What would a "side initiative" do to 3.x?

[Ozreth]

Imagine if the baddies rolled one initiative and the heroes another, which ever side wins just acts (everybody basically just shouts out what they do and it unfolds).

How much would this take away from spell casters and other classes abilities?

[DonEsteban]

Not much. It's a generally accepted practice in play by post games, because it speeds up combat. It's disadvantageous for rogues and generally every character who has invested in improving their initiative, because they tend to get less flat-footed opponents than usual. To partially fix this, let PCs roll initiative normally and only use group initiative for NPCs. You get
- PCs with high Initiative
- NPCs
- all PCs
- NPCs
- ...
This is now unfair to NPC rogues, but you can fix this by giving them the occasional extra surprise round...

[The Big Dice]

Rather than a side initiative, one thing I've seen used a lot is a group initiative. That is, one person rolls the dice and everyone applies their initiative modifiers to it individually. Next time initiative is rolled, the dice rolling moves to the left.

It does mean the players will generally go in the same order every time, which can be a help for big groups.

[ArcoSan]

As a DM I generally roll -1- Initiative per monster group with exceptions for high powers enemies and each PC has his own...

so for example we have PCs as Tordek, Linda, Marek, Gustav and their enemies 5 Orcs, 6 Goblins and the Orc Shaman.

So I would do 3 initiatives for the monsters and each PC gets his own.

Grouping initiative cripples rogues (if they end up with a low group init) or makes them far too powerful if there are many in a party (and they get a high init).

It is also weird to "call" on how feats like Improve Initiative, Thug, Blooded etc work in a group basis. You could say that you will use average initiative of the party but the PC who spent 1-2-3 feats on this is losing out while everyone else is getting a bonus.

[Eldan]

I've done it, but that's because I play a lot more PbP than anything else, where normal initiative is just inconvenient. First thing is that you'd have to clarify which modifier you use for the group. Average? Highest? Lowest?

I'd think that doing the "Fast - All NPCs -All PCs - All NPCs" and so on is probably best.

[Runestar]

Seems like it would be easier for either side to coordinate their actions and act in tandem. Which may or may not be a good thing. :smalltongue:

[Archwizard]

As a DM I generally roll -1- Initiative per monster group with exceptions for high powers enemies and each PC has his own...

so for example we have PCs as Tordek, Linda, Marek, Gustav and their enemies 5 Orcs, 6 Goblins and the Orc Shaman.

So I would do 3 initiatives for the monsters and each PC gets his own.

This is what I do in live games as well.

[Zaq]

As a player, I generally resent it when there's just "Team Hero" and "Team Monster," primarily because that way it feels like the monsters have a much better chance to respond to player actions (and spike a PC into a bad situation) than they would if they rolled initiative normally. It's a result of the whole one-DM-many-players thing, but monsters tend to be much better at ganging up than even the most coordinated PCs.

That said, I'm probably just picky.

[dextercorvia]

As a player, I generally resent it when there's just "Team Hero" and "Team Monster," primarily because that way it feels like the monsters have a much better chance to respond to player actions (and spike a PC into a bad situation) than they would if they rolled initiative normally. It's a result of the whole one-DM-many-players thing, but monsters tend to be much better at ganging up than even the most coordinated PCs.

That said, I'm probably just picky.

I would agree with this. Aside from penalizing people who would have good initiative, it sucks when the entire encounter can encircle somebody without any actions to interrupt.

[Archwizard]

I would agree with this. Aside from penalizing people who would have good initiative, it sucks when the entire encounter can encircle somebody without any actions to interrupt.

In theory I agree as well. But man, the logistics of running 6 kobolds and 4 goblins is a real pain in the butt. Nevermind tracking damage to each monster, but to track 10 initiatives? Not something I ever plan on doing. That's why I think the "init for kobolds, init for goblins" is a decent compromise. More granularity than just "team monster", but less rolling/tracking for the DM than individual init.

[dextercorvia]

The DM just has to be very aware, and spread out the offense in some sort of believable fashion.

[Godskook]

Grouping initiative without regards to modifiers means that classes with good initiative modifiers are getting nerfed, while classes with bad mods or those who don't care are getting buffed. Wizards, if Celerity is allowed, still go first(TM).

This would most hurt dex and/or precision based characters, such as rogues, factotums and swordsages(the last of which should pretty much *ALWAYS* go first in fights).

[Malimar]

I've been running with group initiative for the past several weeks. I run it "Every PC and every NPC rolls initiative. Each group goes on the highest initiative anybody in that group rolled."

So far, I have never once seen the NPCs go first. Which entirely negates the "PCs are in trouble if the NPCs go first" problem, but it leaves the NPCs in a little trouble, so it should probably be rethought.

I may start saying that out of any given group of NPCs, one of them has traded one of their feats for Improved Initiative. (Or maybe one NPC has the Unreactive flaw and gave his bonus feat to another one, who took Improved Initiative. Actually, I like this idea, and may try implementing it next game.)

Group initiative has a number of fringe benefits, some of which are detailed here (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/72/initiative-the-silent-killer/) and here (http://luduscarcerum.blogspot.com/2011/05/rethinking-initiative.html).