There is a line that bugs me in the 2024 PHB. That line has to do with Initiative. I understand in the vein of making the game more playable, easier to understand for players and DMs, but this one really hit me in a not good way. This is not a complaint post, I want to ask how many DMs do this. The Paragraph in questions is on page 23 discussing the order of combat. The line states: For a group of identical creatures, the DM makes a single roll, so each member of the group has the same Initiative.
My issue here is that as a DM coming back to the game with 5th edition some years ago I tried this method because it was simple. On initiative count 14, all the mobs get their actions. Most games I have played in or dmed for dont have much diversity of monsters in an encounter so this would be a more often than not scenario. I realized very quickly that on the monsters turn they were taking out half of the party members because even with trying to choose between characters and spread the combat out to each, often at least one or two would be overwhelmed by a mob that was able to kill the character in one possibly two rounds. My players got increasingly upset each session and openly expressed that to me. At that point I started using the method of rolling each mob individually.
This allows a break in the action economy to allow them to disengage, take a potion, heal an ally, etc. it has worked incredibly well and flows and feels more like I think most of us imagine a battle going. As a player I have been on the reverse side with DMs running all mobs one turn and had the same exact experience, early on in a campaign its not so bad, one attack per mob can be dealt with, some monsters, start CR3 have multiple attacks, and that is when it gets hairy for players. You fight a bugbear, an orc, you are not going to last that long if more than one engages your tank, and then you become easy picking for the mobs.
I'm sure there will be comments about moving mobs to different characters etc. I get it, Im an experienced dm, but I dont see how this is good rule to put in place and hope that the DMG expands on that to say if you are an experienced dm then you can do it in that manner.
At the end, you do you right. Your table your rules. You also determine what identical means.
Just because you have 30 goblins doesn't mean all 30 are identical. Some might have swords, some might be spellcasters, some might be ranged, etc etc. I do agree with you in general that having all monsters go at the same time is typically a bad idea, but I also understand the point in that line was to streamline somewhat and make it easier.
The DMG doesn't need to say that because the foreward of the PHB, much like in every book has a line like that. It says "Use only the rules that serve your fun, and always follow your group’s bliss. So many people have been enjoying the magic of D&D for half a century. Let’s keep it blazing for another 50 years!". They don't need to say "Use only the rules you want" in every section.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a line that bugs me in the 2024 PHB. That line has to do with Initiative. I understand in the vein of making the game more playable, easier to understand for players and DMs, but this one really hit me in a not good way. This is not a complaint post, I want to ask how many DMs do this. The Paragraph in questions is on page 23 discussing the order of combat. The line states: For a group of identical creatures, the DM makes a single roll, so each member of the group has the same Initiative.
My issue here is that as a DM coming back to the game with 5th edition some years ago I tried this method because it was simple. On initiative count 14, all the mobs get their actions. Most games I have played in or dmed for dont have much diversity of monsters in an encounter so this would be a more often than not scenario. I realized very quickly that on the monsters turn they were taking out half of the party members because even with trying to choose between characters and spread the combat out to each, often at least one or two would be overwhelmed by a mob that was able to kill the character in one possibly two rounds. My players got increasingly upset each session and openly expressed that to me. At that point I started using the method of rolling each mob individually.
This allows a break in the action economy to allow them to disengage, take a potion, heal an ally, etc. it has worked incredibly well and flows and feels more like I think most of us imagine a battle going. As a player I have been on the reverse side with DMs running all mobs one turn and had the same exact experience, early on in a campaign its not so bad, one attack per mob can be dealt with, some monsters, start CR3 have multiple attacks, and that is when it gets hairy for players. You fight a bugbear, an orc, you are not going to last that long if more than one engages your tank, and then you become easy picking for the mobs.
I'm sure there will be comments about moving mobs to different characters etc. I get it, Im an experienced dm, but I dont see how this is good rule to put in place and hope that the DMG expands on that to say if you are an experienced dm then you can do it in that manner.
At the end, you do you right. Your table your rules. You also determine what identical means.
Just because you have 30 goblins doesn't mean all 30 are identical. Some might have swords, some might be spellcasters, some might be ranged, etc etc. I do agree with you in general that having all monsters go at the same time is typically a bad idea, but I also understand the point in that line was to streamline somewhat and make it easier.
The DMG doesn't need to say that because the foreward of the PHB, much like in every book has a line like that. It says "Use only the rules that serve your fun, and always follow your group’s bliss. So many people have been enjoying the magic of D&D for half a century. Let’s keep it blazing for another 50 years!". They don't need to say "Use only the rules you want" in every section.