DMG: Initiative systems

[MaxWilson]

One of the initiative options in the DMG is that instead of a static initiative order, everyone chooses an action and then you roll initiative for that round (just like 2nd edition!), modify it for size and weapon type (e.g. loading weapons get -5 penalty, finesse weapons get a +2 bonus, Gargantuan creatures get -8 penalty) and when your initiative slot comes up, you have the choice to either do your declared action or do nothing.

This is an interesting variant (especially combined with battlemaster/bard/monk capstones), but I'd like to add an extra twist to it: you declare your actions publicly, in ascending order of passive perception. So the guy with the highest passive perception declares his action knowing full well what everyone else is planning to do that turn, but not knowing who is going to act when or whether they will hit/miss.

Another obvious variant is to use side initiative per the DMG but still apply individual modifiers to initiative from DX/Alert/etc., so that the two teams can overlap a bit if both of them happen to roll the same number: high-DX guys on both sides side go, then low-DX guys on both sides. That way, Alert/DX still matter.

Anyone else have thoughts to share about the new initiative systems?

[Eslin]

One of the initiative options in the DMG is that instead of a static initiative order, everyone chooses an action and then you roll initiative for that round (just like 2nd edition!), modify it for size and weapon type (e.g. loading weapons get -5 penalty, finesse weapons get a +2 bonus, Gargantuan creatures get -8 penalty) and when your initiative slot comes up, you have the choice to either do your declared action or do nothing.

This is an interesting variant (especially combined with battlemaster/bard/monk capstones), but I'd like to add an extra twist to it: you declare your actions publicly, in ascending order of passive perception. So the guy with the highest passive perception declares his action knowing full well what everyone else is planning to do that turn, but not knowing who is going to act when or whether they will hit/miss.

Another obvious variant is to use side initiative per the DMG but still apply individual modifiers to initiative from DX/Alert/etc., so that the two teams can overlap a bit if both of them happen to roll the same number: high-DX guys on both sides side go, then low-DX guys on both sides. That way, Alert/DX still matter.

Anyone else have thoughts to share about the new initiative systems?

They all seem pointless and needlessly complicated. Initiative is not a very interesting part of the fight - if this were pokemon and speed was one of the five stats, I'd want a more complicated initiative system that rewarded those who invested in it. Instead, initiative is based off a stat that people want already and is not much of a focus - what's the point of all this? Complexity is not a good thing, it's something we accept as the payment for more options or depth - the battlemaster is more complex than the champion, but also has more depth to his play.

All this does is add another layer of complexity if implemented, and it doesn't give more choice or add tactical value.

[Kurald Galain]

Anyone else have thoughts to share about the new initiative systems?

That's not new, second edition Whitewolf also did that. I find that it unnecessarily slows down combat.

[MaxWilson]

They all seem pointless and needlessly complicated. Initiative is not a very interesting part of the fight - if this were pokemon and speed was one of the five stats, I'd want a more complicated initiative system that rewarded those who invested in it. Instead, initiative is based off a stat that people want already and is not much of a focus - what's the point of all this? Complexity is not a good thing, it's something we accept as the payment for more options or depth - the battlemaster is more complex than the champion, but also has more depth to his play.

All this does is add another layer of complexity if implemented, and it doesn't give more choice or add tactical value.

On the contrary, initiative is a very tactically interesting part of the fight even if DX bonuses to initiative are not. Do you waste longbow shots on something that somebody may have already killed by the time you act, or do you focus on your own target? Do you quickly Web the enemy or cast a big complicated (slow) Mass Suggestion instead? Do you declare a Heal action in case someone else gets hit by a monster or do you just assume everyone will be fine and declare an attack? Do you ever find yourself cleaving through an enemy at the same time someone else just headshotted it?

The PHB initiative system assumes that everyone and everything will somehow allocate all of their attacks and actions perfectly optimally. Some people like me find that boring and unrealistic, as well as time-consuming. Alternate initiative systems are for these people.

It can also speed up play. Or at least, the DMG Speed Factor system would speed up play; my suggested Perception variant would slow it back down to PHB speeds or slower. Something to consider.


That's not new, second edition Whitewolf also did that. I find that it unnecessarily slows down combat.

Of course Speed Factor initiative is not "new" to D&D per se: it's the venerable AD&D initiative system. It's new to 5E though since it wasn't in the PHB.

[Eslin]

On the contrary, initiative is a very tactically interesting part of the fight even if DX bonuses to initiative are not. Do you waste longbow shots on something that somebody may have already killed by the time you act, or do you focus on your own target?
That part's tactical, but you're now paying for it heavily in verisimilitude instead. It's only in final fantasy that you have to pick a target, wait for several other people to act and then fire off your attack - in any world that makes sense, you can choose how you act when you act.


Do you quickly Web the enemy or cast a big complicated (slow) Mass Suggestion instead? Do you declare a Heal action in case someone else gets hit by a monster or do you just assume everyone will be fine and declare an attack?
What do spells have to do with speed? It sounds like you're implying that higher level spells cost more in initiative (why? the cost for a higher level spell is the fact that you're using a higher level spell slot), but that never got mentioned.


