I've come up with a pretty different combat houserule set, and I wanted some feedback.
First, the intent is to make it so combat feels more narrative.
The Rules:
All creatures in the combat roll initiative using a d6 plus their initiative modifier. This results in a much smaller set of possibilities with massive initiative bonuses nearly always allowing that PC or NPC to move first.
D6 initiative is rolled each round. As the numbers are smaller it is easier to do this math, but the extra work does prioritize shorter combats. This means players don't know when NPCs are going to act and that CC can be shorter or longer than intended in normal 5e rules based on randomness.
Players in descending order of initiative are asked to describe what they intend to do during the combat. This should go relatively quickly, though some DMs may think it's interesting to allow players to chat about their decisions as a unit assuming it makes narrative sense. The assumption is that the DM is also giving mobs intended actions without deciding those actions based on player choices the mobs wouldn't know. This system obviously doesn't work well with adversarial DM styles of play which do better with war-game style combat.
Players and mobs are able to Prepare a Move alongside being able to Prepare an Action. This helps casters especially to feel like their character is intelligent or wise and can turn and run when they big guy with the mace wants to come and bash their skulls in. If players or mobs Move during their turn, they cannot Prepare a Move.
Actions are taken simultaneously by creatures in the same group. They go in descending order numerically. (Examples of these groups: 12-10, 9-7, 6-4, 3-1, 0-(-2), etc.) If Dogron the Barbarian has a six and the Drow Priestess opponent has a 4, their intended actions and movements occur at the same narrative time. This is the one I'm most unsure is necessary, but I've never enjoyed the sensation in D&D combat of the whole world freezing while one character acts. This should help resolve that issue without completely ruining turns/rounds.
I hope that this is interesting and spawns some discussion. I'd love feedback before I try this out with players (rather than me playing all the characters/mobs) and eventually bring it to the table.
First question is "why are you reworking initiative?" - meaning, what is it that you are trying to accomplish with the re-write? That's not meant as a criticism, just trying to understand the goal, so I can evaluate the effectiveness of the changes :)
It sounds like you're trying to keep the order of turns unpredictable by the Players, still give a benefit to those with high initiative, and make things more realistic.
Other than that:
D6 creates a lot less variability. You're going to have a lot of creatures with the same initiative - be prepared for that.
I disagree that D6 changes the amount of math. Math doesn't get harder or take more time if you're adding 5+3 vs. 1+1, it's still an addition operation. Rolling initiave every round is going to be every bit as difficult as it would be with D20.
The pre-announcement of actions, before resolving any actions is a good Narrative device. It will however make each combat round longer ( every actor in the combat now has 2 possibly 3 steps instead of the 1 or possibly 2 if they have a held spell/attack ), and I think you'll find that the pre-declared actions will be largely discarded, as the battle situation changes rapidly enough that characters cannot execute their intended pre-declared actions.
Planning a contingent move reaction is an interesting idea. It may violate the idea of initiative however: If the big guy with the mace charges the Wizard, and the big guy has a massive initiative edge over the Wizard - maybe he's quick & alert enough to close the gap before the Wizard can react. Under this rule, would a Wizard ever be within melee range unless their opponent had more movement per round? Additionally, I understand why you're trying to keep them from moving freestyle and reaction moving in the same round - but that feels like an arbitrary game mechanic, not something that comes out of the nature of the setting world. If you kept this, I'd also have this burn the Character's reaction, just as a held attack or held spell would.
Actions taken simultaneously, while more "real" are really hard to handle mechanically. Does the monster still get to attack and get killed this round, on that initiative beat? Do you allow the PC to change their combat spell to a healing spell when one of their party members takes massive damage on this initiative beat? How about if their spell is a reaction casting time? The problem here is that you're trying to have actions occur in world at the same time, but you have to mechanically resolve them sequentially.
Overall, I think you're going to have a lot more action collisions and judgment calls trying to figure out how supposedly simultaneous actions are going to interact than you think - and as a result your overall speed of combat will go down significantly.
The current initiative system isn't particularly realistic, but it's completely unambiguous as to who is doing what, when, and how it all interacts.
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.
The rationale that you decided on (unpredictability, realism) by reading the rules is correct. I'll admit that makes me happy, as that implies they weren't completely off target as a thought experiment.
