Quote from: S'mon;1038185Seems to me it would be simpler & better to just roll a d6 and 4-6 players go first.

Except that doesn't feel like D&D to me, so I can't agree with "better."

I have come to like players only roll, dex check (ie dex or less). If success, they go before monsters. If fail, they go after. Players sort out their own order. DM doesnt have to roll anything, and players know their own dex, so they can just yell out if they go before or after, or just yell out what they do (if before). Short and sweet.

Does make Dex more desirable. If that's an issue, possibly give each PC an initiative target (eg: avg of Int and Dex) instead. Or maybe the TN is set at 10, similar to 4e saves.

In one group that I GM for, where there are a whole lot of players, I place everyone to sit clockwise in descending Dexterity order. Initiative goes clockwise, and monsters go whenever their Dex allows. Ties are rolled off.

Also, I talk a bit about initiative in one of my blog posts.

We've been having each side roll a d6, highest goes first and re-roll ties (which I think has the added bonus of making Dexterity less important).

But to make things even faster I've sometimes just let the players go first unless they're surprised. That way I don't break up the flow or tension or whatever by pausing everything and having everyone sort out who goes when.

Group Initiative, Group Mod. Best for large battles. Don't break ties, let collisions happen. Reactions and Ready Action up in value, line of sight rules can be affected by concurrnt movement. As usual, use Declaration Before Initiative, (GM decides NPCs before Declarations).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1038278This is a far more relevant concern for TSR D&D than it is for WotC D&D.  The latter, being designed for cyclic initiative, has a different flow when you change to side initiative, than what the TSR versions do normally.  

I've seen this initiative problem happen repeatedly in both TSR and WoTC editions, so I don't really understand what this means. Can you explain further how WoTC initiative solves this issue?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038212Oh that is a fun rule!:cool: Though, I might rule that a natural 1 means you freeze with panic or indecision.

Yeah, and do the monsters also get to go twice if they roll a 20?

Quote from: Moracai;1038307In one group that I GM for, where there are a whole lot of players, I place everyone to sit clockwise in descending Dexterity order. Initiative goes clockwise, and monsters go whenever their Dex allows. Ties are rolled off.

Also, I talk a bit about initiative in one of my blog posts.

That was a very interesting post about initiative on your blog.

I'm particularly interested in this bit:
One forum post that got me thinking was about one guy's houseruled D&D(5e) initiative. They declare everything in ascending Intelligence order and resolve everything simultaneously. If any two actions are in direct relation to each other, then and only then initiative would be rolled. In one example he wrote about was some wolves attacking the party. One guy was the bait, while others took defensive positions where they would be able to shoot at the wolves when they'd run after the bait guy. No other initiative rolls required for the round except for the bait guy vs. the wolves.

I wouldnt necessarily want to declare by Int, but this is a novel idea to me.

I guess I've always kinda assumed a you go, I go approach. But why cant everything just be resolved simultaneously. Player 1 declares attacking his orc in melee. The orc is also attacking. Cant these just both roll, maybe they hit each other and the orc dies. That's fine. I suppose where you get problems is Player 2 wants to shoot the orc with his bow while this is going on. Is that still simultaneous, or maybe ranged attacks always go first. What about magic? Hmm ok ok I think there is a dnd version that does something like this, an early one, I'm sure someone will remember. Off the top of my head I would probably do something like ranged, then melee, then magic, then move.

Quote from: Zalman;1038422I've seen this initiative problem happen repeatedly in both TSR and WoTC editions, so I don't really understand what this means. Can you explain further how WoTC initiative solves this issue?

WotC initiative does not solve the issue.  If you use the "side initiative" option in the 5E DMG, you'll have much the same issue you discussed.  

What does mostly solve the issue is the asymmetrical nature of players rolling and monsters going in the middle.  There is a big difference in flow and play at the table between "Side A, Side B; then round 2, Side B, Side A" versus "Some players, monsters, Rest of Players; then round 2, Some different players, monsters, Rest of players".  It may not seem like much, but in actual play it matters.  And then if the monster group is too large or too varied to work well with that, you split into two monster groups, which leads to three player groups.  

Where the TSR/WotC distinction comes in is that it is easier to adapt WotC initiative to such a system, mainly because the players already roll individually.  Heck, in this house rule, the players barely change what they are doing at all, as far as initiative rolls.  Just say whether they beat the target or not instead of being organized in a line based on the order of their initiative rolls.  Mainly, the change in the players is one of habit and mindset--getting the players in a group together to habitually act without waiting on others, which has to be taught if they are WotC players.  

A very similar rule would probably work in TSR D&D, but I haven't done it, much less extensively play tested it.  So I don't know what exactly would be the best way to go about it.  I suspect it would require some tweaks, because it is coming at the problem from the other direction.  That is, if starting from TSR side initiative, you are mainly trying to address the objection you raised.  If starting from WotC cyclic initiative, you are mainly trying to address the speed and tedium of cyclic initiative, without going all the way to the problem of side initiative, while keeping the standard rolls much the same.  

BTW, I came at this house rule originally from something I developed as an alternate initiative system in large groups of Fantasy Hero players.  What I found then was that you can a really good result at the table if:  

A.) You have a few initiative groups--more than 2, not so many that characters or monsters often end up being in a group by themselves.  Specifically, I want it to be a frequent occurrence that 3-4 players are acting at once, because that's what I can handle at the table easily.  For me, that works out to be almost always somewhere between 3 and 5 "initiative groups".

B.) If there is modest uncertainty from round to round as to which group a player will be in.  

How you go about achieving those two objectives, and exactly where you set the number of groups, will depend upon the system being modified and your comfort level at handling multiple players at once.

Quote from: Skarg;1038448Yeah, and do the monsters also get to go twice if they roll a 20?

No, because the system is deliberately asymmetrical, and the monsters all going at once is also an advantage in some situations.  Though it is a system designed for speed of resolution, not the intricate dance of tactics.

Well, you could just switch to a single initiative roll for each group, in the style of BECMI D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038670Well, you could just switch to a single initiative roll for each group, in the style of BECMI D&D.

Yes. One issue with that is that some PCs have init-boosting class abilities & feats the players might resent being denied.

By preference I co-opt Blue Planet's initiative system (slowest first, fastest can interrupt, but that's not quick).

When I need speed we tend to roll and keep initiative and all the baddies that have the same initiative act at the same time.

When I'm REALLY in a hurry I just let the players go first in whatever order they like, then take the turn of the enemies.

Usually we'll tend to keep the same initiative round to round - to speed things up - but let people take actions to 'take stock' and raise their initiative.

Quote from: S'mon;1038678Yes. One issue with that is that some PCs have init-boosting class abilities & feats the players might resent being denied.

Hmm, yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you could use a single roll for the group, but then each player who has some kind of initiative-modifying ability gets to modify that result just for them.

D&D inititive has always been a PITA.  Individual initiative changing every round with 9 players at the table is chaos.

I do enjoy the Fate of the Norns: Ragnarock initiative system. Each combatant gets a tile, shuffle tand deal at the begining of combat, that gives the base initiative order for the whole combat. Certain abilities allow combatants to move themselves up or down the initiative chain, and the option exists of spending an action to move up or down one space.  Quick and easy to see who goes when, and still allows for a dynamic flow.

With D&D initiative type games I end up rolling once for the monsters and then calling out initiative scores in a countdown for the players to jump in when their number is called.

Easiest thing with a large group is to ignore initiative and just go clockwise around teh table.