Alternate Rule: Initiative - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Alternate Rule: Initiative

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
inconsistentdm
Feb 03, 2010 0:09:41
So I had a thought about simplifying initiative the other day when I ran a pretty complex encounter.

When I say complex I mean there were a lot of different types of monsters all with a lot of stuff going on mechanically and I found tracking conditions rather tough.

anyway, it got me thinking of alternate ways of doing initiative in my games.

Alternate Initiative Rule:
1) All participating PCs roll Initiative to begin combat as normal.

2) All Monsters roll their initiatives as well.

3) Compare which 'side' garnered the most amount of high rolls.

4) The winning side goes first (each PC/creature acts in their designated order like usual)

Example:
Players 'A', 'B', and 'C' want to start combat, they roll 10, 7, and 9
Monsters 'X', 'Y', and 'Z' roll 12, 5, and 2
so here the players would go first because 2 of their initiative checks beat the monster's

Final Initiative would look like this:
Player's Turn
A
C
B
Monsters Turn
X
Y
Z

In the end I think Combat would be a bit more organized as far as effects and order are concerned.

Can anyone see anything wrong with this? Did I totally miss something?
#2
vandell
Feb 03, 2010 1:17:48
My issue with this is that there are often more monsters than there are players, so the odds say they will have better chances of going first each and every time, which could be frustrating. Additionally, no more delayed actions.

What I do like about this is that it could allow players to choose their own play order, which would be pretty cool to see a good group go at it. A group of players could, say, declare all their actions at once.
#3
chaosfang
Feb 03, 2010 2:05:20 We just do "shared fate": one roll for all players, one roll for all monsters, add the initiative bonuses from there, then have everyone act on their initiative group (players before monsters). Less rolls, less mess
#4
Neutronium_Dragon
Feb 03, 2010 2:36:16 This approach may cause issues with some abilities (like First Strike) that don't crop up as often with a 'jumbled' turn order.

The bigger problem is that it's liable to result in a nova opening of every encounter, especially if the players start first. Since they'll all act before the creatures do, there's a good chance that they can wipe out a large part of the opposing force before it gets a chance to act, even without blowing lots of dailies.

Interrupts and other between-turn actions, as well as delays, may also cause awkward moments.
#5
inconsistentdm
Feb 03, 2010 16:00:12 @Neutronium_Dragon: I see what you mean, with the nova thing, but I see a lot of it happening already when a player with a good roll or high init goes first. I think i will have to try this out first and see, i have a hard time running senarios through my head w/o actually running them. Initiative feels pretty awkward already in practice but it could be just how I'm running it. how do you for see Interrupts and other between-turn actions, as well as delays, causing awkward moments?

@ chaosfang: That looks much cleaner a way to run it, how do you determine player init within their group? Do they like it better this way?

A lot of this idea stems from my recent playing SRPGs lately, with a initiative system that is pretty organized.
#6
chaosfang
Feb 04, 2010 6:46:00 Let's say player A has +3 init, player B has +1 init, players C & D have +2 init, and player E has -1 init. Before the first combat encounter starts, we arrange everybody from highest to lowest init; in our example, it'd be A, C, D, B, and E. Those who have the same initiative would agree who goes first (and that decision stays until the end of the adventure or until they delay or what not - see below - although so far we've been so consistent it seems they have no plans on changing who goes first).

Let's say I'm DMing. While they're busy figuring out who goes first on their side, I determine who goes first on my side too, based on the monster inits (so monster X with +5 init goes first, monster Y with +2 init goes next, then monster Z with +1 init goes last).

When the pre-roll order is set, one player rolls a d20, while I roll a d20. We add our rolls to our inits, and based on that, we determine our final order. Let's say I got a 13 and they got a 14. That means:

A: 17
C: 16
D: 16
B: 15
E: 13
X: 18
Y: 15
Z: 14

So our initiative order is now X, A, C, D, B, Y, Z, E.
[ players before monsters if they have the same init ]

If C & D decide to switch who goes first, it wouldn't really matter since they have the same initiative (just like for DMs who decide to switch who goes first, considering that all of his X monsters have the same initiative, it wouldn't really matter). Otherwise, standard stuff applies.
#7
Authw8
Feb 04, 2010 17:19:09 I disagree with the basic premise behind this houserule. IME, things run best when the monsters are spread out through the round. I sometimes deliberately reduce the roll of a monster to make the spread through the round more even. This makes delaying more interesting, and it means that more players get to react immediately to new monster actions.
#8
inconsistentdm
Feb 04, 2010 19:29:37 right but the purpose of this is to organize combat a bit more. To simplify it a bit for myself as well. It feels a bit to chaotic and in doing so I and the players loose track of a lot of turn important mechanical functions such as on going dmg, conditions, regeneration, ect. This hopefully will help a little
#9
babyj
Feb 08, 2010 6:57:38 chaosfang: your rule variant is good, but it makes winning the roll portion of initiative a more pivotal part of the fight than now. this imho, is too dramatic. so lets just say, i wont use it my game. i might modify it though if I were InconsistentDM though...