The main issue I have with combat that I want to 'fix' is the 'timestop' phenomenon. I have never enjoyed the discrepancy between the narrative and the gameplay when it comes to movement.
Imagine that Rexath, war cleric of the mighty Thunder God Zult, runs up to a group of charging enemies and blasts them backwards and knocks them prone (in the narrative). The issue is this: in the gameplay the enemies weren't charging at all. They were standing still frozen waiting for their turn. And Rexath- by moving up to blow them backwards- actually just set himself up for death. He's out of movement, and these foes will just charge forward again on their turns after standing up and moving a few squares. Rather than turning and running like a sensible being he just stands there.
If you all could help me figure out how to 'fix' that, I'd be very grateful.
A few thoughts:
On math: in my experience players have an easier time with 6+5 than they do with 12+2. I don't know why, but if you have a number above ten included some folks get all jittery.
On simultaneous actions: I understand the worry. My idea was to make it so two creatures interacting would attack at the same time. If a creature died, they'd still get in the blow.
I do think that the movement mechanics are the things I really want to sort out more than the simultaneous actions. Honestly everything else could be scrapped and I could just do 'popcorn' initiative each round with normal initiative and move order if I could just fix the issue of the suddenly frozen cleric getting clubbed to death because turning and running can only be done when everyone else is frozen solid.
On movement: While I said 'Prepare a Move', you immediately thought I said 'Move Reaction'-- that shows a big flaw in my thinking. First, I'd forgotten that it's called 'Ready an Action' in 5e and that the readied action uses the player's reaction in the rules. It's not something that often comes up in games I've run in or played because it's usually better to just act on your turn.
Second, if the players declare their intended action at the beginning of the round then there is an issue with the first round of combat: when can Readied Actions and/or Moves occur for a specific creature in combat? They obviously wouldn't be able to occur before the player's first round initiative without breaking the point of initiative, as you said.
Honestly, Readied actions stop making a whole lot of sense when you move decision making to an 'intent-based' system before the round. I need to rethink that part almost entirely, especially as it's the crux of my hoped for 'movement realism' fix.
The initiative is basically how you react to a situation. If Rexath runs up to the group of enemies, thus putting himself in harm's way, that is his choice. If he wants to be more tactical, he should move to a location, Ready a spell for when the enemy move as a trigger.
Teaching the players better tactics is what your goal should be, not trying to complicate the system to limit the tactics.
I think one answer to the OP's question about handling the Turn Based Tactical game at the core of 5e, is for the opposition to be played correctly as well. Upon being blown back and mostl likely damaged, they might rout. Grant the Player a chance to roll Intimidation (perhaps with Advantage based on the injuries inflicted) if you want a more gamey solution. This way Rexath looks and is a Bad@$$.
Teaching the players better tactics is what your goal should be, not trying to complicate the system to limit the tactics.
While I agree better tactics is a better solution, it don't believe it's the DM's job to teach the Players that - part of the game is the Players figuring that out themselves.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey all,
I've come up with a pretty different combat houserule set, and I wanted some feedback.
First, the intent is to make it so combat feels more narrative.
The Rules:
All creatures in the combat roll initiative using a d6 plus their initiative modifier. This results in a much smaller set of possibilities with massive initiative bonuses nearly always allowing that PC or NPC to move first.
D6 initiative is rolled each round. As the numbers are smaller it is easier to do this math, but the extra work does prioritize shorter combats. This means players don't know when NPCs are going to act and that CC can be shorter or longer than intended in normal 5e rules based on randomness.
Players in descending order of initiative are asked to describe what they intend to do during the combat. This should go relatively quickly, though some DMs may think it's interesting to allow players to chat about their decisions as a unit assuming it makes narrative sense. The assumption is that the DM is also giving mobs intended actions without deciding those actions based on player choices the mobs wouldn't know. This system obviously doesn't work well with adversarial DM styles of play which do better with war-game style combat.
Players and mobs are able to Prepare a Move alongside being able to Prepare an Action. This helps casters especially to feel like their character is intelligent or wise and can turn and run when they big guy with the mace wants to come and bash their skulls in. If players or mobs Move during their turn, they cannot Prepare a Move.
