We've always had a house rule to re-roll initiative each round, both myself as DM and the other DM in our group. Makes combat much more tactical/flexible and fun. Adds a bit of complexity and chaos. It does also mess with certain abilities but that's part of what makes it interesting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#OpenD&D #ORC
"...or you can find the secret tunnel that leads to the Vault of Dickish DM which is filled with 10,000,000 copper coins and a 5,000 pound solid gold statue of a middle finger that is too big to fit through the door."
We've always had a house rule to re-roll initiative each round, both myself as DM and the other DM in our group. Makes combat much more tactical/flexible and fun. Adds a bit of complexity and chaos. It does also mess with certain abilities but that's part of what makes it interesting.
Less tactical, not more.
Without knowing the preset order you can't apply any tactics.
We've always had a house rule to re-roll initiative each round, both myself as DM and the other DM in our group. Makes combat much more tactical/flexible and fun. Adds a bit of complexity and chaos. It does also mess with certain abilities but that's part of what makes it interesting.
Less tactical, not more.
Without knowing the preset order you can't apply any tactics.
Disagree. You are still thinking and acting tactically but you don't know for certain what the OPTIMAL (tactical) decision is. This allows people to play to their preferences, either more conservatively or aggressively based on how they THINK things will go in the next round.
Being military I can say that tactical decisions are made even when leadership doesn't have ALL the information concerning the battlefield environment.
We've always had a house rule to re-roll initiative each round, both myself as DM and the other DM in our group. Makes combat much more tactical/flexible and fun. Adds a bit of complexity and chaos. It does also mess with certain abilities but that's part of what makes it interesting.
Less tactical, not more.
Without knowing the preset order you can't apply any tactics.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the phrase "No plan survives first contact with the enemy". Tactics often change on the fly and history is littered with military commanders that lost horribly because they couldn't adapt to the situation. And that is *exactly* what makes rolling initiative each round such fun. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#OpenD&D #ORC
"...or you can find the secret tunnel that leads to the Vault of Dickish DM which is filled with 10,000,000 copper coins and a 5,000 pound solid gold statue of a middle finger that is too big to fit through the door."
We've always had a house rule to re-roll initiative each round, both myself as DM and the other DM in our group. Makes combat much more tactical/flexible and fun. Adds a bit of complexity and chaos. It does also mess with certain abilities but that's part of what makes it interesting.
Less tactical, not more.
Without knowing the preset order you can't apply any tactics.
Disagree. You are still thinking and acting tactically but you don't know for certain what the OPTIMAL (tactical) decision is. This allows people to play to their preferences, either more conservatively or aggressively based on how they THINK things will go in the next round.
Being military I can say that tactical decisions are made even when leadership doesn't have ALL the information concerning the battlefield environment.
You're arguing for why tactics still exist, not why there wouldn't be less. Tactics wouldn't disappear, but that there would be less reliance on them. With standard rules, I can create Advantage for a Rogue so he can get his Sneak Attack rather than doing what's optimal for my character. Under the variant rules...I could be setting him up for a Sneak Attack, or I could end up setting up the Fighter or no one, which may be less advantageous than just doing my own attack or whatever.
The lack of confidence in turn order reduces the effectiveness of teamwork and tactics. They can and will still exist, sure, but the options and how optimal they are will be reduced. Now, it could end up being more exciting since you can't predict what's about to happen, but that's a different claim.
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.
We've always had a house rule to re-roll initiative each round, both myself as DM and the other DM in our group. Makes combat much more tactical/flexible and fun. Adds a bit of complexity and chaos. It does also mess with certain abilities but that's part of what makes it interesting.
Less tactical, not more.
Without knowing the preset order you can't apply any tactics.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the phrase "No plan survives first contact with the enemy". Tactics often change on the fly and history is littered with military commanders that lost horribly because they couldn't adapt to the situation. And that is *exactly* what makes rolling initiative each round such fun. :)
D&D is a game, not an actual battle.
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.
You just make plays based on the probabilities of turn order. It's pushing the tactics down the road a bit, not reducing them.
I don't have any experience with it though.
