At first, I was leery about group/side initiative but started using it with my most recent OSE campaign. Once the players got the hang of it, I found they organized their planning much better as a team basing their actions off each others plans.
That second half there is the biggest reason I want to try it, since it makes it so even if the time spent in combat is the same, it's still more engaging because you're all doing something rather than waiting for several turns to pass before you go, and the board shifts several times so at least personally, individual initiative can incentivize just waiting until the turn right before yours to even really look at the board, since yeah the wolves went over that direction, but idk if half them are even still going to be there by time it gets to my turn, so I might not even need that fireball I was thinking of casting. Meanwhile a side-based initiative, I can just say "those wolves over there, I think I'm gonna cast fireball, that'll leave those two un-fireballed so if somebody else wants they can go after them, or could clean up the ones that did get hit but weren't finished off" and turn it into a back-and-forth, like maybe the fighter has something that'll cleave through half of them so I can decide to cast something else, maybe I cast sleep so the fighter can go through the remainder and the rogue and ranger can tie up the ones who are knocked out, which is a coordinated tactic that I think would be harder to pull off in individual initiative, both logistically and just working against the player mindset a "it's my turn so I do my thing" system can instill.
My favorite way to handle "held actions" is by having the side that lost initiative declare actions first, and then the side that won respond. You can then resolve all actions simultaneously, and not worry about it since they are already responding to the actual situation. A player on the losing side could still declare something like "I will guard the magic user", but since they don't have initiative it's a guessing game for them and the other side sees it coming. This is definitely RAW somewhere...I think? Or was something I picked up on one of the OSR channels.
I run a BECMI/RC game and really like the side initiative and procedure-based combat. It allows the PCs to act as a team, but keeps the table organized. That said, I am pretty loose with the order in which each PC acts. I prefer them to make a plan, and then let them attempt to pull it off. 😊
Group initiative is great! It incentivizes group play. Also I find that the side initiative roll is one of the most nail-bite-inducing rolls of all. It really makes the players stand on their toes and when they win or loose the roll they are in it together! The collective "YAAAYYY" when they score a crucial initiative roll is priceless!
Yes indeed. It encourages party coordination and cooperation. And the 'all or nothing' aspect of it ('Will the baddies get the drop on us?') ramps up the tension. I even use it in Call of Cthulhu, which isn't exactly a game that emphasizes combat tactics.
We've used group initiative in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D since 1982, when we learned it from the Moldvay Basic set. Experiments with individual initiative have never been as much fun, so we always reverted back to what we enjoyed most. The team dynamic is so much better and there is always palpable tension when the dice gets rolled to decide whether you get the jump on the monsters or not. Great breakdown of the pro's and (limited) con's of the Moldvay system and how to convert it to other editions.
I don't have any particular thoughts to contribute to the topic at hand here, but I want to compliment you on your consistently great choices of artwork for video thumbnails. I loved (technically still do) Cary Nord's run on the Dark Horse Conan comic back in the mid 2000's. He remains my second favorite Conan comic artist after John Buscema. It's also great to see every time you use a Richard Corben thumbnail. Keep up the great work all around!
The way I run it in my cobbled-together system is that each character gets two actions (movement is an action, by the way), and then everyone on one side can take any number of their actions in any order they see fit. It helps the game flow faster because it means that the players who are ready can act immediately, and the players who need time to plan can think while the aforementioned players act.
My tried and true initiative process is the humble D10. At the beginning of the Round, every one declares an action then rolls a D10 and adjusts for Dex. I count up from one to ten segments. Spell casters begin casting on their number and add the casting time at which point the spell goes off. I allow holding action to a later segment. A one minute melee round is 10 segments of 6 seconds each. This has served me well over the years as the order is changed each round for most of the party with advantage going to high dex characters (as it should be). If a spell effect is no longer needed, it can be cancelled by the caster. (they loose the spell, but you don't have a sleep spell being cast at the end of a round when everyone is already dead)
Love it. This is exactly how I run AD&D combat, but with each round being represented as but not always exactly 10 segments. Sometimes actions get resolved in a few more or less segments. Running BX these days though.
This is how I do it as well, with a couple of fine tunings. Those casting a spell roll a d4 for the segment they start casting. They add the casting time and that is the segment they end. If they suffer damage during that span, they lose the spell. Characters with multiple attacks roll a d10, but never get more than a 5. They attack on 1&6; 2&7; 3&8; 4&9; or 5&10. Yeah, it sounds complex, but in play it flows. Side note, I also have them declare generally what they intend to do first so planning can happen.
@@Mannahnin that has always been my assumption. That the round isn't always exactly 10 segments. I run it in that the round is over when all actions are resolved whether it is more or less than 10 segments.
My favorite part of using side based initiative was during a Cypher System campaign where the players were doing a side quest as super powered wrestlers and used their abilities to throw two enemies into each other at the same time. They both made attack rolls and damage and it made the whole thing way more entertaining when they could’ve just done the same ability without the flavor, which is why I also have them bonus damage for doing a creative move like that
Hey Daniel, thanks for the video! We have been using side-based initiative for a bit over a year now and it really does boost collaboration and is faster/easier...but, if I have a sort of a "boss fight" type of setup...and my PCs go first, they just obliterate the poor thing 😅 We then started using a type of hybrid system where enemies all go at the same time, players roll initiative and I set an initiative DC for that encounter. Players who succeed go before the monsters, and players who fail go after the monsters...there is a variant to reroll initiative each round...but I just do it when the tide of the encounter shifts dramatically (for example it is a roof battle and the roof explodes after 4 rounds and everyone falls into the mansion - reroll initiative) This Sunday we are trying out a concept from Pathfinder 2e where we will use different skills as bonuses to the initiative roll depending on what each player was doing at the moment when the initiative was called for.
I really like the phased initiative system from Against the Darkmaster. The GM says what all the enemies are doing, then the players say what they're doing. Then, everything happens in phases based on what each player is doing.
I played BattleTech (MechWarrior) long ago, and I loved its combat system. It was side initiative, iirc, and the losing side went first, with a move phase for both sides before the attack phase. This gave the winning side a tactical advantage in the attack due to the weapons all being ranged and movement affecting hit difficulty. That was a really fun game, and the mechanics were perfect for the application.
I also use phased combat with group initiative rolled every round. This makes combat so much faster and more exciting. Also, by rolling every round you have the potential for some very interesting 'swingy' results, such as if the players lose initiative one round then win the next, in which case they get two actions back to back, which can be decisive. I also use the traditional one minute combat round, so I never have to worry about one player killing an enemy that another player had declared to attack. One minute is more than long enough to relocate to anywhere else because combat rarely takes place over a huge area. Furthermore D&D has an abstract system of combat, and melee attacks rolls were never intended to represent a single blow, but rather the net result of a minute of combat. D&D combat has been generally misunderstood from the get go, and this misunderstanding has been passed on and codified in modern editions.
I love side-based, phased combat. It makes combat faster and more fun. Every “modern d20” player that I’ve introduced to this style of combat has really liked it.
