I have been playing a long time and was asked a question in reference to how many times do we roll initiative when engaged in combat.
According to the website, we only roll it once. That does not make any sense to me. Combat is chaotic and situations change during combat. One side may get an advantage that did not have 2 rounds prior to starting. Why would we want to suggest that combat is static and not open for change as combat progresses.
I have always required that the roll be refreshed at the beginning of each new round. I have also seen that VTT typically reroll it at the beginning of each new round of combat.
Curious how many out there just roll 1 initiative and that roll result remains the same even if combat last 10-15 rounds, for instance.
RAW, you only roll initiative once. Combat is already slow enough as it is in DnD, and without an automated reroller (like some VTTs or even the Avrae dice bot), there's no reason to slow it down even further by rolling initiative at the start of every round.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I see a lot of issues there with players and monsters goning twice in a row, effects ending "at the end of your next turn", refreshing of reactions, etc.
It seems the site was using a homebrewed version as the Initiative Variant: Speed Factor found in the DMG rely on declaring actions ahead of initiative each round;
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. For example, a badly wounded fighter might charge a troll because he knows that the cleric goes before the monster and can heal him. Speed factor is an option for initiative that introduces more uncertainty into combat, at the cost of speed of play. Under this variant, the participants in a battle roll initiative each round. Before rolling, each character or monster must choose an action.
I have been playing a long time and was asked a question in reference to how many times do we roll initiative when engaged in combat.
According to the website, we only roll it once. That does not make any sense to me. Combat is chaotic and situations change during combat. One side may get an advantage that did not have 2 rounds prior to starting. Why would we want to suggest that combat is static and not open for change as combat progresses.
I have always required that the roll be refreshed at the beginning of each new round. I have also seen that VTT typically reroll it at the beginning of each new round of combat.
Curious how many out there just roll 1 initiative and that roll result remains the same even if combat last 10-15 rounds, for instance.
Just wondering.
The PHB RAW is that you roll at the beginning of combat, and maintain that order.
I can see the appeal of rerolling each round, but it would give me, the DM, a headache trying to keep track of it, slow things down and cause havoc with effects etc. Spells that last until your next turn, for example, could either become seriously buffed (if you got Initiative 1 on round 1 and came dead last in round 2) or seriously nerfed (if you swap those results around so that you take two turns in a row). It would also penalise those with low Dex as the turn distribution would conform more closely to the probability curve.
It's upto the table really, there's no right answer, but I prefer RAW. If only because it's easier to track.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
WHile the idea of 10 to 15 rounds in a single combat sounds interesting and would potentially call for rerolling initiative in some cases it doesn't really happen. Last session I had a cobat between the party (9 low level PCs and NPCs) and 33 orcs and orc leaders of various sorts. It ran long - al the way to 7 rounds but that is the longest combat Ive seen in a long time. I have them roll once at the start and then again at the start of each new combat episode even if its only a round or two after the old one ended.
I prefer it once because it's way simpler. Players already have to wait a long time for each of their turns., combat is already slow enough. I don't want to waste time at the table rolling and ordering for initiative. It's time that could be spent doing more interesting things. On the whole, I want to maximize our time playing the game. Rolling initiative does not strike me as engaging or fun, more just a system so combat isn't a chaotic mess. But if your table likes doing it every round, go for it
I've played with GMs who did both ways, and rerolling every round sucks. In addition to slowing the game down significantly for no benefit, it makes effects with a duration of "until the start of your next turn" much less useful. If I hit an opponent with a spell that gives them disadvantage on attacks until the start of my next turn and I'm at the bottom of the init, and then roll high and end up going first the next round, that spell has had no effect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I personally like that one the most. We use it primarily for our AD&D game. This a similar version in the DMG. I also found an alternative method on line and tried it on our tabletop group tonight and it worked well...Will probably start to use it if it keeps working like it did tonight. Party of 7 PC's cleared out 1 Fire Giant, 4 Ogres, 10 Hobgoblins and 20 Goblins in about an hour roughly.
It did involve 1 initiative roll for the full combat session but allowed a reroll if certain circumstances were met. Worked well.
That does happen. What if your a fighter and your inches away from needing to roll death saving throws. Originally you rolled poorly and it kept you at the bottom of the order, next initiative roll takes place, you hoping to roll well this round otherwise you will most likely die if the order stays as it was on the previous round.
You roll well and get to act before the the enemy applies the finishing blow and you can withdraw / disengage safely while avoiding an Attack of Opportunity. In that scenario, rerolling works in your favor.....That is the game.