Actions are taken simultaneously by creatures in the same group. They go in descending order numerically. (Examples of these groups: 12-10, 9-7, 6-4, 3-1, 0-(-2), etc.) If Dogron the Barbarian has a six and the Drow Priestess opponent has a 4, their intended actions and movements occur at the same narrative time. This is the one I'm most unsure is necessary, but I've never enjoyed the sensation in D&D combat of the whole world freezing while one character acts. This should help resolve that issue without completely ruining turns/rounds.
I hope that this is interesting and spawns some discussion. I'd love feedback before I try this out with players (rather than me playing all the characters/mobs) and eventually bring it to the table.
First question is "why are you reworking initiative?" - meaning, what is it that you are trying to accomplish with the re-write? That's not meant as a criticism, just trying to understand the goal, so I can evaluate the effectiveness of the changes :)
It sounds like you're trying to keep the order of turns unpredictable by the Players, still give a benefit to those with high initiative, and make things more realistic.
Other than that:
Overall, I think you're going to have a lot more action collisions and judgment calls trying to figure out how supposedly simultaneous actions are going to interact than you think - and as a result your overall speed of combat will go down significantly.
The current initiative system isn't particularly realistic, but it's completely unambiguous as to who is doing what, when, and how it all interacts.
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.
Reminds me of Mike Mearls alternate initiative variant. You could look at that and use it instead.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolville/comments/6cgphb/mike_mearls_initiative_variant/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOz35qLj_8c
Let us know how it went after you played with it for a while
Thanks for the feedback, Vedexent! :)
The rationale that you decided on (unpredictability, realism) by reading the rules is correct. I'll admit that makes me happy, as that implies they weren't completely off target as a thought experiment.
The main issue I have with combat that I want to 'fix' is the 'timestop' phenomenon. I have never enjoyed the discrepancy between the narrative and the gameplay when it comes to movement.
Imagine that Rexath, war cleric of the mighty Thunder God Zult, runs up to a group of charging enemies and blasts them backwards and knocks them prone (in the narrative). The issue is this: in the gameplay the enemies weren't charging at all. They were standing still frozen waiting for their turn. And Rexath- by moving up to blow them backwards- actually just set himself up for death. He's out of movement, and these foes will just charge forward again on their turns after standing up and moving a few squares. Rather than turning and running like a sensible being he just stands there.
If you all could help me figure out how to 'fix' that, I'd be very grateful.
A few thoughts:
On math: in my experience players have an easier time with 6+5 than they do with 12+2. I don't know why, but if you have a number above ten included some folks get all jittery.
On simultaneous actions: I understand the worry. My idea was to make it so two creatures interacting would attack at the same time. If a creature died, they'd still get in the blow.
I do think that the movement mechanics are the things I really want to sort out more than the simultaneous actions. Honestly everything else could be scrapped and I could just do 'popcorn' initiative each round with normal initiative and move order if I could just fix the issue of the suddenly frozen cleric getting clubbed to death because turning and running can only be done when everyone else is frozen solid.
On movement: While I said 'Prepare a Move', you immediately thought I said 'Move Reaction'-- that shows a big flaw in my thinking. First, I'd forgotten that it's called 'Ready an Action' in 5e and that the readied action uses the player's reaction in the rules. It's not something that often comes up in games I've run in or played because it's usually better to just act on your turn.
Second, if the players declare their intended action at the beginning of the round then there is an issue with the first round of combat: when can Readied Actions and/or Moves occur for a specific creature in combat? They obviously wouldn't be able to occur before the player's first round initiative without breaking the point of initiative, as you said.
Honestly, Readied actions stop making a whole lot of sense when you move decision making to an 'intent-based' system before the round. I need to rethink that part almost entirely, especially as it's the crux of my hoped for 'movement realism' fix.
The initiative is basically how you react to a situation. If Rexath runs up to the group of enemies, thus putting himself in harm's way, that is his choice. If he wants to be more tactical, he should move to a location, Ready a spell for when the enemy move as a trigger.
Teaching the players better tactics is what your goal should be, not trying to complicate the system to limit the tactics.
I think one answer to the OP's question about handling the Turn Based Tactical game at the core of 5e, is for the opposition to be played correctly as well. Upon being blown back and mostl likely damaged, they might rout. Grant the Player a chance to roll Intimidation (perhaps with Advantage based on the injuries inflicted) if you want a more gamey solution. This way Rexath looks and is a Bad@$$.
While I agree better tactics is a better solution, it don't believe it's the DM's job to teach the Players that - part of the game is the Players figuring that out themselves.
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.