Do you ever find yourself cleaving through an enemy at the same time someone else just headshotted it?
No, because that's stupid. A fighter doesn't get ready to swing at someone, watch that person get shot and die and then go 'oh I planned on doing this better waste my action doing it anyway'. Tactically more deep, if incredibly stupid and frustrating, but verisimilitude wise it's horrific, the character turns from a person into a robot.


The PHB initiative system assumes that everyone and everything will somehow allocate all of their attacks and actions perfectly optimally. Some people like me find that boring and unrealistic, as well as time-consuming. Alternate initiative systems are for these people.

It can also speed up play. Or at least, the DMG Speed Factor system would speed up play; my suggested Perception variant would slow it back down to PHB speeds or slower. Something to consider.
Letting people act is time consuming, but adding modifiers to the initiative order for every single participant every single turn is not? Good news, logic doesn't work the same way I thought it did! So, let me get this straight: the PHB initiative system assumes everyone and everything will somehow allocate all of their attacks and actions perfectly optimally, and you've decided to fix this by not letting people change their minds based on new information? I suppose if the way you want the world to work is that everyone is a programmed robot that does a specific set of instructions in a set order, changing people from able to react to stimuli (I decided to run forward and stab that guy, but a pit to hell just opened up in front of me, better turn left) to completely unable to change their minds once they've decided a course of future action (I decided to run forward and stab that guy, but a pit to hell just opened up in front of me, better keep walking straight forwards because that's what I decided to do) would do it for you. Of course, I have no idea why anyone would want that, but then apparently someone on this planet wants to play a champion fighter and I don't understand that either.


Of course Speed Factor initiative is not "new" to D&D per se: it's the venerable AD&D initiative system. It's new to 5E though since it wasn't in the PHB.
I see, so it's part of the massive pile of horrible aspects of AD&D that should have been or were scrapped. This is like deliberately bringing back 3.5's multiclassing experience costs or 4e's magic item tiering mathematics.

[Ghost Nappa]

I see, so it's part of the massive pile of horrible aspects of AD&D that should have been or were scrapped. This is like deliberately bringing back 3.5's multiclassing experience costs or 4e's magic item tiering mathematics.

As a player who didn't actually play AD&D, 2E, or 3E, seeing concepts from older editions strikes me as a good learning experience.

I personally wouldn't want that in a game I'm running, but there's going to be some people who DO want it.

It's a system I wouldn't have thought of and while it makes sense mechanically, I think it's a bit of a time waster (even if it does create some additional decisions for players in combat). Regardless, I do like it's inclusion in the DMG because it encourages more thinking about "How do I want to run a game?" which is ultimately one of the biggest points of the book.

[Kurald Galain]

I see, so it's part of the massive pile of horrible aspects of AD&D that should have been or were scrapped. This is like deliberately bringing back 3.5's multiclassing experience costs or 4e's magic item tiering mathematics.

The 2E mechanic doesn't actually have the parts of the 5E mechanic that you express dislike of :)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My favorite way of doing initiative includes action speeds but not for each and every round.

It works more like a passive initiative score so to say.

10 + Dexterity Score + weapon speed (lowest weapon score that you are wielding) or spell casting + Misc

Weapon speeds I usually got from 2e but we simplified it a couple years ago. I'm changing some terminology to fit with 5e

Light: +8
One Handed Finesse: +6
One Handed: +4
Heavy: +2

Now for magic it is a bit mean but we go by casting class. Wizards walking around with a dagger doesn't make them faster to cast spells. Any caster (this includes partial casters) that wants to use the weapon the first round of combat and not a spell (and vice versa). After the first round you just keep going in order as you first acted.

Wizard: +2
Cleric: +4
Warlock:+6
Sorcerer: +8



What this does is gives you a static score that is flexible and the players can change up.

Part of the Misc is a penalty that the player can impose on themselves. If the Cleric says "I always go after the fighter" they can subtract a number from their initiative to make it one less than the Fighter. This stops the whole delaying a turn on the first round of combat, well it won't happen as much.

As a DM I have all these numbers and I can place monsters around the party for narrative, by rolling, or by using the stats that the monster comes with.

It has worked out nicely so far :)

[Eslin]

As a player who didn't actually play AD&D, 2E, or 3E, seeing concepts from older editions strikes me as a good learning experience.

I personally wouldn't want that in a game I'm running, but there's going to be some people who DO want it.

It's a system I wouldn't have thought of and while it makes sense mechanically, I think it's a bit of a time waster (even if it does create some additional decisions for players in combat). Regardless, I do like it's inclusion in the DMG because it encourages more thinking about "How do I want to run a game?" which is ultimately one of the biggest points of the book.

Yes, and they could have used that space to have an actual initiative system (inventing one off the top of my head - can choose to burn initiative for certain boosts, for example letting you gain initiative by taking a penalty to attacks rolls or lose initiative in order to increase a spell's range) instead of one that turns everyone into robots.


My favorite way of doing initiative includes action speeds but not for each and every round.