InconsistentDM: consider a d10 roll for each side instead, modified by the average of each side's initiative bonuses. the d10 to account for the dramaticness of the roll itself, and also then there would also be more ties (and thus chances for the natural part of initiative determination to come into play). and i suggest using the average (not the sum) to account for the fact that there might be 3 PCs up against 5 monsters, thus allowing the PCs to have a chance of still going first.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 inconsistentdm Feb 03, 2010 0:09:41	So I had a thought about simplifying initiative the other day when I ran a pretty complex encounter. When I say complex I mean there were a lot of different types of monsters all with a lot of stuff going on mechanically and I found tracking conditions rather tough. anyway, it got me thinking of alternate ways of doing initiative in my games. Alternate Initiative Rule: 1) All participating PCs roll Initiative to begin combat as normal. 2) All Monsters roll their initiatives as well. 3) Compare which 'side' garnered the most amount of high rolls. 4) The winning side goes first (each PC/creature acts in their designated order like usual) Example: Players 'A', 'B', and 'C' want to start combat, they roll 10, 7, and 9 Monsters 'X', 'Y', and 'Z' roll 12, 5, and 2 so here the players would go first because 2 of their initiative checks beat the monster's Final Initiative would look like this: Player's Turn A C B Monsters Turn X Y Z In the end I think Combat would be a bit more organized as far as effects and order are concerned. Can anyone see anything wrong with this? Did I totally miss something?
#2 vandell Feb 03, 2010 1:17:48	My issue with this is that there are often more monsters than there are players, so the odds say they will have better chances of going first each and every time, which could be frustrating. Additionally, no more delayed actions. What I do like about this is that it could allow players to choose their own play order, which would be pretty cool to see a good group go at it. A group of players could, say, declare all their actions at once.
#3 chaosfang Feb 03, 2010 2:05:20	We just do "shared fate": one roll for all players, one roll for all monsters, add the initiative bonuses from there, then have everyone act on their initiative group (players before monsters). Less rolls, less mess
#4 Neutronium_Dragon Feb 03, 2010 2:36:16	This approach may cause issues with some abilities (like First Strike) that don't crop up as often with a 'jumbled' turn order. The bigger problem is that it's liable to result in a nova opening of every encounter, especially if the players start first. Since they'll all act before the creatures do, there's a good chance that they can wipe out a large part of the opposing force before it gets a chance to act, even without blowing lots of dailies. Interrupts and other between-turn actions, as well as delays, may also cause awkward moments.
#5 inconsistentdm Feb 03, 2010 16:00:12	@Neutronium_Dragon: I see what you mean, with the nova thing, but I see a lot of it happening already when a player with a good roll or high init goes first. I think i will have to try this out first and see, i have a hard time running senarios through my head w/o actually running them. Initiative feels pretty awkward already in practice but it could be just how I'm running it. how do you for see Interrupts and other between-turn actions, as well as delays, causing awkward moments? @ chaosfang: That looks much cleaner a way to run it, how do you determine player init within their group? Do they like it better this way? A lot of this idea stems from my recent playing SRPGs lately, with a initiative system that is pretty organized.
#6 chaosfang Feb 04, 2010 6:46:00	Let's say player A has +3 init, player B has +1 init, players C & D have +2 init, and player E has -1 init. Before the first combat encounter starts, we arrange everybody from highest to lowest init; in our example, it'd be A, C, D, B, and E. Those who have the same initiative would agree who goes first (and that decision stays until the end of the adventure or until they delay or what not - see below - although so far we've been so consistent it seems they have no plans on changing who goes first). Let's say I'm DMing. While they're busy figuring out who goes first on their side, I determine who goes first on my side too, based on the monster inits (so monster X with +5 init goes first, monster Y with +2 init goes next, then monster Z with +1 init goes last). When the pre-roll order is set, one player rolls a d20, while I roll a d20. We add our rolls to our inits, and based on that, we determine our final order. Let's say I got a 13 and they got a 14. That means: A: 17 C: 16 D: 16 B: 15 E: 13 X: 18 Y: 15 Z: 14 So our initiative order is now X, A, C, D, B, Y, Z, E. [ players before monsters if they have the same init ] If C & D decide to switch who goes first, it wouldn't really matter since they have the same initiative (just like for DMs who decide to switch who goes first, considering that all of his X monsters have the same initiative, it wouldn't really matter). Otherwise, standard stuff applies.
#7 Authw8 Feb 04, 2010 17:19:09	I disagree with the basic premise behind this houserule. IME, things run best when the monsters are spread out through the round. I sometimes deliberately reduce the roll of a monster to make the spread through the round more even. This makes delaying more interesting, and it means that more players get to react immediately to new monster actions.
#8 inconsistentdm Feb 04, 2010 19:29:37	right but the purpose of this is to organize combat a bit more. To simplify it a bit for myself as well. It feels a bit to chaotic and in doing so I and the players loose track of a lot of turn important mechanical functions such as on going dmg, conditions, regeneration, ect. This hopefully will help a little
#9 babyj Feb 08, 2010 6:57:38	chaosfang: your rule variant is good, but it makes winning the roll portion of initiative a more pivotal part of the fight than now. this imho, is too dramatic. so lets just say, i wont use it my game. i might modify it though if I were InconsistentDM though... InconsistentDM: consider a d10 roll for each side instead, modified by the average of each side's initiative bonuses. the d10 to account for the dramaticness of the roll itself, and also then there would also be more ties (and thus chances for the natural part of initiative determination to come into play). and i suggest using the average (not the sum) to account for the fact that there might be 3 PCs up against 5 monsters, thus allowing the PCs to have a chance of still going first.