I've had issues with standard initiative for a while. I always feel like it takes too long to get the order setup, even if I assign it to a player. I've tried the Greyhawk initiative but it definitely slowed things down further.
I then tried having the PC's roll initiative once at the beginning of the session and used those values as their initiative score in every combat for that session, rolling just for the monsters when combat was imminent. This way I didn't have to break from the action to say "Roll Initiative" I could just begin combat, by saying, "Character A, what do you do on your turn?"
As you might guess, the Player's got tired of this quick.
Then we tried Popcorn Initiative as detailed by the AngryGM, and it worked for a time, but it ultimately just devolved into side initiative.
We've been using side initiative for a while now, and I have to admit it works better than I thought. I was always afraid it would turn into a just a big slug match, and it is to some degree, but it gives the PC's the ability to form some intricate strategies I have not seen them come anywhere close to concocting before.
One thing you could do to remove a lot of the randomness from initiative is have everyone roll a smaller die while keeping the initiative bonus the same. A higher initiative bonus matters a lot more if you're rolling a d8 or d10. It still creates some variability but allows for those fast characters to go first more often. This does further buff dex which is already a really strong ability score. I personally think initiative is fine but this would be one way to decrease the randomness some while still keeping some variability in it.
One way I like to do initiative, taken straight from an entirely different system, is to have everyone roll for it, and then have PC and Monster slots. Your rogue rolled a 24, so there is a PC slot at the top of the init, but any PC can take that slot, and it can change over turns who takes it. I feel like it helps make combat more fluid, as well as encourages players to cooperate in combat more.
Since rolling low when you want to roll high can easily be chalked up to "crap, I wasn't ready," while rolling high when you want to roll low (which I have never seen, but whatever) is more of a "crap, I was too fast," which shouldn't happen, I came up with the following house rule:
Hold action (or wait action): after taking this action, you can use your reaction at the end of another creature's turn to take an extra turn in which you can only move up to your speed or take one action (no spells or class features can grant additional actions on this turn).
I honestly don't understand why anyone would want a low initiative. For healers, there are all sorts of important things to do to start out a fight. Faerie Fire for druids and Bards is a fantastic way to start the fight. Clerics have things like Bless or Aid. Bards and Clerics can also cast Bane which may very well prevent more damage than a heal spell would heal anyway. Fast forward, there is virtually no difference between going last in round 1 and first in round 2. It might even be the difference in one more turn worth of damage you could heal. Even if none of that fits the circumstance, they can still hold an action. Once everyone has gone I want to ________.
Other spell casters of course want to go early, whether they want to throw out a crowd control spell or damage spell.
Fighters and other beefy melee types want to go early to position and deal damage.
Rogues obviously want to go early to get off that early sneak attack.
Has anyone tried incorporating the Dungeon World style initiative: Let people take their actions in an order that makes sense for the particular situation, while watching to make sure everyone gets some time in the spotlight?
I haven't, but I'm curious about it. It's undoubtedly more story oriented and "fluffy" than tactically "crunchy" - which may-or-may-not suit your Table's playing style - but I'm curious as to people's' experience trying to use that in D&D.
The tricky bit is making sure that everyone gets a turn ( checklist tracker? ).
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Part of the issue (for me, at least) is that two of the players at my table have an extreme focus on the mechanical side. They need everything to be systemic and consistent. They're perfectly willing to go along with me for on-the-spot rulings and homebrew, they're not bad players, but anything I introduce as a new base rule to replace something else, like initiative, needs to be extremely rigorous, consistent, and predictable. Those two need to know how it will work, they're not going to put up with fluffy "what makes sense in the narrative" stuff.
RPG combat in general doesn't work from any kind of narrative standpoint, and I'm not going to try and make it do so. Heh, my Grail is a system that varies round-by-round turn order without any significant extra overhead as compared to standard initiative, but I have not figured that out yet. If it ever did show up I could start actually hooking other systems/items/abilities into it, but until then Initiative gets to be a brain caltrop, methinks.
Part of the issue (for me, at least) is that two of the players at my table have an extreme focus on the mechanical side. They need everything to be systemic and consistent.