I love all Bandit's Keep videos! Later editions of D&D that went away from procedural and side-based initiative also went to Dex-based. I like OSE and procedural, but some newer players don't easily grasp the concepts. Dex based hoses magic users, who realistically should be quick-witted and respond to changing situations better, except Dex puts them in check. Later editions also came up with Counterspell as a solution to interrupting spells in sequential combat procedures, ala Magic: The Gathering, and the Concentration mechanic which requires Con. Procedural and group initiative came from the wargaming world, and makes sense from the standpoint that it's a game and not a combat simulator where speed is paramount. It's fair to everybody: fast characters, slow characters, monsters, and the players. Just my ramblings on the matter. Thanks for this.
Great video Daniel! Being a player in a game with individual initiative can be fun, as it prompts interesting decisions about actions, weapon speeds, spell casting times, etc. If I'm running the game, though, it's side-based initiative every time -- it's so much faster and easier to keep track of who's acting when, especially in games with bigger player groups or large numbers of combatants. Excellent points about being flexible with the sequence of actions within a round and the importance of players declaring actions before initiative, which triggers the potential for spell interruptions and other interesting things.
@@BanditsKeep I love Shadowdark, as someone that didn't grow up playing b/x, Adnd etc this is the perfect game. It has some of the ease of use from 5e, and some from older editions, making it *drum roll* very easy to use haha.
I usually get my head taken off when I ask this question but I feel safe here. In larger groups, how do you keep track of what everybody declared before initiative? Do you just scribble stuff down in shorthand?
Thats one way for sure, you could also have a player write it down or have them get the actions for the group while you do the DM thing. Delegating these kinds of minor DM tasks to players will both free you up for more important DM tasks (like going to the bathroom lol) and make players feel more involved.
I don't usually track all the actions. What i want a group to come up with is a clear statement of intent (What would they want to achieve in this round) and a way how they approach this. I think one of the biggest benefits is that it keeps the engagement high because the party has short tactical discussion at the beginning of every round. It also helps with theater of the mind as I as the gm can describe them the situation at the top of the round again. In 5e I noticed otherwise players tend to do their turn and then often zone out until it's their turn again or they get attacked.
Yes, for a larger group I just make a quick note, but I could see using tokens or the like as well if you are using minis. My group is 6 players and I can usually keep that in my head though.
Although I don't use initiative, I've been using a phased combat sequence for a while now. Not sure how I decided to do it this way but I have missile fire before movement, and spells go off at the end of different phases, usually movement, though some are faster and others slower. The way is shakes out in my system without initiative, is both sides interweave their actions on the three phases (missile, move, melee), and if any discrepancy arises about who does a particular thing first (if that's important) it's resolved based on weapon speed/length for melee, weapon speed or dex score for missiles, or speed (mostly determined by race and armor worn) score for movement. Spells can be interrupted by being hit by a missile, but also by having someone engage you in melee (no hit required), so you really need the fighter to cover the magic-user unless they're casting certain fast spells, or else an orc can just run up to them and cause their spell to fizzle.
Group initiative makes that roll really meaningful. I see my players frustration when they lose the initiative and the enemies go first. Or have two actions in a row. I'm having trouble with the phases and slow combat in VTT. Have everyone roll at once may be just what I needed. I'll try that tomorrow. Btw great strategy to protect the MU. I'm stealing that to my villains😊
While designing Dragon Castle, I struggled to come up with a clean initiative system. But I found it in the end., and surprise, surprise, it is side initiative. At the start of each round, PCs choose one PC to roll Initiative (d20 Dexterity test). DM chooses one monster to roll too. If monsters win, DM has them go in any order. If PCs win, the PC who rolled goes first. Then THEY get to choose whoch PC goes next. Once the next PC finishes, they choose the PC to go after them and so on. This means two things. One, it is easy and fast. As a DM, I don't have to get involved into managing players. Two, it is tactical. Need the wizard to go first? Suddenly Dex matters. Rogue is poisoned? Suddenly thats disadvatage on Initiative roll. Works like charm.
@@mariooooo.o3404 To be honest, surprise is one of my least favorite mechanics in 5e dnd. So I just grant advantage and hidden status (advantage on first attack) to side that performs an ambush. This is mainly because I dislike all the talk about how hidden everyone is before the battle kicks in, as well as all the Stealth checks, Perception checks, and Passive perception shenenigans.
I think Hyperborea 2e has my favorite combat procedure. The way the phases are broken up makes tons of sense, and even now that my group is playing 3e, I still end up breaking it into the phases from 2e.
I always use group initiative, I've never used anything else. I was originally going to use procedural combat, but because we play in a fairly casual style and only get to play a few times a year so that many have not really learned all the rules (the campaign began in 2020 and the PCs are just getting to level 3), we fell into a pattern of just going clockwise around the table (much like in a lot of board games).
See?? Im sitting here nodding my head in agreement to everything Daniel said.. Our Kickstarter is absolutely gonna credit Daniel in some way! Hopefully in steering viewers to his channel! Bravo Daniel! 👏👏🫡
I ran OSE for 6 friends, 84% had zero to no dnd or rpg experience. They picked up the procedure pretty fast I have to say given they had a clear canvas towards the rules. Also for the initiative bonus I went for whoever triggers the encounter or is in front (the most immediate threat to the monsters) rolls that initiative and adds the bonus. Then I went with last player to engage in the encounter. When they picked up on this, they immediately started to combine they moves like "Anna let me go last because I have a higher bonus and we really want Bob to cast the spell before the five spiders get in melee range". It was wild 😅
Playing Swords and Wizardry we had 3 full combat on top over everything else we did last session. 5e games would last 3 times as long to just get the combat done
We found that Dragonbane initiative cards made combat flow faster. You deal 1-10 in cards, opponents draw as groups. People in Dragonbane do not have a growing sack of HD and will go down fast. The cards make initiative easily visible. I know the duck got lucky and can flame someone, then my scholar can run up and bash the survivors. Or I can hold my scholar's action to let the armored wolf run up first.
I also run side initiative. Best thing I did when I started DMing. Makes combat so much better. This is the rules I use: Group Initiative. All players roll for Initiative (+Modifiers) and add up the total party Initiative. DM will Roll Initiative for Monsters using the same number of player dice. (Example: 3 players each roll 1 D20, DM rolls 3 D20s.) Highest group Initiative goes first. During combat on the players side turn, the players can decide in what order they act in. If players cannot agree, whoever has the highest Initiative roll will go first. On the DMs turn, all Monsters will take their actions at the same time. This style of Initiative is designed to encourage teamwork, as well as speed up the combat process. Be Warned! The Monsters want to win, and will be working as a team to accomplish this. Work as a team, and overcome the enemy!
I like the wargamey aspect of procedural initiative. I'm going to try: Declare magic and full route and intentions Roll side initiative First half of movement for losing side, then first half of movement for winning side. Then ranged attacks(all sides simultaneously) Then second half of movement, losers, then winners. Then magic. Then melee(all sides, any braced to receive charges going first, then everyone else simultaneously). Finally end of round morale checks, if any.
Regarding stolen kills: I think your general philosophy of being flexible is sound. That said, lets say there's a situation where two players decide to attack the same monster to make sure it dies that round, to reduce the number of attacks back at the party since everything attacks at full strength until dead in most games. They say this aloud. In that case, I might not allow the second player to switch targets just because the first rolled really well and killed the target. They got their desired outcome.