There are pros and cons to both methods. I am playing with a way to make it 1 roll but allow a 2nd round under certain circumstances. It is not set in stone.
I've only seen the method of rolling once and sticking with that order, but it does result in a bunch of meta-gaming decisions that players make only because they know the upcoming order of who will attack next. I like the idea of rerolling every couple rounds, at least for smaller groups where it wouldn't slot things down all that much
I use a vtt and re-roll. Totally worth it. I love the randomness of it and I think my players do to. Even with out it after you get a system going the rerolling of initiative it works great. Totally personal preference of your table I think.
I've only seen the method of rolling once and sticking with that order, but it does result in a bunch of meta-gaming decisions that players make only because they know the upcoming order of who will attack next. I like the idea of rerolling every couple rounds, at least for smaller groups where it wouldn't slot things down all that much
The thing is, metagaming is not in and of itself a bad thing. Obviously a player shouldn't be leafing through the Monster Manual to decide which spell to cast on a Glabrezu, but being able to actually plan out your actions and coordinate in an optimized manner with your party members is not a bad thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've only seen the method of rolling once and sticking with that order, but it does result in a bunch of meta-gaming decisions that players make only because they know the upcoming order of who will attack next. I like the idea of rerolling every couple rounds, at least for smaller groups where it wouldn't slot things down all that much
The thing is, metagaming is not in and of itself a bad thing. Obviously a player shouldn't be leafing through the Monster Manual to decide which spell to cast on a Glabrezu, but being able to actually plan out your actions and coordinate in an optimized manner with your party members is not a bad thing.
Agreed. No-one ever complained that knowing the turn order in Monopoly is metagaming.
At least, I think no-one ever complained… Complaing in Monopoly is usually about other stuff. Cheating siblings, your Dad getting the last green property, landing on a fully deveoped Mayfair and how unfair that is…
I see a lot of issues there with players and monsters goning twice in a row, effects ending "at the end of your next turn", refreshing of reactions, etc.
This is messing up a lot of core mechanics.
we use a vtt/avrae and always use dynamic initiative and it's generally great. Those issues aren't that much of a problem, things even out over the long run.
That does happen. What if your a fighter and your inches away from needing to roll death saving throws. Originally you rolled poorly and it kept you at the bottom of the order, next initiative roll takes place, you hoping to roll well this round otherwise you will most likely die if the order stays as it was on the previous round.
You roll well and get to act before the the enemy applies the finishing blow and you can withdraw / disengage safely while avoiding an Attack of Opportunity. In that scenario, rerolling works in your favor.....That is the game.
There are pros and cons to both methods. I am playing with a way to make it 1 roll but allow a 2nd round under certain circumstances. It is not set in stone.
Alternatively, you're at the end of the round and fail your second death saving throw. Then you re roll initiative and, before anyone else has a chance to try and stabilise you, heal you etc, you are top of the round and fail your 3rd death saving throw.
The back and forth on this is wide and varied and I agree with you there are pro's and cons, but, my experience of trying it the con's out weigh the pros on both sides of the fence DM and Player.
It seems the site was using a homebrewed version as the Initiative Variant: Speed Factor found in the DMG rely on declaring actions ahead of initiative each round;
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. For example, a badly wounded fighter might charge a troll because he knows that the cleric goes before the monster and can heal him. Speed factor is an option for initiative that introduces more uncertainty into combat, at the cost of speed of play. Under this variant, the participants in a battle roll initiative each round. Before rolling, each character or monster must choose an action.
I prefer this, as I agree with OP that combat is variable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have been playing a long time and was asked a question in reference to how many times do we roll initiative when engaged in combat.
According to the website, we only roll it once. That does not make any sense to me. Combat is chaotic and situations change during combat. One side may get an advantage that did not have 2 rounds prior to starting. Why would we want to suggest that combat is static and not open for change as combat progresses.
I have always required that the roll be refreshed at the beginning of each new round. I have also seen that VTT typically reroll it at the beginning of each new round of combat.
Curious how many out there just roll 1 initiative and that roll result remains the same even if combat last 10-15 rounds, for instance.
Just wondering.
RAW, you only roll initiative once. Combat is already slow enough as it is in DnD, and without an automated reroller (like some VTTs or even the Avrae dice bot), there's no reason to slow it down even further by rolling initiative at the start of every round.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I see a lot of issues there with players and monsters goning twice in a row, effects ending "at the end of your next turn", refreshing of reactions, etc.
This is messing up a lot of core mechanics.