By having the monsters go on the same initiative, you effectively have 'Side initiative" without changing any rules (see here: I've achieved buy-in from even the most hard-core grognards this way).
Once you have "Side initiative", the PC's could pretty much go in any order, since they will all go before the monsters next turn anyway.This was basically following RAW even in previous editions thanks to the "Delay" option (which could be re-introduced into your 5e game if desired).
Note that your link is talking about 'table order initiative' and doing turns basically by seating arrangement; my game is online over Discord and mapping utilities, we don't have a seating arrangement. People keep mentioning rules from other games I've not heard of, would be nice if folks could summarize any new, different system they're talking about when they first bring it up.
Note that your link is talking about 'table order initiative' and doing turns basically by seating arrangement; my game is online over Discord and mapping utilities, we don't have a seating arrangement. People keep mentioning rules from other games I've not heard of, would be nice if folks could summarize any new, different system they're talking about when they first bring it up.
SIde initiative is detailed as an option in the Dungeon's Master Guide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
1) Fixed initiative score (10+dex mod) instead of rolling.
Keeps player order the same every time, less rolling, doesn't fix any other issues.
2) "Side initiative" - all the players go together, all the monsters go together. It suggests just doing a straight D20 roll, no modifiers, but the basic idea is that once order is determined, it just alternates - players, monsters, players, monsters. Within each team, players can go in any order.
This decreases the amount of bookkeeping, and allows the players and monstersto coordinate tactics a little better.
3) "Speed factor" - players and monsters first choose an action each round, and THEN roll initiative (each round) to see what order they go in. (With some extra modifiers to initiative each round based on what action is being done)
Sounds like a pretty big tactical change - not sure what effect it would have.
Ah. My mistake. I feel sheepish. I'd forgotten that rule because it's so bloody stupid. The entire 5e DMG is kind of a rolling train wreck of dumb, but I should still be more familiar with it than I am.
Speed factor is closer to what I'd like to do, but even with some tricks I've picked up online, it's more work than most players are willing to put in. Which sucks because it's an interesting idea with a lot going for it, for tables willing to acclimate to it.
10 + Dex mod is identical to just using Dex mod for the purposes of a static initiative. Adding 10 just adds a level of math for no reason. I am not crazy about this though because there would be a lot of ties and you'd have to come up with an efficient method of deciding who got higher on the order. Maybe alternate between monsters and players and let players decide who goes first on ties between players.
I think a slightly better static Dex method would be to just use the Dex score, not modifier. That way 13 would go before 12 and there would be less ties. You would still need to find a better way to handle ties because they'll still be somewhat common.
Ah. My mistake. I feel sheepish. I'd forgotten that rule because it's so bloody stupid. The entire 5e DMG is kind of a rolling train wreck of dumb, but I should still be more familiar with it than I am.
Speed factor is closer to what I'd like to do, but even with some tricks I've picked up online, it's more work than most players are willing to put in. Which sucks because it's an interesting idea with a lot going for it, for tables willing to acclimate to it.
I played with a game system that worked like this. It's interesting, but still flawed. The problem I perceived is no one likes having their declared action invalidated by a turn before theirs, so the system(s) have a way to change your action. Requires a roll against a stat.
Well, it was a given that people maxed out that stat. Then they declared whatever they wanted and if their outrageous actions were invalidated, they'd just roll with maxed out probability of success to change their action.
It made one stat a super-stat, and hamstrung the whole point of the system.
10 + Dex mod is identical to just using Dex mod for the purposes of a static initiative. Adding 10 just adds a level of math for no reason. I am not crazy about this though because there would be a lot of ties and you'd have to come up with an efficient method of deciding who got higher on the order. Maybe alternate between monsters and players and let players decide who goes first on ties between players.
It is to avoid negative numbers.
I think a slightly better static Dex method would be to just use the Dex score, not modifier. That way 13 would go before 12 and there would be less ties. You would still need to find a better way to handle ties because they'll still be somewhat common.
This would also prevent negative numbers though, so it works.