I've always been a big fan of rerolling initiative every round, but I haven't tried it in 5e. I might have to give it a try. My only concern is D&D fights can sometimes be longer and more swingy than some of the other systems that reroll initiative each round.
Love your stuff. Thanks Daniel ps-do you say melee like that on purpose? After hearing you pronounce it I thought I had been saying it wrong for decades. Every reference I could find though pronounces it the way I know it.
I listened thrice, didn't directly get an answer to the problem posed when the ogre gets to go first ... Are the PCs just going to do as they planned, play out the actions as if it's a normal turn based initiative roll--until that round is up and they get to try to plan again? There are some other mechanics tied to feats/spells that also might take a hit... Im thinking of the Warlock who wants to get a final blow to recouperate hp, or the spell cast that ends at the end of players next turn (i suppose holding action resolves that one). My question is, if everyone has gone at once, how do you adjudicate the kill shot? And, say, if all the melee are going in the 1,3,5 as you described, is the dmg all added up and then administered (theater of the mind style)? I want to play fair with my PCs and not waffle between how the round goes. Honest question, bc i like the ideas presented here, especially getting away fron round robin and having PCs check out.
Great questions; let me try to answer them as best I can. #1 If the ogre wins, they will charge forward and attack - who would depend on where each PC stands or if the ogre saw one as a bigger threat. They might end up attacking the PC who wanted to melee anyway, but now it would be off the bridge. If anyone can't do something they stated they would do, I typically have them go at the end of the round to represent them having to change mid-thought or not at all, depending on the action. Regarding the Warlock wanting to go last, I'd allow it - spells ending at the end of the PC's turn would end once they acted. As far as allocating damage, I've done it a couple of different ways: Everyone rolls, I take the total and apply it, and if the enemy goes down, the players can all describe how the great combo defeated it. Or have them go in the order they want - I typically do it around the table for simplicity, but my players know they can choose whatever order they like.
In my opinion side initiative is the fastest and most easiest way to go through combat. The players and referee just roll a d6 and the magic happens. Sometimes in favour for the players, sometimes for the enemies.
I sort of feel like there should be a difference between one-on-one combat and group combat. Someone could be an excellent duelist, but an experienced soldier would do better fighting in formation.
I have tried side initiative once before, and while I enjoyed it, the players didn't care for it. It wasn't the case of one of them having the Alert feat (+5 bonus to initiative). They seemed to suffer from decision paralysis and I suspect the shy players didn't ever want to ask to go ahead of others, and so they were stuck always going last. The idea of rolling each new round is interesting. I do think the older edition idea of having specific phases where only certain types of actions (ranged weapon, melee weapon, spells) are allowed is pretty neat. If spellcasting always happens last, then it gives the wizards of the world a vulnerability they currently don't have in modern editions and it promotes teamwork such as your example of a fighter shielding the wizard from harm to help them finish casting their spell. If you went back to phases, you could have the Alert feat bump a character up a category, so you finish casting in the melee phase instead of the normal spells phase. It would be really valuable again, but for a different reason.
The Shadowdark initiative system is really clean. Players and GM roll 1d20 DEX for initiative. Whoever has the highest goes first clockwise around the table. Sit where you think its best. This is also your marching order during exploration. Easy to track. Badically, side based if the person to the left of the GM wins initiative, or the GM wins initiative.
I stopped segmenting my rpg into role-playing or combat. I removed initiative and the action economy. additionally, I switched from having a to-hit roll, to the AC as damage reduction. my combat is more open to player decisions and still allows role-playing. this makes the combat very cinematic and fast. a combat between 4 characters and 6 goblins, takes 10 minutes to play out.
So there is a game called killteam that uses alternating activations, and I've wanted to try using it for initiative. So in killteam you roll for sides and then alternate players to activate a model each phase. First everyone moves, then you shoot, then charges and then melee. So in 5e I think it'd go like rolling sides, the players and the DM take turns moving into position and then alternating on making attacks and casting spells
Yes, I prefer systems like this with interleaving actions instead of everyone on one side going at once. Breaking it down to move and action phases really speeds up the round, too.
Also been playing UVG lately. It has a similar d20 core like 5e. Initiative here is very interesting. There is side initiative. Every turn a random player rolls it and they get to add their Dexterity Bonus. The Initiative roll is d20. On a nat 1 the side only get one action each (instead of default 2). On a nat 7 the side has advantage on their first rolls on their turn. On a nat 13 they have Disadvantage on their first roll. On a nat 20 they get an extra action on their turn (for a total of three) Also d20 explode and if you roll a second nat 20 you get an additional action and so on. (I rolled four 20's in a row, no kidding, for the Polychromatic Avenger) Usually, though when playing D&D I go for the good old d6 when rolling side initiative.
IMO a good GM should embrace the fact the open ended, flexible nature of RPGs. Don't be shackled to what some guy wrote down on the page some years ago. Adjudicate each situation in a way that makes sense for the situation and the table. Rules are guidelines that can and should be molded as needed. Embrace the role of referee.
We’ve been doing side initiatives using B/X rules (d6) for my 5e group for the last few sessions, and I’ve found that my players don’t even mind not getting bonuses for initiative rolls! I haven’t even considered keeping the d20+dex and just go around the table. Do you use the highest dex mod for the enemy side?
I give no bonus to the roll. Rolling happens when both sides are right there in each others faces and things are down to chance. In ambushes or when sniping you simply get a free round. It makes planning an ambush pretty powerful.
I've been using Phases with no initiative in my heavily homebrewed ICRPG game. We've been enjoying Phased Combat, although it can be a little confusing to keep track of (skill issue for me 😆).
I agree with you that a Judge should avoid rigidity, but I actually prefer prioritization of a kind that I think you’re calling “phase based” (shooters, then pole arms, then close mêlée, etc). I just hate Initiative Rolls! I play in a large DCC group, and I think we spend way too much time adjudicating Initiative. And d20s are so capricious! Side-based Initiative was less hassle, when we were using it, but then, going second can sometimes mean a TPK. Declaration Phases have not worked for me, especially if they precede Initiative Rolls. My fellows are somewhat indecisive, even when they know they possess the Initiative, so tripping them up with die rolls that may deprive them of the Initiative can be quite disruptive. Besides, like kids playing with dinosaurs and army men, most players exhibit a natural inclination to move and act in a single action, so I prefer to adjudicate moving and acting at once rather than keep those phases rigidly separate.
No, I’m just a Player. We’re using individual Initiative in a party of 8, sometimes 9-not ideal. The Initiative I might propose is something Bob Worldbuilder recently covered (though I don’t think he invented it): Monsters always go on Phase 11; Players roll to see whether they go before that or after that. I think we’ll be doing a lot of what you describe here with collaborative planning, if we abandon individual turn order, except for distinguishing the first wave of Players attacking from the last wave.
For DCC, my present solution for group initiative is to add all fighter levels to the d20 initiative roll, for each side. So far it works all right, and at low levels it isn't super game breaking. I don't count every orc as a fighter, maybe every so many hit dice in such cases, or give individual monster bonuses in special cases.