It works more like a passive initiative score so to say.

10 + Dexterity Score + weapon speed (lowest weapon score that you are wielding) or spell casting + Misc

Weapon speeds I usually got from 2e but we simplified it a couple years ago. I'm changing some terminology to fit with 5e

Light: +8
One Handed Finesse: +6
One Handed: +4
Heavy: +2

Now for magic it is a bit mean but we go by casting class. Wizards walking around with a dagger doesn't make them faster to cast spells. Any caster (this includes partial casters) that wants to use the weapon the first round of combat and not a spell (and vice versa). After the first round you just keep going in order as you first acted.

Wizard: +2
Cleric: +4
Warlock:+6
Sorcerer: +8

What this does is gives you a static score that is flexible and the players can change up.

Part of the Misc is a penalty that the player can impose on themselves. If the Cleric says "I always go after the fighter" they can subtract a number from their initiative to make it one less than the Fighter. This stops the whole delaying a turn on the first round of combat, well it won't happen as much.

As a DM I have all these numbers and I can place monsters around the party for narrative, by rolling, or by using the stats that the monster comes with.

It has worked out nicely so far :)
But why do that? A greatsword and a rapier have different strengths and wizard is supposed to be equal to a cleric, but you're giving some choices an arbitrary boost. What are the greatsword wielder and the wizard, who were supposed to be equal to the rapier wielder and the cleric before this change, getting in return?

[MaxWilson]

That part's tactical, but you're now paying for it heavily in verisimilitude instead. It's only in final fantasy that you have to pick a target, wait for several other people to act and then fire off your attack - in any world that makes sense, you can choose how you act when you act.

It's actually better for verisimilitude to do it the other way: since all actions are theoretically happening simultaneously during the round, it doesn't make sense that I can retroactively declare myself to have been casting a Sleep spell on the goblin instead of the ogre just because the fighter who went just before me managed to drop the ogre with a lucky critical hit. Not to mention the absurdity (from a verisimilitude perspective) of getting to resolve my longbow shots sequentially when in fact the first one is probably still in flight when I release the second.


What do spells have to do with speed? It sounds like you're implying that higher level spells cost more in initiative (why? the cost for a higher level spell is the fact that you're using a higher level spell slot), but that never got mentioned.

They do. Initiative penalty for spells is equal to the spell's level. See table on page 271.

[Eslin]

It's actually better for verisimilitude to do it the other way: since all actions are theoretically happening simultaneously during the round, it doesn't make sense that I can retroactively declare myself to have been casting a Sleep spell on the goblin instead of the ogre just because the fighter who went just before me managed to drop the ogre with a lucky critical hit. Not to mention the absurdity (from a verisimilitude perspective) of getting to resolve my longbow shots sequentially when in fact the first one is probably still in flight when I release the second.

You're usually fighting within about 60 feet with a weapon that shoots an arrow at 200 fps, the arrow will have hit the target well before you've aimed the next one. And it isn't retroactive - if the fighter kills the ogre, you decide not to cast sleep on it. You instead cast sleep on the goblin. If it took ages to cast a spell and you had to pick a target before you cast (which doesn't really make sense - I don't have to pick a target as soon as I nock the arrow and start drawing, why would a wizard have to choose his lightning bolt's target as soon as he starts casting it) that might make sense if magic worked like that, which we have no evidence that it does and common sense says it doesn't, but the spell is being cast on a turn where the wizard can speak, run, take something out of his pocket and use a bonus action, it obviously doesn't take a huge amount of time.


They do. Initiative penalty for spells is equal to the spell's level. See table on page 271.
Then why didn't you mention that? And isn't the cost of using a high level spell the fact that you're burning a high level spell slot? We already have the cost, why add another, and if you're adding another what bonus are you giving high level spell slots to cancel it out?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

But why do that? A greatsword and a rapier have different strengths and wizard is supposed to be equal to a cleric, but you're giving some choices an arbitrary boost. What are the greatsword wielder and the wizard, who were supposed to be equal to the rapier wielder and the cleric before this change, getting in return?

All things are not equal in this game to begin with and this system started back in a 3.0 game when we got done with a 2e game.

The wizard is slower than the cleric because of how they get their spells. Wizard has to memorize them while the cleric is given them by a god. The warlock is faster than the cleric because the warlock gains spells from an outer being but they are infused with said spells instead of given to them each day. Sorcerers are the fastest, they just channel raw magic and don't really need to think and haven't been given something their bodies aren't really made for.

A great sword is a heavy weapon and thus slows you down a lot more than a rapier will.

The classes are not equal as is so there is no reason to make the initiative equal.

The heavy weapon great sword slows down a fighter physically while the wizard is slowed down (reaction time) because they have to try and remember their spells. This all happens in a split of a second and it is relative.

Also another way we have done it (haven't used this for a year and we don't currently use it so totally forgot about it) is that each class has an initiative bonus. 10+ 1/2 level + Dex Mod + Class Bonus.

Less ways for the players to customize initiative but allows the DM to use the same tools as before.