I'm partial to the Savage Worlds rpg method. A deck of cards with both jokers in it. Each player is dealt a card each round. Initiative is determined by counting down from Ace to two. With the suit order of Spades, Hearts, Diamonds, and Clubs. The jokers can choose their own initiative that round. The cards are shuffled after a joker is drawn. I find I miss this method when I play other games.
There's a video out there about not using initiative at all: LINK
We tried it at our table and it turned into a hot mess. We're perfectly fine with initiative as it is.
Your mileage may vary, of course ;)
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
I've had issues with standard initiative for a while. I always feel like it takes too long to get the order setup, even if I assign it to a player. I've tried the Greyhawk initiative but it definitely slowed things down further.
I then tried having the PC's roll initiative once at the beginning of the session and used those values as their initiative score in every combat for that session, rolling just for the monsters when combat was imminent. This way I didn't have to break from the action to say "Roll Initiative" I could just begin combat, by saying, "Character A, what do you do on your turn?"
As you might guess, the Player's got tired of this quick.
Then we tried Popcorn Initiative as detailed by the AngryGM, and it worked for a time, but it ultimately just devolved into side initiative.
We've been using side initiative for a while now, and I have to admit it works better than I thought. I was always afraid it would turn into a just a big slug match, and it is to some degree, but it gives the PC's the ability to form some intricate strategies I have not seen them come anywhere close to concocting before.
CritFail.Press
One thing you could do to remove a lot of the randomness from initiative is have everyone roll a smaller die while keeping the initiative bonus the same. A higher initiative bonus matters a lot more if you're rolling a d8 or d10. It still creates some variability but allows for those fast characters to go first more often. This does further buff dex which is already a really strong ability score. I personally think initiative is fine but this would be one way to decrease the randomness some while still keeping some variability in it.
One way I like to do initiative, taken straight from an entirely different system, is to have everyone roll for it, and then have PC and Monster slots. Your rogue rolled a 24, so there is a PC slot at the top of the init, but any PC can take that slot, and it can change over turns who takes it. I feel like it helps make combat more fluid, as well as encourages players to cooperate in combat more.
FFG Genesys/Star Wars? Sounds like. I really, really like that method of initiative.
--Everything I do is a work of Art.
Art the Rat Bastard DM
That's the one. I'm a huge fan of it myself.
Since rolling low when you want to roll high can easily be chalked up to "crap, I wasn't ready," while rolling high when you want to roll low (which I have never seen, but whatever) is more of a "crap, I was too fast," which shouldn't happen, I came up with the following house rule:
Hold action (or wait action): after taking this action, you can use your reaction at the end of another creature's turn to take an extra turn in which you can only move up to your speed or take one action (no spells or class features can grant additional actions on this turn).
I honestly don't understand why anyone would want a low initiative. For healers, there are all sorts of important things to do to start out a fight. Faerie Fire for druids and Bards is a fantastic way to start the fight. Clerics have things like Bless or Aid. Bards and Clerics can also cast Bane which may very well prevent more damage than a heal spell would heal anyway. Fast forward, there is virtually no difference between going last in round 1 and first in round 2. It might even be the difference in one more turn worth of damage you could heal. Even if none of that fits the circumstance, they can still hold an action. Once everyone has gone I want to ________.
Other spell casters of course want to go early, whether they want to throw out a crowd control spell or damage spell.
Fighters and other beefy melee types want to go early to position and deal damage.
Rogues obviously want to go early to get off that early sneak attack.
Has anyone tried incorporating the Dungeon World style initiative: Let people take their actions in an order that makes sense for the particular situation, while watching to make sure everyone gets some time in the spotlight?
I haven't, but I'm curious about it. It's undoubtedly more story oriented and "fluffy" than tactically "crunchy" - which may-or-may-not suit your Table's playing style - but I'm curious as to people's' experience trying to use that in D&D.
The tricky bit is making sure that everyone gets a turn ( checklist tracker? ).
