see what happens then move in and exploit a weakness.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Sure.

I decide to attack with a d8 weapon at a target standing next to me. I roll a d8 to see if I beat the monster. The DM rolls a d8 and a d6 for the monster to move and attack.

If I beat the monster I attack without problems.

If the monster beats me and it moves away to attack some one else, or someone kills it first, I lose my attack since the monster isn't there and I didn't roll to move.

Ok, I see your issue. That was one of the tweaks I've already added. My first thought is this:

You can always change your first action from attack or cast a spell to a move or some other action (other than attacking or casting a spell, unless it is a cantrip). Your first action roll is then bumped up by 1 and you take your changed action. You can later take your new action by rolling again using the die required and adding it to your new total.

In your example:
Suppose your rolled an 6 for your attack initiative.
The monster rolled a 4 on the d6, planning to move first, and then a 3 on the d8, for a total of 7 for the attack initiative total.
The monster moves away on 4. (You will probably still get an OA, which as I understand it the system allows as is, but I could be wrong.)
Your turn comes on 6, but no monster to attack!
So, you change your attack to a move to pursue and you are bumped +1 to 7 total.
On 7, the monster attacks and you move to re-engage it.
You arrive and still want to attack, so you roll another d8, say getting a 6, making your total now 13 for your new attack.
When 13 comes and the monster is still alive (or another target is within reach), you get to make your attack roll.

Now...

If the monster is killed before 13 and nothing else is in reach, you can move again IF you have movement left to engage a new target and possibly attack it. Alternatively, with my tweaks you could also change your attack to a cantrip casting (only cantrip!). If you did, the scenario would continue thus:

When 13 arrives you have no target in reach to attack but see a monster threatening your ally 40 feet away. You decide to change your attack to a cantrip casting, causing another +1 bump.
On 14, you begin casting your cantrip, rolling 1d4 (my die type for cantrips) and get a 3, bringing your total to 17.
On 17, you cast your cantrip at any target within sight and range as usual.

Whew! LOL!

Now, this is an extreme case scenario, so I know it looks rather comical at first, but think of it narratively:

Mordinak (your cleric) is attacking a Gnoll with his war pick. (You roll a 6 on the d8.)
Before you can get into position to strike a powerful blow, the Gnoll turns to attack Fiona (the Bard) and moves away! (On its turn of 3.)
You swing wildly (Opportunity Attack also on 3), but miss.
The Gnoll rushes over to attack Fiona.
So you decide to pursue (on 6, add 1 to make it 7 for changing actions) and give chase!
Just before you arrive the Gnoll attacks Fiona (on 7), but misses. You are hot on its heels and close in.
(You roll for your attack initiative and get a 6, so you will attack on 13.)
As you feint, and shift, trying to find your place to strike, Rogdin (the Rogue) hits the Gnoll with his Sneak Attack (on 10) and kills it!
Curses! you cry out. But then you see another Gnoll battling Ovain (the Fighter), but it is too far away to engage.
You decide to call down a Sacred Flame. (Your 13 is bumped to 14.)
(You roll the d4 for a cantrip and get a 3, bringing your total to 17.)
Finally (on 17), you call down a searing burst of sacred energy on the other Gnoll (who failed his Dex save!) and watch it howl in pain.

The short version is this: Monster moved, can't attack; switch to move; monster attacks; ally kills monster; can't attack again; switch to cantrip; cast cantrip.

So, what was a situation where in the other system as is, you would do nothing once the monster moved away, you can now still act instead of just stand there. I think it will keep players more active as people don't just go and stop, go and stop, but will likely have "partial" actions intermixed with each other. Tomorrow I am meeting one of my players and if I finish the tweaks tonight (there aren't too many of them), we'll try it out.

Now, to everyone else who read all this (thank you for your dedication! ), I know this is a lot and some of you won't like the ideas. Frankly, I don't care, it isn't for you.

 

[Maxperson]

You're absolutely correct - as long you willfully ignore the the other half of the equation that was already pointed out.

It also has a duration of 1 round. Spell effects don't last past the end of their duration. When Fear ends, you don't keep running. When Command ends, you don't take the action.

Also, duration is not the only effect that lasts until the start (or end) of your next turn, so even if this particular case is wrong it doesn't matter.

Where does it say that the 1 round is based on the caster's initiative and not 1 round based on the target's initiative? It seems to me that you cast it and it instantly requires that the target take its next action as prescribed by the spell. The duration is just that the next round the target can take its action normally. The spell won't wear off before the the target can act, regardless of the caster's initiative.

 

[smbakeresq]

Read the system again. You have to choose all your actions first and then roll all the dice and then do everything all at once when your turn comes, but in any order you want. If you don’t plan ahead, which takes time as reflected in your dice rolls, then you wasted your turn. Rarely do you want to risk not having a move available. In a fixed initiative system you have more information so a more fixed plan.

It’s good in that the more you want to accomplish the later you go in general. Warlocks and archers who want to just sit there and blast away end up going real fast. But then sneaky rogues will be rolling 3 dice, probably going after the archers, this “timing” the move after the archers fired.

Run a few test encounters and you will get a quick feel for it.

I do like how having a high Dex score doesn’t mean you get the jump on most for your career, having fast twitch muscle shouldn’t mean you are a tactical genius. This now has to come from the actual player.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I know that was how the system was written. I wrote with some of the tweaks already in place (sorry if that was unclear). For example, I prefer the idea of breaking up actions and having the timing for each element staged by the different die rolls, not just adding them all up and then you do everything at once. If I kept it that way, it would be just like the system is now in that respect. I discussed this briefly with the player I am meeting tomorrow, and he liked the idea with staged elements so people would be paying closer attention (some of my group definitely has attention issues and they are easily distracted).

If the warlock wants to cast a cantrip and then move, I would rather do the 1d4 to determine when the cantrip is cast, stage it at that point, and then roll 1d6 to find out when his move occurs, adding it to the original d4 roll. In the system as is, rolling a d10 and a d6 together so that on, say 9 if that was the total, you cast AND move all at once, is not as meaningful to me as compared to casting on 3, for instance, and then moving on 8 if you rolled a 5 on the d6. The break from 4-7 in between is when others have some of their actions most likely, and that might influence how you move on 8.

Anyway, we are going to playtest a bit tomorrow before I run it by the group on Wednesday. It will be a bit before I try implementing it, though, as I have to give it some more thought on other processes.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

"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!"

Both this and the other examples I describe as coordination, not abuses, tactics and teamwork, not abuses.

Not sure at all why they would be seen as abusive- shoving down an enemy at the feet of your ally, sleeping foes so your ally can hit them or ignore them and go after others?

We define abuse very differently you and i.