Wizard: +2
Cleric:+4
Fighter: +6
Rogue: +8

Kinda giving a bad run down of these systems since I don't have the rules written out right now. The girlfriend is trying on clothes and while she looks great in them after an hour I'll jump on giantitp or something so my mind doesn't melt).

[Eslin]

All things are not equal in this game to begin with and this system started back in a 3.0 game when we got done with a 2e game.

The wizard is slower than the cleric because of how they get their spells. Wizard has to memorize them while the cleric is given them by a god. The warlock is faster than the cleric because the warlock gains spells from an outer being but they are infused with said spells instead of given to them each day. Sorcerers are the fastest, they just channel raw magic and don't really need to think and haven't been given something their bodies aren't really made for.

A great sword is a heavy weapon and thus slows you down a lot more than a rapier will.

The classes are not equal as is so there is no reason to make the initiative equal.

The heavy weapon great sword slows down a fighter physically while the wizard is slowed down (reaction time) because they have to try and remember their spells. This all happens in a split of a second and it is relative.

Also another way we have done it (haven't used this for a year and we don't currently use it so totally forgot about it) is that each class has an initiative bonus. 10+ 1/2 level + Dex Mod + Class Bonus.

Less ways for the players to customize initiative but allows the DM to use the same tools as before.

Wizard: +2
Cleric:+4
Fighter: +6
Rogue: +8

Kinda giving a bad run down of these systems since I don't have the rules written out right now. The girlfriend is trying on clothes and while she looks great in them after an hour I'll jump on giantitp or something so my mind doesn't melt).

Those are all verisimilitude reasons, and shaky ones at that, as part of a system that hates verisimilitude. You may decide a greatsword swings slower than a rapier, but that's part of the stats - a greatsword uses strength and takes both hands, a rapier uses dexterity or strength and can be wielded with a shield. They're both equal in terms of strength - a rapier does less damage but allows greater armour class/sneak attacking/dual wielding, a greatsword does higher damage and benefits from great weapon master.

They're already equal, though they have different uses - what is the point of giving one a large boost, and if you're doing so what are you giving the greatsword in return?

[Mellack]

The weapon speed has always bothered me. Yes, a dagger can move quicker than a spear, but there is also reach to consider. That spear can hit someone long before they can get in to use their dagger. Why should the dagger fighter get to attack first?

[MaxWilson]

Then why didn't you mention that? And isn't the cost of using a high level spell the fact that you're burning a high level spell slot? We already have the cost, why add another, and if you're adding another what bonus are you giving high level spell slots to cancel it out?

...Because the DMG already spells it out?

Are you telling me that you're loudly criticizing the DMG initiative systems without having actually read them?


You're usually fighting within about 60 feet with a weapon that shoots an arrow at 200 fps, the arrow will have hit the target well before you've aimed the next one. And it isn't retroactive - if the fighter kills the ogre, you decide not to cast sleep on it. You instead cast sleep on the goblin. If it took ages to cast a spell and you had to pick a target before you cast (which doesn't really make sense - I don't have to pick a target as soon as I nock the arrow and start drawing, why would a wizard have to choose his lightning bolt's target as soon as he starts casting it) that might make sense if magic worked like that, which we have no evidence that it does and common sense says it doesn't, but the spell is being cast on a turn where the wizard can speak, run, take something out of his pocket and use a bonus action, it obviously doesn't take a huge amount of time.

You've lost the plot, mate. You do pick your target as you're nocking your arrow (likely before in fact). Speed Factor initiative is WE-GO instead of IGO-UGO.

(I'm not going to debate "typical" fighting range/number of attacks with you, it's too situational to be profitable.)

If you like the IGO-UGO style, fine, it works from a gamist perspective, but from a verisimiltude perspective it really doesn't make sense that your wizard stood around doing nothing until the fighter killed the ogre.

[Eslin]

...Because the DMG already spells it out?

Are you telling me that you're loudly criticizing the DMG initiative systems without having actually read them?

No, I'm criticising you for misquoting the initiative system on a book that isn't out yet. Loudly.

[MaxWilson]

{scrubbed}

[mephnick]

I don't like that variant and agree with Eslin that it has nothing to do with realism or verisimilitude.

Anyone who has ever played a sport knows you can make split-second decisions. If I go to make a pass and that player is suddenly covered, I can easily decide to keep the ball or pass to another player in a half-second. I'm not even a professional!

If I go to shoot an arrow at a target and that target no longer exists, I can easily switch my aim before my few seconds is over.

[Laserlight]

One of the initiative options in the DMG is that instead of a static initiative order, everyone chooses an action and then you roll initiative for that round (just like 2nd edition!), modify it for size and weapon type (e.g. loading weapons get -5 penalty, finesse weapons get a +2 bonus, Gargantuan creatures get -8 penalty) and when your initiative slot comes up, you have the choice to either do your declared action or do nothing.

I wouldn't like "or nothing"; I'd let you pick a default option for the whole fight--"During this battle, if I can't do my picked action, I cast Magic Missile".