If it seems reasonable that one side can surprise the other I use the 2 in 6. If I were going to modify it, I’d likely use wisdom vs dex though as that is often used to represent a “6th sense”
We tested the Dragonbane individual initiative system using cards. League loves cards and markers and stuff to fill out a box. The cards have no duplicates, there can only be one initiative 4. The cards make initiative... Visible. We could see what we got without calling out that initiative countdown. We did not sit idle, we could plan as a group. The duck is going to flame these fools, then the scholar can either trip a dude to stop their dodge or beat them as they come up. Enemies draw a card too, in groups.
What strikes me as interesting is that group initiative is usually used in wargames, and I've heard multiple complaints about this system, with people designing games that use alternate activations instead. I think the two most often heard objections were that this gives a huge advantage to the side winning the roll, and that you have to sit and wait for everyone to move before you can respond, which can be boring. Have you considered doing alternate activations in your game, with the players deciding who responds to the last action of the enemy? Might turn out to be a giant mess. Currently, I use fixed initiative, which is just the Dexterity stat. Highest goes first. This gives the players a static order and the monsters can slot in-between them (though usually only the boss does that, with minions all acting at the end of the round). I also have the surprise round rules, so players are incentivized to set up ambushes and scout ahead.
Alternate activations could be really fun, I feel like i played in a game doing somehtign like that at a con a few years ago - it might have been Dungeon World (though that is not a rule in DW, just the way the MC ran that game.
I stopped doing side initiative for my monsters when all of them would go at once and devastate the party. It makes combat way too swingy when the monsters outnumber the party and all attack at once. It gives the party no chance to adapt. I always break them up into groups now. For this reason alone, I will avoid side initiatives. I think Wrath and Glory simplifies it the right way. Players get to pick one person on their side to go first, then the play alternates to the enemy side. You can spend a fate point to 'seize the initiative' and have a second player go on the same side. Adds a lot of fun when you really want to combo. It has it drawbacks, quiet players usually take a back seat.
While that is certainly not out of the realm of possibility- PCs also take advantage. The choosing who goes next is something I’ve seen in Skirmish war games - works pretty well in those for sure.
I think it makes that single roll too important for my taste, especially in older editions where multiple combatants on one side are likely to be killed or disabled before they get a turn to act. I still like to have everyone coordinating together and taking actions like movement simultaneously, but with different initiative numbers representing e.g. when in the course of the combat that round they find an opening to get a hit in.
@@BanditsKeep I typically let characters/monsters start movement at the beginning of the round regardless of initiative, but initiative decides when each gets to roll an attack or cast a spell. I like the battle feeling continuous and the movement feeling realistic, even if we play it out in rounds. But I don't think that's the style for everyone - it also depends on not minding a bit of math and figuring out mid-round positions. There's a section in the AD&D DMG about how a combat round is assumed to encompass maneuvering, a number of feints and parried or dodged attacks, and maybe a chance or two do get a real hit in - so I'm kind of playing off of that.
Initiative (in any of its typical forms) is a completely meaningless mechanic, unrelated to actual combat. _Who goes first_ is a decision, not a race. That is, both opponents are hesitating, sizing each other up, circling, then one of them decides to make a move, and just happens to be the one who decided to move _first._ This has nothing to do with skill, speed, quickness or even reaction time. Unless there is a race condition (who reaches the magic McGuffin first?). In fact the faster, more skilled combatant will often _let_ the lesser skilled opponent move first, since that will likely create an opening for a counter-move. I do like taking "turns" as a team, but turns should be simultaneous: both sides decide what they are doing, resolve simultaneously. The _initiative_ based on speed and reaction time should be used only for a situation where it _matters_ who moves first _and_ both (or all) combatants actually _want_ to move first (again, a race condition, or a specific _need_ to attack first). In this case you roll "initiative" against your opponent's "initiative" to see who moves first and how much of a lead you have. Just using initiative to decide who goes first (turn order) is boring & meaningless. (yes, yes, I know there is a slight advantage to going first in the first round since you may get the first hit(s) in whittling down enemy sack of hit points just a bit sooner... but... like I said... _boring)._ But if you do simultaneous resolution, then it might _matter_ if you attack before your opponent fires their bow or gets of a spell -- the disruption could cause a misfire. Tactically interesting. Not boring. And yes, I'm aware that D&D's (all versions') _sack-of-hit-points_ lobbing-subtractions-at-each-other combat mechanics do not fully support what I'm describing. Just means even more homebrew desperately required...
Classic Traveller, Into the Odd and a few non-OSR games like Apocalypse World uses simultaneous. Both sides in pitched combat will dish out and take damage. Special situations like ambush and sniping are exceptions you need to work for.
Besides that starting measure of COOL and reputation, Initiative was the king of combat in 2020. When fools with uzis shoot across a room the game made hits practically guaranteed. Combat was about squeezing off rounds a split second faster.
@@SusCalvin Awesome. Gunfights are a great example where first shot can be important -- but the guaranteed seems wrong to me. In real gunfights someone shooting too fast will likely shoot wild and miss, while the best gunfighter take a bit more time (but not too much) and actually aim. This might be what that "COOL" stat represents?? However, I think it would be cooler if you could take a penalty to your attack roll in exchange for a bonus on your initiative--you can guarantee the first shot but much more likely to miss.
Pool initiative roll before you start the game. And they spend it as combat happens. Most time is lost at the table because people rolling and counting. You wouldn't spend your higher initiative in weaker fights but save them fir the stronger fights
At first, I was leery about group/side initiative but started using it with my most recent OSE campaign. Once the players got the hang of it, I found they organized their planning much better as a team basing their actions off each others plans.
For sure, it can take a few sessions if players are used to individual.
That second half there is the biggest reason I want to try it, since it makes it so even if the time spent in combat is the same, it's still more engaging because you're all doing something rather than waiting for several turns to pass before you go, and the board shifts several times so at least personally, individual initiative can incentivize just waiting until the turn right before yours to even really look at the board, since yeah the wolves went over that direction, but idk if half them are even still going to be there by time it gets to my turn, so I might not even need that fireball I was thinking of casting.
Meanwhile a side-based initiative, I can just say "those wolves over there, I think I'm gonna cast fireball, that'll leave those two un-fireballed so if somebody else wants they can go after them, or could clean up the ones that did get hit but weren't finished off" and turn it into a back-and-forth, like maybe the fighter has something that'll cleave through half of them so I can decide to cast something else, maybe I cast sleep so the fighter can go through the remainder and the rogue and ranger can tie up the ones who are knocked out, which is a coordinated tactic that I think would be harder to pull off in individual initiative, both logistically and just working against the player mindset a "it's my turn so I do my thing" system can instill.
My favorite way to handle "held actions" is by having the side that lost initiative declare actions first, and then the side that won respond. You can then resolve all actions simultaneously, and not worry about it since they are already responding to the actual situation. A player on the losing side could still declare something like "I will guard the magic user", but since they don't have initiative it's a guessing game for them and the other side sees it coming. This is definitely RAW somewhere...I think? Or was something I picked up on one of the OSR channels.
I’ve played a few war games that do that
I run a BECMI/RC game and really like the side initiative and procedure-based combat. It allows the PCs to act as a team, but keeps the table organized. That said, I am pretty loose with the order in which each PC acts. I prefer them to make a plan, and then let them attempt to pull it off. 😊
These explanations of procedural gameplay are great. They help to make sense of old school D&D, and they’re great for solo play too. Keep them coming!
Thank You!
