What is your way for doing Initiative?

[Blue]

That's an assumption. Page 203 doesn't say that, so this is a ruling case for the DM, not a rule. You are free to rule that way in your game, but it's not wrong for other DMs to rule differently for the spell.

No, it is not an assumption that the length of something starts from when it starts.

If you want to give a counterexample, let's take it to the simple case of out-of-combat so we're not arguing initiative timing. A spell lasts 10 minutes. Please provide examples that doesn't start when cast.

If you live 77 years, that starts from when you are born.

There is no assumption there.

Sorry, you're simply mistaken.

 

[Laurefindel]

That's an assumption. Page 203 doesn't say that, so this is a ruling case for the DM, not a rule. You are free to rule that way in your game, but it's not wrong for other DMs to rule differently for the spell.

I disagree; the rules are clear in that case.

Lets assume the following initiative order:

(1) Player A
(2) Monster
(3) Player B

On its turn, Monster attacks Player A. As a reaction, Player A casts shield, boosting their AC by 5 until the beginning of their next turn. RaI suggest that shield is a 1-round spell, and that the +5 AC will be off on Monster's next turn, since Player A will starts it turn before Monster. But if the initiative order changes to:

(1) Monster
(2) Player B
(3) Player A

The shield spell is still active on the monster's next turn (since Player A hasn't begun their next turn yet), so in a way, the same 1-round spell was active against Monster for two consecutive rounds.

Many spells have similar wording, allowing for a spell to affect a creature (PC or NPC) twice before its own turn, or allowing a creature to evade an AoE twice before the caster has the chance of moving the AoE back on the creature, etc.

 

[Malevolent Nuzzler]

Most of the time I use a variation of a system I saw a couple of years back. I let the PC's go first. Then the NPC's. Each player can decide to wait to go after the villians, in which they have advantage on one d20 roll of their choice. Pretty much made the rogue the sneak attacking machine, but never really had a problem with it, most of the time.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

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?

With cyclical initiative, you have foreknowledge of the order of actions, thus you can abuse it. With non-cyclical, you can try to do tactics, but because of the randomness of the rolls, it won't always work out as you plan.

Cyclical Initiative:
Round 2: (now the order of initiative is known)
1. PC A
2. PC B
3. Monster
4. PC C

PC A decides to shove Monster to knock prone, knowing PC B will get to attack with advantage. Player B attacks and then the Monster gets up and attacks. PC C, knowing PCs A and B will go before the monster next round, likes how the shove worked and uses his attack to shove instead of dealing damage. On the next round, PCs A and B will both get to attack with advantage.

Non-cyclical Initiative:
Round 2: (same as above, but no one knows for certain what the order will be next round)
1. PC A
2. PC B
3. Monster
4. PC C

Same strategy but PC A shoves (hoping either PC B or C might go before the monster, they don't know) , PC B attacks with advantage, Monster goes, PC C shoves instead of dealing damage.

Round 3: (oh, look! a new order... no one knows who is going when! how exciting! )
1. Monster
2. PC C
3. PC A
4. PC B

Oops! The monster goes first and gets up, attacking PC C and rolls a critical, PC C is dead! Boo-hoo! PCs A and B weep over their fallen comrade, attacking wildly and hoping to avenge the death of PC C.

So, yeah... there is a definite advantage to using a cyclical system that players (and the DM LOL) can exploit. The inherent randomness of re-rolling every round doesn't make teamwork and such impossible, but makes it more challenging.

We define abuse very differently you and i.

Yeah, I would certainly say we do!

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I've tried both RAW initiative and Greyhawk-style initiative and I didn't like it. RAW initiative makes the combat too static while Greyhawk initiative slows it down.

I'm toying with the following house rule:

All creatures roll initiative (d20+ Dexterity or Intelligence modifier). Creatures take their turn as normal, but a creature with higher initiative can let a slower creature act before.

However, each creature's initiative roll isn't set in stone. The roll may be modified (and accordingly, the order in which creatures take their turn) depending on some events:

A creature adds 5* to its initiative :
i) when it uses its inspiration ;
ii) when it scores a critical hit ;
iii) when it reduces an opponent's HP to 0.

A creature substracts 5* to its initiative :
i) when it fails a saving throw ;
ii) when it fails an attack roll by a margin of 5 ;
iii) when it becomes incapable of acting, frightened or prone ;
iv) when it takes more damage from a single source than its Constitution score.

Modifications to initiative take effect immediately unless the creature has already taken its turn, in which case they take effect at the beginning of the next round.