This is an interesting variant (especially combined with battlemaster/bard/monk capstones), but I'd like to add an extra twist to it: you declare your actions publicly, in ascending order of passive perception. So the guy with the highest passive perception declares his action knowing full well what everyone else is planning to do that turn, but not knowing who is going to act when or whether they will hit/miss.

I believe that's the way the One Roll Engine (GODLIKE, Wild Talents, etc) does it. I haven't played it and don't know how quickly it plays.

[JoeJ]

...Because the DMG already spells it out?

Are you telling me that you're loudly criticizing the DMG initiative systems without having actually read them?

A lot of us don't have the DMG; it's not available in general bookstores yet. If you're asking for feedback about the initiative system (or anything else), we need to know all of the relevant details so we can understand what you're arguing.

[Scirocco]

From a flavor/theorycrafting standpoint I like it, especially with spontaneous/prepared casters at the end, but how does it work with bonus action spells (specifically Paladin smiting spells combined with weapon attacks)?

[Eslin]

{scrubbed}

[Kornaki]

Anyone who has ever played a sport knows you can make split-second decisions. If I go to make a pass and that player is suddenly covered, I can easily decide to keep the ball or pass to another player in a half-second. I'm not even a professional!


You can make a decision, but after you've decided to make the pass it is difficult to adjust to noticing they are covered in the middle of the action. If you have ever turned over the ball (or puck, or other sports item) on a pass that was a bad idea, then one of two things happened:

1.) Somebody else acted during your action (which doesn't really happen in DnD) or
2.) You failed to notice that the person was covering the other person

1. can be kind of covered by readied actions, but obviously they don't well-model this situation (the player is certainly not choosing to do nothing in the hopes of taking a readied action when you pass the ball, instead they're doing their own thing and just noticing your poorly placed pass).

2. has nothing similar to it in DnD. You can't fail to notice that the fighter is next to those goblins you're fireballing.

If you claim to have never sent a pass to somebody you shouldn't have passed to, then you probably should be a professional.


The announced action initiative scheme attempts to model type 1 mistakes. You see that there's somebody near a player you're passing to, but think you can get the pass in. But that guy moves in the way while you're sending the pass, and oops, you totally screwed that one up. That's similar to casting fireball at the three goblins, except the archer shot two of them while you were casting your spell.

Eslin, you're being obnoxious. He said that spell speed is a tactical layer, you asked if spells modify initiative, he said yes, and then you claimed he's arguing in bad faith because he never mentioned that spells modify initiative. Except he did, that was in fact the content of the post that started the whole chain. He didn't spell out the rules explicitly, but from the post it was made 100% crystal clear that spells modified initiative and if you wanted more details you should have asked instead of trying some lame gotcha thing.

[JoeJ]

The wizard is slower than the cleric because of how they get their spells. Wizard has to memorize them while the cleric is given them by a god. The warlock is faster than the cleric because the warlock gains spells from an outer being but they are infused with said spells instead of given to them each day. Sorcerers are the fastest, they just channel raw magic and don't really need to think and haven't been given something their bodies aren't really made for.

You could just as easily argue that the sorcerer is the slowest because they have to actively craft the spell as a creative process while the wizard uses words and actions that they've already committed to memory.

[Slipperychicken]

One of the initiative options in the DMG is that instead of a static initiative order, everyone chooses an action and then you roll initiative for that round (just like 2nd edition!), modify it for size and weapon type (e.g. loading weapons get -5 penalty, finesse weapons get a +2 bonus, Gargantuan creatures get -8 penalty) and when your initiative slot comes up, you have the choice to either do your declared action or do nothing.


I'd be fine with this if I could declare "Cast [spell's name]" or "Move, then attack an enemy with my sword", then work out the precise details when my turn comes up. It would be unreasonable to expect people to predict exactly which square they're moving to, what they're attacking, and their spells' precise targeting.

[MaxWilson]

A lot of us don't have the DMG; it's not available in general bookstores yet. If you're asking for feedback about the initiative system (or anything else), we need to know all of the relevant details so we can understand what you're arguing.

Okay, there are three initiative variants in the DMG:

1.) Initiative score. Instead of rolling initiative, it's a passive check: 10 + DX mod + Misc bonuses (Alert, advantage, etc.).

2.) Side initiative. Straight d20 (no modifiers) for each side in the combat (usually two). When your side gets initiative, you act in any order you choose. When both sides have taken a turn, a new round begins.

3.) Speed factor "introduces more uncertainty into combat, at the cost of speed of play" for those who find regular initiative "predictable and prone to abuse". "Under this variant, the participants in a battle roll initiative each round. Before rolling, each character or monster must choose an action."

You apply modifiers from a table, but don't apply any modifier twice. Do apply modifiers for bonus actions as well as actions.

Spellcasting: subtract spell's level.
Melee, heavy weapon: -2
Melee, light or finesse weapon: +2
Melee, two-handed weapon: -2
Ranged, loading weapon: -5
Creature, Tiny: +5
Creature, Small: +2
Creature, Medium: +0
Creature, Large: -2
Creature, Huge: -5
Creature, Gargantuan: -8

For example, if I'm going to Quicken Meteor Swarm on my bonus action and then regular action attack with my shortshort, I'd take -7 to initiative (-9 +2), but if I'm just going to attack once with my shortsword and bonus action off-hand attack with my other shortsword, it's a +2.

