Proposed Initiative System for our new campaign.

[DegenPaladin]

Under the proposed system Initiative would be rerolled every round.

Step 1: Roll Initiative
Step 2: In reverse Initiative order describe your up coming turn.
Step 3: Begin taking the stated actions in Initiative order.
Step 4: After every players turn the remaining players have the chance to alter what they will do on their turn by making an Initiative check DC 10. For every time they do this in a given round the DC increases by 2.

Readied and immediate actions work as normal.

Delaying allows you to jump in at any time in the initiative order as normal with a DC 10 Initiative check. If you miss this check you lose your turn however you receive a +5 to the next turns initiative roll.

Players always have the option to abort their turn by doing nothing (including free actions). If the player takes this option they do not receive the bonus to their initiative in the next round.

We are aware that this has the potential to slow combat down a bit, however we feel that it does a credible job keep all players involved in the whole combat. In the limited play testing we've had with it so far it greatly reduced interruptions and kept all the players much more focused.

Any thoughts?

[DegenPaladin]

Bump for any comments or thoughts.

[Suddo]

Once everyone goes once is it the same order as normal? This makes Improved Initiative and Nettlerskitter (spelling?) pretty sweet.

I'd love to see how this goes and how much, if any it changes combat.

Oh and what is your party consisting of.

[DegenPaladin]

Arcane Mechanic, Cloistered Cleric, Crusader, and 2 skill ranged types.

I imagine we'll make Nerveskitter have a duration of 3 to 5 rounds.

At the beginning of every round we start back at step 1. As I said one of the primary differences we've noticed is that it keeps all players involved in the whole turn. It also keeps everyone working as a team IMO.

[nyjastul69]

One thing I see as a potential problem is in regards to effects that last for a single round. Rounds are counted from init point to init point. If a character goes last in one round and first in the next, there might not be an effect at all. The char is acting immediately after having just acted. An AC buff for one round would have no effect in this situation. I think effects such as these are corner cases, but it's something to consider.

[Heatwizard]

Seems a little...needlessly complicated. I don't really see what it does to keep everyone involved during all of combat, either.

Beyond that, have you considered making the DC to redeclare your turn only increase when you succeed?

e: I would guess that an effect with a per-round duration, or one with a minute duration that runs out mid-fight, would just wear out on the initiative point it was cast on; if the wizard is at initiative 4, and he sets someone on fire for one round, the next round the guy stops being on fire at initiative four, even if the wizard moved up to initiative 9.

[Anxe]

Sounds pretty cool to me.

However, reduced interruptions? How? You've literally included rules for interruptions!

[DegenPaladin]

When I say "interruptions" I mean the phenomenon of not paying attention to combat until your turn and as soon as your turn is over immediately going back to not paying attention or trying to talk about what was on Big Bang Theory this week or what have you.

IMO it keeps people engaged because your "locked into" and action even as the combat round develops. If your not paying attention to the turns as they happen and attempting to react accordingly your turn could come and the action you've "locked" yourself into could be anywhere from ineffective to downright detrimental to the party. For example assuming a character is using an aoe and going last in the turn. As the turn developed if they took no initiative to change there action the enemies they were targeting could be spread out, dead, or in a worse case scenario party members could be there. Another example is attempting to charge and a player getting in the way, assuming you don't change your action you now have no clear charge path.

[Madeiner]

Assuming you fail your DC to change action (DC 10 is pretty steep for a PC)

How does counterspelling work? Readying action? What if you want to attack someone but he is dead? What if he changed position and you need to change target? What if you the action you are planning to take has just become illegal for whatever reason?
What if you want to cast a fireball, but your enemy moved away? Maybe your friends have just surrounded him?
What if you are hit, and want to retreat, can you do it? If not, are you aware that you are forced to either suicide, or stand where you are and probably die?
What if you want to heal a friend, only he has just healed himself, will you waste your heal/turn on that?

I thought of something similar to this long ago, and i concluded it wasnt really feasible with tactical D&D combat.

[Coidzor]

Seems like way too much work for too little return to be honest. And it brings up immersion breaking questions when it comes to AoE effects that would miss as a result.

[DrMike105]

@ Madeiner:
Readied actions work as normal; just jump in when the trigger goes off (applies to counterspells as well, as they are readied actions).
Anytime you want to change your stated action, you can make an initiative check at DC 10, +2 per previous change that turn. If you fail the check, your reactions weren't swift enough, and you can't perform a new action. However, the time you spent that turn reassessing on a failed check gives you a +5 bonus (untyped) to the next turn's initiative.

I was in the group that tried it, and it actually worked out really well. Everyone still spent an inordinate amount of time planning their turn, but all the planning happened at once, greatly reducing the player lag. Also, it kept everyone focused on the battle even when it wasn't their turn. It made it so that there were consequences if you didn't pay attention, didn't plan, or have poor reflexes. I fully intend to use it in my games from now on.

One other important point: the DM does not pre-announce the NPC's actions, although they do roll initiative with the PCs (either individually, or they can act as a group, depending on how many separate ones you want to keep track of).

Edit: For one-turn effects, they last until the same initiative count of the next turn (i.e. A spell cast on count 4 of turn one lasts until count 4 of turn 2).

[nyjastul69]

Seems a little...needlessly complicated. I don't really see what it does to keep everyone involved during all of combat, either.

Beyond that, have you considered making the DC to redeclare your turn only increase when you succeed?

e: I would guess that an effect with a per-round duration, or one with a minute duration that runs out mid-fight, would just wear out on the initiative point it was cast on; if the wizard is at initiative 4, and he sets someone on fire for one round, the next round the guy stops being on fire at initiative four, even if the wizard moved up to initiative 9.

I wasn't as articulate with my point as I could have been. I was posting from my phone and if it loses its signal, or I take too long to post, my phone eats it.

I agree with everything you posted. I was just trying to point out that effects that last 'until the start of your next turn' need to be counted differently or you risk having an effect have no effect. There is of course the counter example. Going first in one round and then last in the next results in a 1 round effect lasting 2 rounds.

The obvious fix is to use your previous initiative count for all effects. When ongoing effects are considered this can become very cumbersome. If a combat goes more than 5 rounds, and a character uses ongoing effects each round (not unusual for certain classes) the player might have to keep track of 6 different numbers at the beginning of round 6. I would guess that's not too much of an issue for most players. As far as the DM is concerned though, it can quickly become very cumbersome.

Consider an encounter consisting of 6 creatures vs. a party of 4 characters. If 2 of those creatures use ongoing effects each round that last for more than 3 rounds each, the DM will have to track 12 numbers at the begining of round 4. If the DM tracks the players initiatives as well, and they use ongoing effects, the amount of numbers gets quite large very quickly.

I feel it's overly complicated. There are other systems that use this method of initiative. It's usually built into the system. It works well for systems built around that type of init method. The designers of D&D chose not to use that method. IMO the gains wouldn't be worth the reward.

Having said that, I wish the OP good luck with this house rule. I also look foward to reading how it is implemented and the results thereof.