Speaking as someone who does have experience with playing that way, it does reduce tactics and encourages more of an "every player for themselves" mentality.
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.
Normally when it comes to initiative in my groups we keep the same order for a few rounds, then prompt the table if we want to roll initiative again if the majority of the table agrees we re-roll and adjust the order if not we continue with what we have or sometimes if a random event happens or there is a shift in the combat thematically or story driven that also prompts a re-roll from time to time.
You just make plays based on the probabilities of turn order. It's pushing the tactics down the road a bit, not reducing them.
I don't have any experience with it though.
Speaking as someone who does have experience with playing that way, it does reduce tactics and encourages more of an "every player for themselves" mentality.
And that's logical.
Let's take a simple example. I'm a Wizard, I have a Rogue partner and were fighting a Goblin. The Rogue went first, then the Goblin and now it's my turn. I have a choice, I can use Burning Hands to fry the poor thing, or I can use Help to create an Advantage for the Rogue so he can use Sneak Attack and kill it. Under standard rules, I know that the Rogue will be going next, so I'd use Help with reasonable confidence that the Rogue will kill him before he can do any harm to either me or my partner. Under the variant rules, it could be either the Rogue or the Goblin, I don't know. So that lack of certainty means that I'll be more likely to act defensively and just use Burning Hands so I know that he won't get the chance to stick us first.
The variant rules remove confidence in what happens, which is a key part in developing tactics and strategies. If you don't know what's happening, those tactics become less reliable and so players react by becoming more individualist in their approach. There is no tactic that actually benefits from it beyond a Hail Mary, which shouldn't be happening very often anyway.
This doesn't necessarily mean the variant rules are worse overall, but it's a trade-off. A lack of certainty and confidence reduces complex tactics.
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.
You just make plays based on the probabilities of turn order. It's pushing the tactics down the road a bit, not reducing them.
I don't have any experience with it though.
Speaking as someone who does have experience with playing that way, it does reduce tactics and encourages more of an "every player for themselves" mentality.
And that's logical.
Let's take a simple example. I'm a Wizard, I have a Rogue partner and were fighting a Goblin. The Rogue went first, then the Goblin and now it's my turn. I have a choice, I can use Burning Hands to fry the poor thing, or I can use Help to create an Advantage for the Rogue so he can use Sneak Attack and kill it. Under standard rules, I know that the Rogue will be going next, so I'd use Help with reasonable confidence that the Rogue will kill him before he can do any harm to either me or my partner. Under the variant rules, it could be either the Rogue or the Goblin, I don't know. So that lack of certainty means that I'll be more likely to act defensively and just use Burning Hands so I know that he won't get the chance to stick us first.
The variant rules remove confidence in what happens, which is a key part in developing tactics and strategies. If you don't know what's happening, those tactics become less reliable and so players react by becoming more individualist in their approach. There is no tactic that actually benefits from it beyond a Hail Mary, which shouldn't be happening very often anyway.
This doesn't necessarily mean the variant rules are worse overall, but it's a trade-off. A lack of certainty and confidence reduces complex tactics.
And I dislike rules that discourage tactical variety. If you're playing the wizard and you find that you're always sticking with Burning Hands and never use Color Spray or Tasha's Caustic Brew because there's a good chance that the spell will functionally have no effect due to how initiative is being handled, that's not a good 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.
The Wizard in the variant rules is not relying on the layout of the field, is not relying on his team mates to work together, he's just acting as an individual just trying to kill the Goblin.
The definition of tactics:
an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
"the minority attempted to control the Council by a delaying tactic"
Similar:
strategy
scheme
stratagem
plan
set of tactics
manoeuvre
course/line of action
method
programme
expedient
gambit
move
approach
tack
path
road
device
trick
ploy
dodge
ruse
game
machination
contrivance
stunt
means
wiles
artifice
subterfuge
wangle
caper
shift
the art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, especially during contact with an enemy.