Examples:
During the first round, a barbarian PC acts on initiative count 13 and strikes sucessfully an orc (initiative count 10) and an ogre (initiative count 14). For some reasons, both the orc and the ogres take more damage than their constitution score and accordingly substract 5 from their initiative result. The orc will act on initiative count 5 for this round and later rounds, while the ogre, who already has acted, will act on initiative count 9.

On the second round, the barbarian acts first (initiative count 13), followed by the ogre (initiative count 9) and the orc (initiative count 5). If the orc strikes a critical hit, on this round, he will act on initiative count 10 on the third round.

What do you think?

* I'm still unsure if I should use a flat value or a random dice (say 1d6).

I like the idea of taken significant damage "worsening" your initiative. It makes sense as you are staggered from a big hit and not able to act as quickly as you might have otherwise. I might add something like that since it is so hard to kill PCs nowadays...

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I find it interesting about the debate of spells and duration considering the designers built-in the alternative system of non-cyclical initiative (for those of you who forgot, it is page 270 of the DMG).

Speed Factor
Some DMs find the regular progression of initiative too predictable and prone to abuse. Players can use their knowledge of the initiative order to influence their decisions.

[snip]

Under this variant, the participants in a battle roll initiative each round. Before rolling, each character or monster much choose an action.

Obviously, they saw no issue with spell durations using a variant system. There are plenty of ways to rule it so spells will still have all their potential effects, sometimes in favor of the characters and sometimes not (if they are the target of a spell).

The simplest way is to say for each round of duration a spell has, the target of the spell benefits or is hindered for one of its rounds. Sure, it is an adjustment on the wording of many spells which affect a target until "your next turn", etc., but it is hardly a big problem to adjust for.

If you think it is a big problem, just don't try this variant... maybe it is too difficult for you to handle?

 

[Maxperson]

No, it is not an assumption that the length of something starts from when it starts.

It is an assumption. You are assuming the the duration of the effect starts from when the casting is finished. It doesn't. The duration starts from when the effect starts. Usually this will coincide with the completion of the casting, but in the specific example of Command, the effect doesn't start until the creature's next turn. At that point it lasts for 1 round.

lease provide examples that doesn't start when cast.

Command.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree; the rules are clear in that case.

Lets assume the following initiative order:

(1) Player A
(2) Monster
(3) Player B

On its turn, Monster attacks Player A. As a reaction, Player A casts shield, boosting their AC by 5 until the beginning of their next turn. RaI suggest that shield is a 1-round spell, and that the +5 AC will be off on Monster's next turn, since Player A will starts it turn before Monster. But if the initiative order changes to:

(1) Monster
(2) Player B
(3) Player A

The shield spell is still active on the monster's next turn (since Player A hasn't begun their next turn yet), so in a way, the same 1-round spell was active against Monster for two consecutive rounds.

Many spells have similar wording, allowing for a spell to affect a creature (PC or NPC) twice before its own turn, or allowing a creature to evade an AoE twice before the caster has the chance of moving the AoE back on the creature, etc.

Two things.

First, with Shield the spell lasts until your next turn. Even if you go first in round 1 and last in round 2 and the monster has to deal with it for two actions, that's still not 2 rounds. The spell lasted from round 1 to round 2, which is one round. And that's okay. For every time the wizard goes first and then last, the wizard will go last and then first, which shortens the spell and evens things out.

Second, Shield specifically starts when the wizard finishes casting. That's what it's supposed to do. Command specifically starts on the creatures next turn, so the duration for Command starts then. Comparing these two spells for when duration begins doesn't work.

 

[Maxperson]

I find it interesting about the debate of spells and duration considering the designers built-in the alternative system of non-cyclical initiative (for those of you who forgot, it is page 270 of the DMG).



Obviously, they saw no issue with spell durations using a variant system. There are plenty of ways to rule it so spells will still have all their potential effects, sometimes in favor of the characters and sometimes not (if they are the target of a spell).

The simplest way is to say for each round of duration a spell has, the target of the spell benefits or is hindered for one of its rounds. Sure, it is an adjustment on the wording of many spells which affect a target until "your next turn", etc., but it is hardly a big problem to adjust for.

If you think it is a big problem, just don't try this variant... maybe it is too difficult for you to handle?

They didn't see an issue, because it all evens out over time.

 

[Slit518]

I don't imagine this is a way, but I kind of want to put it out there -

Each player rolls 3 separate Initiatives.
1 for their Movement
1 for their Action
1 for their Bonus Action
Now, whatever number in the Initiative order it is on is what you do, whether it is your Movement, your Action, or your Bonus Action.
Though I feel this would dramatically slowdown combat, or effect certain abilities like require you to do one thing before the other.