It seems the site was using a homebrewed version as the Initiative Variant: Speed Factor found in the DMG rely on declaring actions ahead of initiative each round;
The PHB RAW is that you roll at the beginning of combat, and maintain that order.
I can see the appeal of rerolling each round, but it would give me, the DM, a headache trying to keep track of it, slow things down and cause havoc with effects etc. Spells that last until your next turn, for example, could either become seriously buffed (if you got Initiative 1 on round 1 and came dead last in round 2) or seriously nerfed (if you swap those results around so that you take two turns in a row). It would also penalise those with low Dex as the turn distribution would conform more closely to the probability curve.
It's upto the table really, there's no right answer, but I prefer RAW. If only because it's easier to track.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Once. It would be a nightmare rolling every round.
I'd like to try the Speed Factor rule someday.
WHile the idea of 10 to 15 rounds in a single combat sounds interesting and would potentially call for rerolling initiative in some cases it doesn't really happen. Last session I had a cobat between the party (9 low level PCs and NPCs) and 33 orcs and orc leaders of various sorts. It ran long - al the way to 7 rounds but that is the longest combat Ive seen in a long time. I have them roll once at the start and then again at the start of each new combat episode even if its only a round or two after the old one ended.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I prefer it once because it's way simpler. Players already have to wait a long time for each of their turns., combat is already slow enough. I don't want to waste time at the table rolling and ordering for initiative. It's time that could be spent doing more interesting things. On the whole, I want to maximize our time playing the game. Rolling initiative does not strike me as engaging or fun, more just a system so combat isn't a chaotic mess. But if your table likes doing it every round, go for it
I've played with GMs who did both ways, and rerolling every round sucks. In addition to slowing the game down significantly for no benefit, it makes effects with a duration of "until the start of your next turn" much less useful. If I hit an opponent with a spell that gives them disadvantage on attacks until the start of my next turn and I'm at the bottom of the init, and then roll high and end up going first the next round, that spell has had no effect.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I personally like that one the most. We use it primarily for our AD&D game. This a similar version in the DMG. I also found an alternative method on line and tried it on our tabletop group tonight and it worked well...Will probably start to use it if it keeps working like it did tonight. Party of 7 PC's cleared out 1 Fire Giant, 4 Ogres, 10 Hobgoblins and 20 Goblins in about an hour roughly.
It did involve 1 initiative roll for the full combat session but allowed a reroll if certain circumstances were met. Worked well.
That does happen. What if your a fighter and your inches away from needing to roll death saving throws. Originally you rolled poorly and it kept you at the bottom of the order, next initiative roll takes place, you hoping to roll well this round otherwise you will most likely die if the order stays as it was on the previous round.
You roll well and get to act before the the enemy applies the finishing blow and you can withdraw / disengage safely while avoiding an Attack of Opportunity. In that scenario, rerolling works in your favor.....That is the game.
There are pros and cons to both methods. I am playing with a way to make it 1 roll but allow a 2nd round under certain circumstances. It is not set in stone.
I've only seen the method of rolling once and sticking with that order, but it does result in a bunch of meta-gaming decisions that players make only because they know the upcoming order of who will attack next. I like the idea of rerolling every couple rounds, at least for smaller groups where it wouldn't slot things down all that much
I use a vtt and re-roll. Totally worth it. I love the randomness of it and I think my players do to. Even with out it after you get a system going the rerolling of initiative it works great. Totally personal preference of your table I think.
If I used a VTT to track initiative then I would like try the reroll. But I am pretty sure my players would hate it.
The thing is, metagaming is not in and of itself a bad thing. Obviously a player shouldn't be leafing through the Monster Manual to decide which spell to cast on a Glabrezu, but being able to actually plan out your actions and coordinate in an optimized manner with your party members is not a bad thing.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Agreed. No-one ever complained that knowing the turn order in Monopoly is metagaming.
At least, I think no-one ever complained… Complaing in Monopoly is usually about other stuff. Cheating siblings, your Dad getting the last green property, landing on a fully deveoped Mayfair and how unfair that is…
we use a vtt/avrae and always use dynamic initiative and it's generally great.
Those issues aren't that much of a problem, things even out over the long run.
Alternatively, you're at the end of the round and fail your second death saving throw. Then you re roll initiative and, before anyone else has a chance to try and stabilise you, heal you etc, you are top of the round and fail your 3rd death saving throw.
The back and forth on this is wide and varied and I agree with you there are pro's and cons, but, my experience of trying it the con's out weigh the pros on both sides of the fence DM and Player.
I prefer this, as I agree with OP that combat is variable.