Group initiative is great! It incentivizes group play. Also I find that the side initiative roll is one of the most nail-bite-inducing rolls of all. It really makes the players stand on their toes and when they win or loose the roll they are in it together! The collective "YAAAYYY" when they score a crucial initiative roll is priceless!
Yes indeed. It encourages party coordination and cooperation. And the 'all or nothing' aspect of it ('Will the baddies get the drop on us?') ramps up the tension. I even use it in Call of Cthulhu, which isn't exactly a game that emphasizes combat tactics.
Great point, they are in it together
We've used group initiative in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D since 1982, when we learned it from the Moldvay Basic set. Experiments with individual initiative have never been as much fun, so we always reverted back to what we enjoyed most. The team dynamic is so much better and there is always palpable tension when the dice gets rolled to decide whether you get the jump on the monsters or not. Great breakdown of the pro's and (limited) con's of the Moldvay system and how to convert it to other editions.
Thanks!
I don't have any particular thoughts to contribute to the topic at hand here, but I want to compliment you on your consistently great choices of artwork for video thumbnails.
I loved (technically still do) Cary Nord's run on the Dark Horse Conan comic back in the mid 2000's. He remains my second favorite Conan comic artist after John Buscema. It's also great to see every time you use a Richard Corben thumbnail.
Keep up the great work all around!
Daniel's thumbnails are always 🔥
Thanks! I love all this art, I went away from read in comics for a long time and I’m now discovering some of these great artists.
The way I run it in my cobbled-together system is that each character gets two actions (movement is an action, by the way), and then everyone on one side can take any number of their actions in any order they see fit.
It helps the game flow faster because it means that the players who are ready can act immediately, and the players who need time to plan can think while the aforementioned players act.
Cool
My tried and true initiative process is the humble D10. At the beginning of the Round, every one declares an action then rolls a D10 and adjusts for Dex. I count up from one to ten segments. Spell casters begin casting on their number and add the casting time at which point the spell goes off. I allow holding action to a later segment. A one minute melee round is 10 segments of 6 seconds each. This has served me well over the years as the order is changed each round for most of the party with advantage going to high dex characters (as it should be). If a spell effect is no longer needed, it can be cancelled by the caster. (they loose the spell, but you don't have a sleep spell being cast at the end of a round when everyone is already dead)
Love it. This is exactly how I run AD&D combat, but with each round being represented as but not always exactly 10 segments. Sometimes actions get resolved in a few more or less segments.
Running BX these days though.
This is how I do it as well, with a couple of fine tunings. Those casting a spell roll a d4 for the segment they start casting. They add the casting time and that is the segment they end. If they suffer damage during that span, they lose the spell. Characters with multiple attacks roll a d10, but never get more than a 5. They attack on 1&6; 2&7; 3&8; 4&9; or 5&10. Yeah, it sounds complex, but in play it flows.
Side note, I also have them declare generally what they intend to do first so planning can happen.
This is basically the AD&D 2E system. What do you do with actions which happen after initiative 10? Just extend the round?
@@Mannahnin that has always been my assumption. That the round isn't always exactly 10 segments. I run it in that the round is over when all actions are resolved whether it is more or less than 10 segments.
@@alanmay6401 Yes, I saw your answer. I was curious whether Marcus does the same, as he seemed rather exact about the ten segments in a round. Cheers!
My favorite part of using side based initiative was during a Cypher System campaign where the players were doing a side quest as super powered wrestlers and used their abilities to throw two enemies into each other at the same time. They both made attack rolls and damage and it made the whole thing way more entertaining when they could’ve just done the same ability without the flavor, which is why I also have them bonus damage for doing a creative move like that
Hey Daniel, thanks for the video!
We have been using side-based initiative for a bit over a year now and it really does boost collaboration and is faster/easier...but, if I have a sort of a "boss fight" type of setup...and my PCs go first, they just obliterate the poor thing 😅
We then started using a type of hybrid system where enemies all go at the same time, players roll initiative and I set an initiative DC for that encounter. Players who succeed go before the monsters, and players who fail go after the monsters...there is a variant to reroll initiative each round...but I just do it when the tide of the encounter shifts dramatically (for example it is a roof battle and the roof explodes after 4 rounds and everyone falls into the mansion - reroll initiative)
This Sunday we are trying out a concept from Pathfinder 2e where we will use different skills as bonuses to the initiative roll depending on what each player was doing at the moment when the initiative was called for.
I really like the phased initiative system from Against the Darkmaster. The GM says what all the enemies are doing, then the players say what they're doing. Then, everything happens in phases based on what each player is doing.
Nice! That seems really easy and fast
I used the bx initiative system for solo dnd. It really hits on all the points you talked about.
Awesome
I played BattleTech (MechWarrior) long ago, and I loved its combat system. It was side initiative, iirc, and the losing side went first, with a move phase for both sides before the attack phase. This gave the winning side a tactical advantage in the attack due to the weapons all being ranged and movement affecting hit difficulty. That was a really fun game, and the mechanics were perfect for the application.
For sure
Great advice. I adopted side initiative with alternating players rolling it after seeing it in action on some of your actual-plays.
Nice!
I also use phased combat with group initiative rolled every round. This makes combat so much faster and more exciting. Also, by rolling every round you have the potential for some very interesting 'swingy' results, such as if the players lose initiative one round then win the next, in which case they get two actions back to back, which can be decisive. I also use the traditional one minute combat round, so I never have to worry about one player killing an enemy that another player had declared to attack. One minute is more than long enough to relocate to anywhere else because combat rarely takes place over a huge area. Furthermore D&D has an abstract system of combat, and melee attacks rolls were never intended to represent a single blow, but rather the net result of a minute of combat. D&D combat has been generally misunderstood from the get go, and this misunderstanding has been passed on and codified in modern editions.
1 minute rounds definitely make moving around in combat much easier to incorporate in those situations
About to run my first OSE session, this is very helpful on when to “bend” the procedure to negotiate complex PC action combos. Thanks!
Awesome! Let me know how it goes.
I love side-based, phased combat. It makes combat faster and more fun. Every “modern d20” player that I’ve introduced to this style of combat has really liked it.
Same with me
I love all Bandit's Keep videos! Later editions of D&D that went away from procedural and side-based initiative also went to Dex-based. I like OSE and procedural, but some newer players don't easily grasp the concepts. Dex based hoses magic users, who realistically should be quick-witted and respond to changing situations better, except Dex puts them in check. Later editions also came up with Counterspell as a solution to interrupting spells in sequential combat procedures, ala Magic: The Gathering, and the Concentration mechanic which requires Con. Procedural and group initiative came from the wargaming world, and makes sense from the standpoint that it's a game and not a combat simulator where speed is paramount. It's fair to everybody: fast characters, slow characters, monsters, and the players. Just my ramblings on the matter. Thanks for this.
Good points
Great video Daniel! Being a player in a game with individual initiative can be fun, as it prompts interesting decisions about actions, weapon speeds, spell casting times, etc. If I'm running the game, though, it's side-based initiative every time -- it's so much faster and easier to keep track of who's acting when, especially in games with bigger player groups or large numbers of combatants. Excellent points about being flexible with the sequence of actions within a round and the importance of players declaring actions before initiative, which triggers the potential for spell interruptions and other interesting things.