Then, everyone gets their turn in order of initiative. On your turn, you can either complete your action or abort it. You can also move freely (don't have to pre-declare). You can take reactions as normal.

This system has some obvious problems (e.g. with what granularity do you have to declare your moves/actions? also, it's not clear how it works with Action Surge--I'd probably allow you to action surge at any time during your turn and do any action even if you didn't declare it beforehand, because that fits the fluff for Action Surge) but the core intent is clear: making it less predictable who will go when. It does interesting things to the utility of Dodge actions and Blade Ward: they are most useful when you go first in the initiative order and hope to go last next turn, so you can use Blade Ward to set up for a big spell next turn.

I think if I were running this system I would probably combine it with Initiative Score option to keep things speedy. That way the uncertainty would come from tactical choices and not from die rolls.


I'd be fine with this if I could declare "Cast [spell's name]" or "Move, then attack an enemy with my sword", then work out the precise details when my turn comes up. It would be unreasonable to expect people to predict exactly which square they're moving to, what they're attacking, and their spells' precise targeting.

I think that sounds like a reasonable ruling in the interests of fun. I think it is what the DMG intended. It is more gamist than simulationist, but there's nothing wrong with that. Making people declare their actions at a very granular level ("I attack the goblin king until he dies, and if I have any attacks left over I stab the queen and then retreat in the safest direction at that point") adds to the chaos without necessarily adding to the fun, for people who don't enjoy that level of chaos in combat. Obviously you should never use an initiative system that your group finds un-fun.


The announced action initiative scheme attempts to model type 1 mistakes. You see that there's somebody near a player you're passing to, but think you can get the pass in. But that guy moves in the way while you're sending the pass, and oops, you totally screwed that one up. That's similar to casting fireball at the three goblins, except the archer shot two of them while you were casting your spell.

Very nicely put. Yes, that's what it's doing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Okay, there are three initiative variants in the DMG:

1.) Initiative score. Instead of rolling initiative, it's a passive check: 10 + DX mod + Misc bonuses (Alert, advantage, etc.).


I like it, probably use this in the future for 5e and possibly 4e.

[mr_odd]

As a player who didn't actually play AD&D, 2E, or 3E, seeing concepts from older editions strikes me as a good learning experience.

I personally wouldn't want that in a game I'm running, but there's going to be some people who DO want it.

It's a system I wouldn't have thought of and while it makes sense mechanically, I think it's a bit of a time waster (even if it does create some additional decisions for players in combat). Regardless, I do like it's inclusion in the DMG because it encourages more thinking about "How do I want to run a game?" which is ultimately one of the biggest points of the book.

This. I don't think anyone could say it better. I will add that D&D must continually draw from its past as it progresses through the future. It has a lot to learn from itself.

[Hytheter]

Spellcasting: subtract spell's level.
Melee, heavy weapon: -2
Melee, light or finesse weapon: +2
Melee, two-handed weapon: -2
Ranged, loading weapon: -5
Creature, Tiny: +5
Creature, Small: +2
Creature, Medium: +0
Creature, Large: -2
Creature, Huge: -5
Creature, Gargantuan: -8

I don't like these at all

Heavy Weapons (which are all two-handed) get punished twice, even though they already have the drawback of requiring two hands to use. And frankly I disagree with the implication that using a weapon two handed is inherently slower than using a one handed weapon, even though you're applying two hands worth of strength to the attack.
Likewise with loading weapons - they already have a drawback, that's exactly what the loading property is - slapping them with a -5 penalty on top of that just seems mean and unnecessary.
Finesse weapons get a bonus, which stacks with the fact that Finesse weapon users have naturally higher dexterity to begin with. A scimitar isn't even any lighter than a longsword but still gets the benefit.
And as someone said above, this totally fails to account for reach. A greatsword is heavy, but it's also hella long. People with daggers can't really compete with a greatsword, yet this system gives them in a net +6 bonus to get an attack in first.
I'm also not fond of giving such huge swings based on size, as though tiny things can't be slow to react (snails have a +5 woo) and huge monsters can't have quick reflexes.
And for what benefit? I'm not seeing a lot of tactical depth added by this system. Sure, you can change weapons for minor benefits (implying that putting your greatsword away, drawing a rapier and attacking with that would be faster than just straight up attacking with the greatsword) and maybe the spell speed could be interesting, but that's it. And realistically you're more at the whims of the d20 than any choice you make. And that's the other thing - having to roll and extra d20 per person/creature every turn just seems horribly tedious.



I think if I were running this system I would probably combine it with Initiative Score option to keep things speedy. That way the uncertainty would come from tactical choices and not from die rolls.

This does seem like a good idea to alleviate some of my concerns. But you're still left with the fact that the modifiers are highly unreasonable to begin with.