"basic infantry tactics were taught by guest instructors"
Yes, they're different tactics...ones that have lesser tactical depth. Ones that are less organised, and involves less complexity, a less specific goal ("just kill ASAP" versus "Set up the Rogue to get the kill while expending fewer resources". Pretty much by definition, less tactical. While there is some tactics involved, the tactical level is reduced. It's like telling a football team to just grab the ball and go for the goal - yes, it's a tactic, but it's not on the level of what professional teams do, it is less tactical. And the reason why professional teams can do the deep and complex tactics that they do...is because they can be reasonably confident that key players can be in the right position at the right time. If you were to place those players randomly and without giving the players prior knowledge, those tactics would collapse.
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.
Okay but he'd be acting the same way if the goblin was known to go before the Rogue. And I'm assuming you wouldn't call THAT decision less tactical, would you?
Okay but he'd be acting the same way if the goblin was known to go before the Rogue. And I'm assuming you wouldn't call THAT decision less tactical, would you?
You're missing the point: the higher tactical play is discouraged.
Yes, deciding to use a simpler method to end the Goblin is less tactical, regardless of whether you're doing it because you know the play will be blocked or because you can't be confident that it won't be. That doesn't make it necessarily bad per se, you're allowed to use simpler tactics and that's not a taboo or anything, but it is less tactical.
Now, if the dice block you from using such tactics, that's one thing, at least at times they'll also favour them. It's just that sometimes you'll also be on the same baseline as the variant rules. With the variant rules, the very rules discourage those higher tactics. It's not a case of, like standard rules, those deeper tactics are favoured and other times they're not - they're always discouraged.
What that means is that whenever tactics are viable in the variant rules, they're also viable in standard, but the reverse is not true. As a result, standard rules generally result in a more tactical game, as 6LG said happened in their games.
That doesn't mean the variant rules don't bring their own positives to the table. Having more randomness allows for more Hail Mary gambles, a bit like Critical Hits, as an example. My reservations towards them are more centered towards time - rolling initiative more often makes combat take longer, which is already an issue - since tactics aren't high on my priorities, having such a small party which restricts the viability of complex tactics anyway. I'm just pointing out that tactics would be less viable under the variant rules - complex tactics don't deal with unpredictability well, and hence the saying that plans never survive contact with the enemy, because that introduces an uncontrollable factor into the mix.
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.
Okay, I think you and I are using different definitions for tactics and for what is more tactical or less tactical. Your definition has some inherent tie to complexity that mine doesn't have. I gladly concede that under your definition, you are correct.
However, even though that's the case, it's only relevant on those turns where the Wizard rolled lower than the Rogue. He's trying to do a setup across the divide -- to start something during one round and finish it during the next. If, instead, he rolled higher than the Rogue, then his setup would work just fine. Yes? I don't have the math skills (or the desire) to crunch the numbers here, but from a quick glance it seems like roughly 50% of the time that it would happen this way. Which of course is re-randomized each turn. I suppose we disagree also on that being a frequent enough thing to be bothered by it. I don't think it is.
That's fine though. I don't need to defeat you here lol. I'm not even that strongly committed to any of this. I just think it would be neat to try for a while.
If people rolled initiative every round, it would become much more tedious, and people would be less engaged in combat, increasing the likelyhood that a player would just look at their phone, not paying attention.
Okay, I think you and I are using different definitions for tactics and for what is more tactical or less tactical. Your definition has some inherent tie to complexity that mine doesn't have. I gladly concede that under your definition, you are correct.
I'm not sure what definition you are using though, unless you mean "so long as you have choices, it's tactical, therefore it's all tactics and one tactic is no more or less tactical than other tactic", which doesn't 100% sit right with how you've argued according to how I read it - but it doesn't matter. I'm happy to drop it.
However, even though that's the case, it's only relevant on those turns where the Wizard rolled lower than the Rogue. He's trying to do a setup across the divide -- to start something during one round and finish it during the next. If, instead, he rolled higher than the Rogue, then his setup would work just fine. Yes?
With the additional caveat that the Goblin does not come between the Wizard and the Rogue in the turn order as well. On the other hand, having a party of larger than 2 (and most parties are) would cause a lot more interference and further penalise the teamwork play.