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Part of the issue (for me, at least) is that two of the players at my table have an extreme focus on the mechanical side. They need everything to be systemic and consistent. They're perfectly willing to go along with me for on-the-spot rulings and homebrew, they're not bad players, but anything I introduce as a new base rule to replace something else, like initiative, needs to be extremely rigorous, consistent, and predictable. Those two need to know how it will work, they're not going to put up with fluffy "what makes sense in the narrative" stuff.
RPG combat in general doesn't work from any kind of narrative standpoint, and I'm not going to try and make it do so. Heh, my Grail is a system that varies round-by-round turn order without any significant extra overhead as compared to standard initiative, but I have not figured that out yet. If it ever did show up I could start actually hooking other systems/items/abilities into it, but until then Initiative gets to be a brain caltrop, methinks.
Please do not contact or message me.
By having the monsters go on the same initiative, you effectively have 'Side initiative" without changing any rules (see here: I've achieved buy-in from even the most hard-core grognards this way).
Once you have "Side initiative", the PC's could pretty much go in any order, since they will all go before the monsters next turn anyway.This was basically following RAW even in previous editions thanks to the "Delay" option (which could be re-introduced into your 5e game if desired).
Question.
What the hizzneck is "Side Initiative"?
Note that your link is talking about 'table order initiative' and doing turns basically by seating arrangement; my game is online over Discord and mapping utilities, we don't have a seating arrangement. People keep mentioning rules from other games I've not heard of, would be nice if folks could summarize any new, different system they're talking about when they first bring it up.
Please do not contact or message me.
SIde initiative is detailed as an option in the Dungeon's Master Guide.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Specifically, at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#InitiativeVariants
The possible variants there are:
1) Fixed initiative score (10+dex mod) instead of rolling.
Keeps player order the same every time, less rolling, doesn't fix any other issues.
2) "Side initiative" - all the players go together, all the monsters go together. It suggests just doing a straight D20 roll, no modifiers, but the basic idea is that once order is determined, it just alternates - players, monsters, players, monsters. Within each team, players can go in any order.
This decreases the amount of bookkeeping, and allows the players and monstersto coordinate tactics a little better.
3) "Speed factor" - players and monsters first choose an action each round, and THEN roll initiative (each round) to see what order they go in. (With some extra modifiers to initiative each round based on what action is being done)
Sounds like a pretty big tactical change - not sure what effect it would have.
Ah. My mistake. I feel sheepish. I'd forgotten that rule because it's so bloody stupid. The entire 5e DMG is kind of a rolling train wreck of dumb, but I should still be more familiar with it than I am.
Speed factor is closer to what I'd like to do, but even with some tricks I've picked up online, it's more work than most players are willing to put in. Which sucks because it's an interesting idea with a lot going for it, for tables willing to acclimate to it.
Please do not contact or message me.
10 + Dex mod is identical to just using Dex mod for the purposes of a static initiative. Adding 10 just adds a level of math for no reason. I am not crazy about this though because there would be a lot of ties and you'd have to come up with an efficient method of deciding who got higher on the order. Maybe alternate between monsters and players and let players decide who goes first on ties between players.
I think a slightly better static Dex method would be to just use the Dex score, not modifier. That way 13 would go before 12 and there would be less ties. You would still need to find a better way to handle ties because they'll still be somewhat common.
I played with a game system that worked like this. It's interesting, but still flawed. The problem I perceived is no one likes having their declared action invalidated by a turn before theirs, so the system(s) have a way to change your action. Requires a roll against a stat.
Well, it was a given that people maxed out that stat. Then they declared whatever they wanted and if their outrageous actions were invalidated, they'd just roll with maxed out probability of success to change their action.
It made one stat a super-stat, and hamstrung the whole point of the system.
It is to avoid negative numbers.
This would also prevent negative numbers though, so it works.
I'm partial to the Savage Worlds rpg method. A deck of cards with both jokers in it. Each player is dealt a card each round. Initiative is determined by counting down from Ace to two. With the suit order of Spades, Hearts, Diamonds, and Clubs. The jokers can choose their own initiative that round. The cards are shuffled after a joker is drawn. I find I miss this method when I play other games.