Personally I'd scrap most of the table (keep spell speed though*) and instead add tactical options that use initiative modifiers as a new form of action "currency". Make a faster attack at the cost of power or accuracy, or deliberately take your time for a more accurate or powerful attack, or to focus on defensive maneuvers or plan a counterattack. Or something like that. Something that gives tactical options beyond "I use this weapon instead of that one".
And indeed, something that doesn't saddle Greatsword users with a -4 penalty just for choosing that weapon while Rapier man gets +2 and a shield.

*You could eve make it so that being hit before your turn forces a concentration check that can make you lose the spell. This makes higher level spells risky; a level 9 spell could turn the tide of battle but the -9 penalty might mean someone makes you lose it first.

[mephnick]

I'd honestly just ignore that table completely.

I'm not sure what was wrong with initiative in the first place I guess?

edit: oh it's a variant option, nevermind

[silveralen]

It was by far one of the single worst optional parts of the entire book. I'd legitimately consider threatening to walk if my table had to have it, as it would slow things down so much for almost no real gain. It requires pre-announced actions, which are a huge pain as conditions will change between turns forcing people to alter their choices constantly. It's a bad rule which depends on other bad rules that do nothing but frustrate players and slow down the game. It is legitimately awful. Hell, it isn't even particularly balanced.

[eastmabl]

The passive initiative system, while remarkably boring, may be good with large groups. I've seen DMs roll to see who the highest and then move clockwise around the table. At least with this, the characters potentially can run parts of initiative themselves.

[Easy_Lee]

Would just like to point out that the optional initiative system potentially imbalances the game. Small races and dex builds, which already had noticeable advantages, become even stronger. Also, your players will suspect that you're changing the bad guy's choices of actions based on what they do (classic Pokemon Stadium-tier cheating). You could announce their actions too, but that slows down the game even further. Also, you know you'll forget someone's action and have to ask what it was from time to time. So I don't think it's particularly useful.

[Starsinger]

I like the group initiative one the best, honestly. Sure it changes up tactics a bunch, but so what? It also promotes teamwork on both sides and it's less of a headache in general.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm wondering if it might be better for a PbP game. Or work better anyways. It does add a level of tactical complexity that can be fun, but it also seems like it would be a pain to constantly be looking up the speed chart (exactly what I don't want to do this edition).

Also I'm not sure if it adds enough tactical complexity to be worth it. On one hand you can use a quicker action when you really need to get something done, but on the other, that doesn't seem like you'd use that often (maybe once a fight)

In general it reminds me of the turn based combat in FF1, where if you killed a target, your later allies would still attack the blank spot, wasting their turns. It was dropped for a good reason because it was just annoying when that happened.

[Easy_Lee]

In general it reminds me of the turn based combat in FF1, where if you killed a target, your later allies would still attack the blank spot, wasting their turns.

I didn't even think of that. This form of initiative system makes combat almost exactly like a turn-based RPG. Now all we need are bosses with final forms and a truckload of belts and zippers.

[Knaight]

The weapon speed has always bothered me. Yes, a dagger can move quicker than a spear, but there is also reach to consider. That spear can hit someone long before they can get in to use their dagger. Why should the dagger fighter get to attack first?

This sort of thing is why they tend to annoy me as well. I don't necessarily have a problem with weapon speed systems in principle (though mixing it with D&D initiative seems iffy), but the specifics tend to bring out the bizarre misconceptions about weapons that just get really annoying. You get the spears moving positively glacially and attacking slowly, when they are actually generally very fast moving weapons with a substantial reach advantage. You get the weird ideas about two handed weapons being inherently slow brute force things, which doesn't match up with actual usage in any meaningful way.

The particular implementation has basically all of these issues, and it's not at all exceptional for doing so.

[mephnick]

I like the group initiative one the best, honestly. Sure it changes up tactics a bunch, but so what? It also promotes teamwork on both sides and it's less of a headache in general.

It works for other systems, but I'm not sure I like it when I've used it. I think it would be pretty bad for a swingy system like D&D.

It's hard enough to stop a decent party from going nova on a smaller enemy party or single boss. The opposite is true as well. If I'm supposed to play my monsters smart, and the 5 hobgoblins get to go first, someone is dying instantly.

[DanyBallon]

Quote Originally Posted by Forum Explorer View Post

In general it reminds me of the turn based combat in FF1, where if you killed a target, your later allies would still attack the blank spot, wasting their turns.

Actually I don't understand how you would end up attacking a blank spot. The rules only ask to declare action as in "I'm attacking with my longsword" or "I shoot an arrow with my bow", "I cast X spell", etc. If your intended target is dead, choose an other one and everything is fine. If there is no more targets, then you don't waste any actions at all, as the combat is finished.

And for those arguing that a spear should be faster because it have reach, I believe reach and speed are two completely different thing. A dagger is faster to strike with than a spear, hence it's bonus to initiative. On the other side, the longer reach will allow the spear user to react before to an enemy threatening its space, which a dagger can't do unless you throw it away.