I don't have the math skills (or the desire) to crunch the numbers here, but from a quick glance it seems like roughly 50% of the time that it would happen this way. Which of course is re-randomized each turn. I suppose we disagree also on that being a frequent enough thing to be bothered by it. I don't think it is.
I think the context of what I was saying as well as the intent of what I was saying could do with being refreshed. The context was that someone claimed that the variant rule increased tactical play, then there was a bit of back and forth on whether it increased it or decreased it. I wasn't arguing that tactical play was destroyed by it or anything. Instead, my point was that with the asymmetric* effects of changing to the variant rules affect tactics and strategies negatively - even if only a little - then tactical play was decreased overall. Also the example was just a simple one with an easy to see cause-and-effect. How often play would be affected would be far more often, but the effect would be far more diluted and harder to explain in an internet forum. Which, I hasten to reiterate, doesn't mean tactics disappear or drastically alter the game, but it does disprove the original claim that tactics would increase.
* Symmetric being something like Haste, if you get a high Initiative, it encourages team play, while if you get low it discourages it, so it cancels out, asymmetric being like what we discussed - where there is a net effect because the effect is either negative or neutral, or where the effect of one is greater than the other.
That's fine though. I don't need to defeat you here lol. I'm not even that strongly committed to any of this. I just think it would be neat to try for a while.
That's cool. I hope it works for you. What I've discussed is a theoretical appraisal of the situation, and different tables react differently - given that I play in a two person party and my wife doesn't do tactics, I daresay the effect would be basically nil on my table, for example. And there other benefits to it, as previously discussed. The great thing about this rule is that it's not one that has to be maintained for the campaign - you can implement it for as many or as few combats as you like. It doesn't mess with the builds of characters (beyond further favouring Dex) so there's no need to commit. You can always try it and then, either keep it or drop it as you like.
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.
If people rolled initiative every round, it would become much more tedious, and people would be less engaged in combat, increasing the likelyhood that a player would just look at their phone, not paying attention.
I'm not sure about that. Combat would slow down, but you're also introducing a phase where player's actions matter and the number of times in a round where a player is involved is doubled without doubling the time it takes to complete an encounter. I could see the variant rules exaggerating engagement - if players are already engaged, then having the initiative rolls each round which switch things up, has more interesting periods of the game etc would increase their engagement, but those that are already pretty disinterested and only want to take their go, then they would become less engaged, as you said.
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.
We've always had a house rule to re-roll initiative each round, both myself as DM and the other DM in our group. Makes combat much more tactical/flexible and fun. Adds a bit of complexity and chaos. It does also mess with certain abilities but that's part of what makes it interesting.
#OpenD&D #ORC
"...or you can find the secret tunnel that leads to the Vault of Dickish DM which is filled with 10,000,000 copper coins and a 5,000 pound solid gold statue of a middle finger that is too big to fit through the door."
Less tactical, not more.
Without knowing the preset order you can't apply any tactics.
Disagree. You are still thinking and acting tactically but you don't know for certain what the OPTIMAL (tactical) decision is. This allows people to play to their preferences, either more conservatively or aggressively based on how they THINK things will go in the next round.
Being military I can say that tactical decisions are made even when leadership doesn't have ALL the information concerning the battlefield environment.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the phrase "No plan survives first contact with the enemy". Tactics often change on the fly and history is littered with military commanders that lost horribly because they couldn't adapt to the situation. And that is *exactly* what makes rolling initiative each round such fun. :)
#OpenD&D #ORC
"...or you can find the secret tunnel that leads to the Vault of Dickish DM which is filled with 10,000,000 copper coins and a 5,000 pound solid gold statue of a middle finger that is too big to fit through the door."
You're arguing for why tactics still exist, not why there wouldn't be less. Tactics wouldn't disappear, but that there would be less reliance on them. With standard rules, I can create Advantage for a Rogue so he can get his Sneak Attack rather than doing what's optimal for my character. Under the variant rules...I could be setting him up for a Sneak Attack, or I could end up setting up the Fighter or no one, which may be less advantageous than just doing my own attack or whatever.