Thanks!
I enjoy all of Bandit’s Keep videos
Thank You!
I remember that we used to roll initiative individually including monsters at the start of every round!
I tried that, it didn’t work for my group, but if you could coordinate it, that could be very exciting.
Great advice, sold me on trying it out in my shadowdark campaign
Awesome, let me know how it works out - I’ve been wanting to try Shadowdark
@@BanditsKeep I love Shadowdark, as someone that didn't grow up playing b/x, Adnd etc this is the perfect game. It has some of the ease of use from 5e, and some from older editions, making it *drum roll* very easy to use haha.
I usually get my head taken off when I ask this question but I feel safe here. In larger groups, how do you keep track of what everybody declared before initiative? Do you just scribble stuff down in shorthand?
I usually go with an honor system, to be honest
Thats one way for sure, you could also have a player write it down or have them get the actions for the group while you do the DM thing. Delegating these kinds of minor DM tasks to players will both free you up for more important DM tasks (like going to the bathroom lol) and make players feel more involved.
I don't usually track all the actions. What i want a group to come up with is a clear statement of intent (What would they want to achieve in this round) and a way how they approach this. I think one of the biggest benefits is that it keeps the engagement high because the party has short tactical discussion at the beginning of every round. It also helps with theater of the mind as I as the gm can describe them the situation at the top of the round again. In 5e I noticed otherwise players tend to do their turn and then often zone out until it's their turn again or they get attacked.
Yes, for a larger group I just make a quick note, but I could see using tokens or the like as well if you are using minis. My group is 6 players and I can usually keep that in my head though.
I like this - party intent vs individual actions.
Although I don't use initiative, I've been using a phased combat sequence for a while now. Not sure how I decided to do it this way but I have missile fire before movement, and spells go off at the end of different phases, usually movement, though some are faster and others slower.
The way is shakes out in my system without initiative, is both sides interweave their actions on the three phases (missile, move, melee), and if any discrepancy arises about who does a particular thing first (if that's important) it's resolved based on weapon speed/length for melee, weapon speed or dex score for missiles, or speed (mostly determined by race and armor worn) score for movement. Spells can be interrupted by being hit by a missile, but also by having someone engage you in melee (no hit required), so you really need the fighter to cover the magic-user unless they're casting certain fast spells, or else an orc can just run up to them and cause their spell to fizzle.
D&D 2e had a sort of spell and weapon speed you could use.
Group initiative makes that roll really meaningful. I see my players frustration when they lose the initiative and the enemies go first. Or have two actions in a row. I'm having trouble with the phases and slow combat in VTT. Have everyone roll at once may be just what I needed. I'll try that tomorrow. Btw great strategy to protect the MU. I'm stealing that to my villains😊
Ha ha, thanks, don’t tell your players you got it from me 😊
Never thought to use BECMI procedural combat in modern iterations like 5e or pathfinder. Good idea. I think I’ll try it next time I play PF.
Cool, let me know how it works out for you
While designing Dragon Castle, I struggled to come up with a clean initiative system. But I found it in the end., and surprise, surprise, it is side initiative.
At the start of each round, PCs choose one PC to roll Initiative (d20 Dexterity test). DM chooses one monster to roll too.
If monsters win, DM has them go in any order.
If PCs win, the PC who rolled goes first. Then THEY get to choose whoch PC goes next. Once the next PC finishes, they choose the PC to go after them and so on.
This means two things.
One, it is easy and fast. As a DM, I don't have to get involved into managing players.
Two, it is tactical. Need the wizard to go first? Suddenly Dex matters. Rogue is poisoned? Suddenly thats disadvatage on Initiative roll. Works like charm.
Sound awesome ill give it a try 😊 how do you handle surprise?
@@mariooooo.o3404 To be honest, surprise is one of my least favorite mechanics in 5e dnd. So I just grant advantage and hidden status (advantage on first attack) to side that performs an ambush.
This is mainly because I dislike all the talk about how hidden everyone is before the battle kicks in, as well as all the Stealth checks, Perception checks, and Passive perception shenenigans.
Nice, sounds awesome
I think Hyperborea 2e has my favorite combat procedure. The way the phases are broken up makes tons of sense, and even now that my group is playing 3e, I still end up breaking it into the phases from 2e.
I agree - I really like the 2e initiative
I always use group initiative, I've never used anything else. I was originally going to use procedural combat, but because we play in a fairly casual style and only get to play a few times a year so that many have not really learned all the rules (the campaign began in 2020 and the PCs are just getting to level 3), we fell into a pattern of just going clockwise around the table (much like in a lot of board games).
That is a simple and effective system for sure
See?? Im sitting here nodding my head in agreement to everything Daniel said.. Our Kickstarter is absolutely gonna credit Daniel in some way!
Hopefully in steering viewers to his channel!
Bravo Daniel! 👏👏🫡
I appreciate it!
Great stuff! Thank you!
Thank You!
When you go side initiative, you don't go back. It's so useful, and it scales well.
For sure
I ran OSE for 6 friends, 84% had zero to no dnd or rpg experience. They picked up the procedure pretty fast I have to say given they had a clear canvas towards the rules. Also for the initiative bonus I went for whoever triggers the encounter or is in front (the most immediate threat to the monsters) rolls that initiative and adds the bonus. Then I went with last player to engage in the encounter. When they picked up on this, they immediately started to combine they moves like "Anna let me go last because I have a higher bonus and we really want Bob to cast the spell before the five spiders get in melee range". It was wild 😅
I like that!
Excellent!
Thank You!
Playing Swords and Wizardry we had 3 full combat on top over everything else we did last session. 5e games would last 3 times as long to just get the combat done
We found that Dragonbane initiative cards made combat flow faster. You deal 1-10 in cards, opponents draw as groups. People in Dragonbane do not have a growing sack of HD and will go down fast. The cards make initiative easily visible. I know the duck got lucky and can flame someone, then my scholar can run up and bash the survivors. Or I can hold my scholar's action to let the armored wolf run up first.
Combat is fast and furious in S&W for sure!
I also run side initiative. Best thing I did when I started DMing. Makes combat so much better. This is the rules I use:
Group Initiative. All players roll for Initiative (+Modifiers) and add up the total party Initiative. DM will Roll Initiative for Monsters using the same number of player dice. (Example: 3 players each roll 1 D20, DM rolls 3 D20s.) Highest group Initiative goes first.
During combat on the players side turn, the players can decide in what order they act in. If players cannot agree, whoever has the highest Initiative roll will go first. On the DMs turn, all Monsters will take their actions at the same time. This style of Initiative is designed to encourage teamwork, as well as speed up the combat process. Be Warned! The Monsters want to win, and will be working as a team to accomplish this. Work as a team, and overcome the enemy!
I like the wargamey aspect of procedural initiative.
I'm going to try:
Declare magic and full route and intentions
Roll side initiative
First half of movement for losing side, then first half of movement for winning side.
Then ranged attacks(all sides simultaneously)
Then second half of movement, losers, then winners.
Then magic.
Then melee(all sides, any braced to receive charges going first, then everyone else simultaneously).
Finally end of round morale checks, if any.
Nice! The half move idea is cool, I’d be curious how that plays out
Another Cary Nord Conan, nice! Always the best thumbnails.