The lack of confidence in turn order reduces the effectiveness of teamwork and tactics. They can and will still exist, sure, but the options and how optimal they are will be reduced. Now, it could end up being more exciting since you can't predict what's about to happen, but that's a different claim.
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.
You just make plays based on the probabilities of turn order. It's pushing the tactics down the road a bit, not reducing them.
I don't have any experience with it though.
D&D is a game, not an actual battle.
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.
Speaking as someone who does have experience with playing that way, it does reduce tactics and encourages more of an "every player for themselves" mentality.
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.
Normally when it comes to initiative in my groups we keep the same order for a few rounds, then prompt the table if we want to roll initiative again if the majority of the table agrees we re-roll and adjust the order if not we continue with what we have or sometimes if a random event happens or there is a shift in the combat thematically or story driven that also prompts a re-roll from time to time.
And that's logical.
Let's take a simple example. I'm a Wizard, I have a Rogue partner and were fighting a Goblin. The Rogue went first, then the Goblin and now it's my turn. I have a choice, I can use Burning Hands to fry the poor thing, or I can use Help to create an Advantage for the Rogue so he can use Sneak Attack and kill it. Under standard rules, I know that the Rogue will be going next, so I'd use Help with reasonable confidence that the Rogue will kill him before he can do any harm to either me or my partner. Under the variant rules, it could be either the Rogue or the Goblin, I don't know. So that lack of certainty means that I'll be more likely to act defensively and just use Burning Hands so I know that he won't get the chance to stick us first.
The variant rules remove confidence in what happens, which is a key part in developing tactics and strategies. If you don't know what's happening, those tactics become less reliable and so players react by becoming more individualist in their approach. There is no tactic that actually benefits from it beyond a Hail Mary, which shouldn't be happening very often anyway.
This doesn't necessarily mean the variant rules are worse overall, but it's a trade-off. A lack of certainty and confidence reduces complex tactics.
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.
And I dislike rules that discourage tactical variety. If you're playing the wizard and you find that you're always sticking with Burning Hands and never use Color Spray or Tasha's Caustic Brew because there's a good chance that the spell will functionally have no effect due to how initiative is being handled, that's not a good 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.
I don't see the example as being a less tactical example than the alternative. It's just *different* tactics.
The Wizard in the variant rules is not relying on the layout of the field, is not relying on his team mates to work together, he's just acting as an individual just trying to kill the Goblin.
The definition of tactics:
Yes, they're different tactics...ones that have lesser tactical depth. Ones that are less organised, and involves less complexity, a less specific goal ("just kill ASAP" versus "Set up the Rogue to get the kill while expending fewer resources". Pretty much by definition, less tactical. While there is some tactics involved, the tactical level is reduced. It's like telling a football team to just grab the ball and go for the goal - yes, it's a tactic, but it's not on the level of what professional teams do, it is less tactical. And the reason why professional teams can do the deep and complex tactics that they do...is because they can be reasonably confident that key players can be in the right position at the right time. If you were to place those players randomly and without giving the players prior knowledge, those tactics would collapse.
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.
Okay but he'd be acting the same way if the goblin was known to go before the Rogue. And I'm assuming you wouldn't call THAT decision less tactical, would you?
You're missing the point: the higher tactical play is discouraged.
Yes, deciding to use a simpler method to end the Goblin is less tactical, regardless of whether you're doing it because you know the play will be blocked or because you can't be confident that it won't be. That doesn't make it necessarily bad per se, you're allowed to use simpler tactics and that's not a taboo or anything, but it is less tactical.
Now, if the dice block you from using such tactics, that's one thing, at least at times they'll also favour them. It's just that sometimes you'll also be on the same baseline as the variant rules. With the variant rules, the very rules discourage those higher tactics. It's not a case of, like standard rules, those deeper tactics are favoured and other times they're not - they're always discouraged.
What that means is that whenever tactics are viable in the variant rules, they're also viable in standard, but the reverse is not true. As a result, standard rules generally result in a more tactical game, as 6LG said happened in their games.
That doesn't mean the variant rules don't bring their own positives to the table. Having more randomness allows for more Hail Mary gambles, a bit like Critical Hits, as an example. My reservations towards them are more centered towards time - rolling initiative more often makes combat take longer, which is already an issue - since tactics aren't high on my priorities, having such a small party which restricts the viability of complex tactics anyway. I'm just pointing out that tactics would be less viable under the variant rules - complex tactics don't deal with unpredictability well, and hence the saying that plans never survive contact with the enemy, because that introduces an uncontrollable factor into the mix.
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.
Okay, I think you and I are using different definitions for tactics and for what is more tactical or less tactical. Your definition has some inherent tie to complexity that mine doesn't have. I gladly concede that under your definition, you are correct.
However, even though that's the case, it's only relevant on those turns where the Wizard rolled lower than the Rogue. He's trying to do a setup across the divide -- to start something during one round and finish it during the next. If, instead, he rolled higher than the Rogue, then his setup would work just fine. Yes? I don't have the math skills (or the desire) to crunch the numbers here, but from a quick glance it seems like roughly 50% of the time that it would happen this way. Which of course is re-randomized each turn. I suppose we disagree also on that being a frequent enough thing to be bothered by it. I don't think it is.
That's fine though. I don't need to defeat you here lol. I'm not even that strongly committed to any of this. I just think it would be neat to try for a while.
If people rolled initiative every round, it would become much more tedious, and people would be less engaged in combat, increasing the likelyhood that a player would just look at their phone, not paying attention.
Homebrew: Creatures | Magic Items | Races | Spells | Subclasses
I'm not sure what definition you are using though, unless you mean "so long as you have choices, it's tactical, therefore it's all tactics and one tactic is no more or less tactical than other tactic", which doesn't 100% sit right with how you've argued according to how I read it - but it doesn't matter. I'm happy to drop it.
With the additional caveat that the Goblin does not come between the Wizard and the Rogue in the turn order as well. On the other hand, having a party of larger than 2 (and most parties are) would cause a lot more interference and further penalise the teamwork play.
I think the context of what I was saying as well as the intent of what I was saying could do with being refreshed. The context was that someone claimed that the variant rule increased tactical play, then there was a bit of back and forth on whether it increased it or decreased it. I wasn't arguing that tactical play was destroyed by it or anything. Instead, my point was that with the asymmetric* effects of changing to the variant rules affect tactics and strategies negatively - even if only a little - then tactical play was decreased overall. Also the example was just a simple one with an easy to see cause-and-effect. How often play would be affected would be far more often, but the effect would be far more diluted and harder to explain in an internet forum. Which, I hasten to reiterate, doesn't mean tactics disappear or drastically alter the game, but it does disprove the original claim that tactics would increase.
* Symmetric being something like Haste, if you get a high Initiative, it encourages team play, while if you get low it discourages it, so it cancels out, asymmetric being like what we discussed - where there is a net effect because the effect is either negative or neutral, or where the effect of one is greater than the other.
That's cool. I hope it works for you. What I've discussed is a theoretical appraisal of the situation, and different tables react differently - given that I play in a two person party and my wife doesn't do tactics, I daresay the effect would be basically nil on my table, for example. And there other benefits to it, as previously discussed. The great thing about this rule is that it's not one that has to be maintained for the campaign - you can implement it for as many or as few combats as you like. It doesn't mess with the builds of characters (beyond further favouring Dex) so there's no need to commit. You can always try it and then, either keep it or drop it as you like.
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.
I'm not sure about that. Combat would slow down, but you're also introducing a phase where player's actions matter and the number of times in a round where a player is involved is doubled without doubling the time it takes to complete an encounter. I could see the variant rules exaggerating engagement - if players are already engaged, then having the initiative rolls each round which switch things up, has more interesting periods of the game etc would increase their engagement, but those that are already pretty disinterested and only want to take their go, then they would become less engaged, as you said.
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.
It could also mean longer or shorter times between turns, reducing attention even more whilst someone else stays in the spotlight.
Homebrew: Creatures | Magic Items | Races | Spells | Subclasses