Their work is so great
Regarding stolen kills: I think your general philosophy of being flexible is sound. That said, lets say there's a situation where two players decide to attack the same monster to make sure it dies that round, to reduce the number of attacks back at the party since everything attacks at full strength until dead in most games. They say this aloud. In that case, I might not allow the second player to switch targets just because the first rolled really well and killed the target. They got their desired outcome.
Makes sense
Unrealistic representation of magic users. They most likely WILL cast that fireball regardless of how many allies are on the bridge
Magic is a collective party resource much like other resources you got.
😂 let’s hope not!
I've always been a big fan of rerolling initiative every round, but I haven't tried it in 5e. I might have to give it a try. My only concern is D&D fights can sometimes be longer and more swingy than some of the other systems that reroll initiative each round.
It definitely adds a bit more chaos to the combat in 5e!
Love your stuff. Thanks Daniel
ps-do you say melee like that on purpose? After hearing you pronounce it I thought I had been saying it wrong for decades. Every reference I could find though pronounces it the way I know it.
Thanks! That’s how I’ve always said it.
I listened thrice, didn't directly get an answer to the problem posed when the ogre gets to go first ... Are the PCs just going to do as they planned, play out the actions as if it's a normal turn based initiative roll--until that round is up and they get to try to plan again?
There are some other mechanics tied to feats/spells that also might take a hit... Im thinking of the Warlock who wants to get a final blow to recouperate hp, or the spell cast that ends at the end of players next turn (i suppose holding action resolves that one).
My question is, if everyone has gone at once, how do you adjudicate the kill shot? And, say, if all the melee are going in the 1,3,5 as you described, is the dmg all added up and then administered (theater of the mind style)? I want to play fair with my PCs and not waffle between how the round goes. Honest question, bc i like the ideas presented here, especially getting away fron round robin and having PCs check out.
Great questions; let me try to answer them as best I can. #1 If the ogre wins, they will charge forward and attack - who would depend on where each PC stands or if the ogre saw one as a bigger threat. They might end up attacking the PC who wanted to melee anyway, but now it would be off the bridge. If anyone can't do something they stated they would do, I typically have them go at the end of the round to represent them having to change mid-thought or not at all, depending on the action. Regarding the Warlock wanting to go last, I'd allow it - spells ending at the end of the PC's turn would end once they acted. As far as allocating damage, I've done it a couple of different ways: Everyone rolls, I take the total and apply it, and if the enemy goes down, the players can all describe how the great combo defeated it. Or have them go in the order they want - I typically do it around the table for simplicity, but my players know they can choose whatever order they like.
In my opinion side initiative is the fastest and most easiest way to go through combat. The players and referee just roll a d6 and the magic happens. Sometimes in favour for the players, sometimes for the enemies.
For sure
Are there any lives plays that feature this style of gameplay?
I’d say most of my BX ones do - they are a bit older so you’ll need to scroll back.
I sort of feel like there should be a difference between one-on-one combat and group combat. Someone could be an excellent duelist, but an experienced soldier would do better fighting in formation.
Perhaps! In Chainmail there is a difference, but it’s based on weapon not on character skill
I have tried side initiative once before, and while I enjoyed it, the players didn't care for it. It wasn't the case of one of them having the Alert feat (+5 bonus to initiative). They seemed to suffer from decision paralysis and I suspect the shy players didn't ever want to ask to go ahead of others, and so they were stuck always going last. The idea of rolling each new round is interesting.
I do think the older edition idea of having specific phases where only certain types of actions (ranged weapon, melee weapon, spells) are allowed is pretty neat. If spellcasting always happens last, then it gives the wizards of the world a vulnerability they currently don't have in modern editions and it promotes teamwork such as your example of a fighter shielding the wizard from harm to help them finish casting their spell.
If you went back to phases, you could have the Alert feat bump a character up a category, so you finish casting in the melee phase instead of the normal spells phase. It would be really valuable again, but for a different reason.
That’s a cool use of the feat!
The Shadowdark initiative system is really clean. Players and GM roll 1d20 DEX for initiative. Whoever has the highest goes first clockwise around the table. Sit where you think its best. This is also your marching order during exploration. Easy to track. Badically, side based if the person to the left of the GM wins initiative, or the GM wins initiative.
Cool!
I stopped segmenting my rpg into role-playing or combat. I removed initiative and the action economy. additionally, I switched from having a to-hit roll, to the AC as damage reduction.
my combat is more open to player decisions and still allows role-playing. this makes the combat very cinematic and fast. a combat between 4 characters and 6 goblins, takes 10 minutes to play out.
Sounds interesting, a bit like dungeon world as far as procedure through DW has more standard hit rolls
And side init is just quicker coz only one person rolls instead of whole party and having to order the individual init's
Truth! I think individual works well for small parties, but side for 3+ combatants per side.
So there is a game called killteam that uses alternating activations, and I've wanted to try using it for initiative. So in killteam you roll for sides and then alternate players to activate a model each phase. First everyone moves, then you shoot, then charges and then melee. So in 5e I think it'd go like rolling sides, the players and the DM take turns moving into position and then alternating on making attacks and casting spells
Yes, I prefer systems like this with interleaving actions instead of everyone on one side going at once. Breaking it down to move and action phases really speeds up the round, too.
I noticed GW embraced more alternating activations.
Also been playing UVG lately. It has a similar d20 core like 5e. Initiative here is very interesting. There is side initiative. Every turn a random player rolls it and they get to add their Dexterity Bonus. The Initiative roll is d20.
On a nat 1 the side only get one action each (instead of default 2). On a nat 7 the side has advantage on their first rolls on their turn. On a nat 13 they have Disadvantage on their first roll. On a nat 20 they get an extra action on their turn (for a total of three) Also d20 explode and if you roll a second nat 20 you get an additional action and so on. (I rolled four 20's in a row, no kidding, for the Polychromatic Avenger)
Usually, though when playing D&D I go for the good old d6 when rolling side initiative.
That’s really interesting- I have UVG - yet to play it though. I’ll have to look at the system, I bought it for the adventure
IMO a good GM should embrace the fact the open ended, flexible nature of RPGs. Don't be shackled to what some guy wrote down on the page some years ago. Adjudicate each situation in a way that makes sense for the situation and the table. Rules are guidelines that can and should be molded as needed. Embrace the role of referee.
Indeed
We’ve been doing side initiatives using B/X rules (d6) for my 5e group for the last few sessions, and I’ve found that my players don’t even mind not getting bonuses for initiative rolls! I haven’t even considered keeping the d20+dex and just go around the table. Do you use the highest dex mod for the enemy side?
I give no bonus to the roll. Rolling happens when both sides are right there in each others faces and things are down to chance. In ambushes or when sniping you simply get a free round. It makes planning an ambush pretty powerful.
I do the same as the PCs for the enemies - rotate each round.
I've been using Phases with no initiative in my heavily homebrewed ICRPG game. We've been enjoying Phased Combat, although it can be a little confusing to keep track of (skill issue for me 😆).
Nice! In my OD&D game I more or less do then same - initiative only determines movement order - all other phases are simultaneous.
I agree with you that a Judge should avoid rigidity, but I actually prefer prioritization of a kind that I think you’re calling “phase based” (shooters, then pole arms, then close mêlée, etc). I just hate Initiative Rolls! I play in a large DCC group, and I think we spend way too much time adjudicating Initiative. And d20s are so capricious! Side-based Initiative was less hassle, when we were using it, but then, going second can sometimes mean a TPK.
Declaration Phases have not worked for me, especially if they precede Initiative Rolls. My fellows are somewhat indecisive, even when they know they possess the Initiative, so tripping them up with die rolls that may deprive them of the Initiative can be quite disruptive.
Besides, like kids playing with dinosaurs and army men, most players exhibit a natural inclination to move and act in a single action, so I prefer to adjudicate moving and acting at once rather than keep those phases rigidly separate.
Sounds like you’ve got a good system that works for your group.
No, I’m just a Player. We’re using individual Initiative in a party of 8, sometimes 9-not ideal. The Initiative I might propose is something Bob Worldbuilder recently covered (though I don’t think he invented it): Monsters always go on Phase 11; Players roll to see whether they go before that or after that. I think we’ll be doing a lot of what you describe here with collaborative planning, if we abandon individual turn order, except for distinguishing the first wave of Players attacking from the last wave.
For DCC, my present solution for group initiative is to add all fighter levels to the d20 initiative roll, for each side. So far it works all right, and at low levels it isn't super game breaking. I don't count every orc as a fighter, maybe every so many hit dice in such cases, or give individual monster bonuses in special cases.
Nice
How do you handle surprise? The BX 2 in 6 chance also doesnt account for DEX.
If it seems reasonable that one side can surprise the other I use the 2 in 6. If I were going to modify it, I’d likely use wisdom vs dex though as that is often used to represent a “6th sense”
We tested the Dragonbane individual initiative system using cards. League loves cards and markers and stuff to fill out a box. The cards have no duplicates, there can only be one initiative 4.
The cards make initiative... Visible. We could see what we got without calling out that initiative countdown. We did not sit idle, we could plan as a group. The duck is going to flame these fools, then the scholar can either trip a dude to stop their dodge or beat them as they come up. Enemies draw a card too, in groups.
What strikes me as interesting is that group initiative is usually used in wargames, and I've heard multiple complaints about this system, with people designing games that use alternate activations instead. I think the two most often heard objections were that this gives a huge advantage to the side winning the roll, and that you have to sit and wait for everyone to move before you can respond, which can be boring.
Have you considered doing alternate activations in your game, with the players deciding who responds to the last action of the enemy? Might turn out to be a giant mess.
Currently, I use fixed initiative, which is just the Dexterity stat. Highest goes first. This gives the players a static order and the monsters can slot in-between them (though usually only the boss does that, with minions all acting at the end of the round). I also have the surprise round rules, so players are incentivized to set up ambushes and scout ahead.
Alternate activations could be really fun, I feel like i played in a game doing somehtign like that at a con a few years ago - it might have been Dungeon World (though that is not a rule in DW, just the way the MC ran that game.
I stopped doing side initiative for my monsters when all of them would go at once and devastate the party. It makes combat way too swingy when the monsters outnumber the party and all attack at once. It gives the party no chance to adapt. I always break them up into groups now. For this reason alone, I will avoid side initiatives.
I think Wrath and Glory simplifies it the right way. Players get to pick one person on their side to go first, then the play alternates to the enemy side. You can spend a fate point to 'seize the initiative' and have a second player go on the same side. Adds a lot of fun when you really want to combo. It has it drawbacks, quiet players usually take a back seat.
While that is certainly not out of the realm of possibility- PCs also take advantage. The choosing who goes next is something I’ve seen in Skirmish war games - works pretty well in those for sure.
I think it makes that single roll too important for my taste, especially in older editions where multiple combatants on one side are likely to be killed or disabled before they get a turn to act. I still like to have everyone coordinating together and taking actions like movement simultaneously, but with different initiative numbers representing e.g. when in the course of the combat that round they find an opening to get a hit in.
How would that work? They move / attack in phases but in the order of their individual initiative? That could be interesting
@@BanditsKeep I typically let characters/monsters start movement at the beginning of the round regardless of initiative, but initiative decides when each gets to roll an attack or cast a spell. I like the battle feeling continuous and the movement feeling realistic, even if we play it out in rounds. But I don't think that's the style for everyone - it also depends on not minding a bit of math and figuring out mid-round positions.
There's a section in the AD&D DMG about how a combat round is assumed to encompass maneuvering, a number of feints and parried or dodged attacks, and maybe a chance or two do get a real hit in - so I'm kind of playing off of that.
Initiative (in any of its typical forms) is a completely meaningless mechanic, unrelated to actual combat. _Who goes first_ is a decision, not a race. That is, both opponents are hesitating, sizing each other up, circling, then one of them decides to make a move, and just happens to be the one who decided to move _first._ This has nothing to do with skill, speed, quickness or even reaction time. Unless there is a race condition (who reaches the magic McGuffin first?). In fact the faster, more skilled combatant will often _let_ the lesser skilled opponent move first, since that will likely create an opening for a counter-move.
I do like taking "turns" as a team, but turns should be simultaneous: both sides decide what they are doing, resolve simultaneously. The _initiative_ based on speed and reaction time should be used only for a situation where it _matters_ who moves first _and_ both (or all) combatants actually _want_ to move first (again, a race condition, or a specific _need_ to attack first). In this case you roll "initiative" against your opponent's "initiative" to see who moves first and how much of a lead you have.
Just using initiative to decide who goes first (turn order) is boring & meaningless. (yes, yes, I know there is a slight advantage to going first in the first round since you may get the first hit(s) in whittling down enemy sack of hit points just a bit sooner... but... like I said... _boring)._
But if you do simultaneous resolution, then it might _matter_ if you attack before your opponent fires their bow or gets of a spell -- the disruption could cause a misfire. Tactically interesting. Not boring.
And yes, I'm aware that D&D's (all versions') _sack-of-hit-points_ lobbing-subtractions-at-each-other combat mechanics do not fully support what I'm describing. Just means even more homebrew desperately required...
Cyberpunk 2013/2020 had a mechanic for that, when you stare each other down. It's one of the primary uses for COOL.
Classic Traveller, Into the Odd and a few non-OSR games like Apocalypse World uses simultaneous. Both sides in pitched combat will dish out and take damage. Special situations like ambush and sniping are exceptions you need to work for.
Besides that starting measure of COOL and reputation, Initiative was the king of combat in 2020. When fools with uzis shoot across a room the game made hits practically guaranteed. Combat was about squeezing off rounds a split second faster.
@@SusCalvin Awesome. Gunfights are a great example where first shot can be important -- but the guaranteed seems wrong to me. In real gunfights someone shooting too fast will likely shoot wild and miss, while the best gunfighter take a bit more time (but not too much) and actually aim. This might be what that "COOL" stat represents?? However, I think it would be cooler if you could take a penalty to your attack roll in exchange for a bonus on your initiative--you can guarantee the first shot but much more likely to miss.
I disagree - reaction roll is which gunfighter reaches for their pistol first, initiative is who wins.
Nah
You prefer individual initiative, or something else?
Pool initiative roll before you start the game. And they spend it as combat happens. Most time is lost at the table because people rolling and counting. You wouldn't spend your higher initiative in weaker fights but save them fir the stronger fights