Finally, even if I find the speed factor variant interesting, I would house rule that only one modifier should apply, so an heavy two-handed weapon, would get only a -2 penalty, or instead of the combined -4, only a -3, and I might lower the ranged/loading penalty to -3 or -4.

[Dienekes]

Actually I don't understand how you would end up attacking a blank spot. The rules only ask to declare action as in "I'm attacking with my longsword" or "I shoot an arrow with my bow", "I cast X spell", etc. If your intended target is dead, choose an other one and everything is fine. If there is no more targets, then you don't waste any actions at all, as the combat is finished.

And for those arguing that a spear should be faster because it have reach, I believe reach and speed are two completely different thing. A dagger is faster to strike with than a spear, hence it's bonus to initiative. On the other side, the longer reach will allow the spear user to react before to an enemy threatening its space, which a dagger can't do unless you throw it away.

Finally, even if I find the speed factor variant interesting, I would house rule that only one modifier should apply, so an heavy two-handed weapon, would get only a -2 penalty, or instead of the combined -4, only a -3, and I might lower the ranged/loading penalty to -3 or -4.


Quoting myself from earlier


Except it's even more than that. Longer reach is one hell of an advantage in a fight that is not accounted for. A greatsword only attacks adjacent enemies just like a dagger, yet the greatsword will suffer from the initiative penalties, despite the fact that it has 5+ feet of reach on the dagger user, and if the guy even knows the basics of how to use that thing, should not let the dagger user get close enough to engage.

That's what really gets me about the speed penalties, it pretends to be realistic while ignoring reality and only focuses on misconceptions.

Then we get into the real nitty gritty stuff like longswords only being about 3 pounds anyway, while the shortsword gladius was about the same so they really shouldn't be noticeably slower.


Oh I just don't use [weapon speeds], because they make no sense. I dislike them because they promote misconceptions on how weapons work, and I like weapons. They're complex and beautiful tools that have a lot of thought and dedication into designing them for a great deal of efficiency. To see a game that has, unfortunately, been one of the larger means of spreading information of medieval weaponry to the population fall into the same ridiculous cliche of the big slow bulky mass weapon is saddening.

Generally [moment of inertia] was accounted for with a heavier pommel to distribute weight efficiently. These weapons were designed to be fast. Even mass weapons like maces and axes generally were designed to circumvent this problem. Except the katana, it still puzzles me how specifically that weapon became the one people think was fast, but that's an argument for a different thread.


Or in short. That's not how melee weapons work. It's how people who don't understand melee weapons think melee weapons work. People have dueled longsword vs rapier (look them up), and there is no noticeable difference in attacks made. Melee weapons, even the two-handed ones, were designed to be fast and maneuverable. Reach is a much bigger advantage on things like a greatsword vs a dagger than the current system gives credit for. This sort of system promotes misconceptions on medieval weaponry and does so without adding any noticeable benefits in terms of game balance.

[silveralen]

And for those arguing that a spear should be faster because it have reach, I believe reach and speed are two completely different thing. A dagger is faster to strike with than a spear, hence it's bonus to initiative. On the other side, the longer reach will allow the spear user to react before to an enemy threatening its space, which a dagger can't do unless you throw it away.

That's not exactly true, look at a more even example, a longsword and a dagger. Try to imagine a situation where someone with a longsword faces someone with a dagger, and the dagger user can manage to get a hit in first. It's rather difficult, as attacking with the shorter weapon invariably will open you up for an attack from the longer one, which likely will land first due to the length difference.

Actual combat wouldn't resemble the "stand next to one another and swing" style of DnD, so much as a series of people constantly using disengage manuevers and everyone had polearm master's reaction attack. Even that struggles because the difference between the reach of a longsword, greatsword, and dagger isn't modeled at all.

But if you want to simplify that to initiative, yes the length of the weapon matters quite a bit.

Not that a weapon changing initiative makes sense, as initiative represents everything a character does in the round. My reflexes don't magically increase allowing me to start running before my teammate because he has an axe and I have a dagger.

It's utter and palpable nonsense for weapon "speed" to even enter into who attacks first, both parties don't just swing and let the faster weapon make contact. Weapon "speed" matters primarily in how fast the swing itself is, thus changing how difficult a weapon is to block/avoid and how quickly someone can recover from a swing. Which would be better modeled with attack and AC changes, as well as the number of times you can attack. Though, even in this case, weapon speed isn't being accurately represented by that table. A longsword used two handed would probably be "faster" than a scimitar or rapier used in one hand.

[Oscredwin]

For people with knowledge of real life weapons:

In real life I would expect larger weapons to have better "speed" stat because of reach and smaller weapons are better because .... they are easier to carry around? Easier to use in a small space?

Does a dagger have any advantage against a spear in a gladiatorial fight (<1 min of fighting, no need to lug the weapon everywhere, large open space)?

[silveralen]

For people with knowledge of real life weapons:

In real life I would expect larger weapons to have better "speed" stat because of reach and smaller weapons are better because .... they are easier to carry around? Easier to use in a small space?

Does a dagger have any advantage against a spear in a gladiatorial fight (<1 min of fighting, no need to lug the weapon everywhere, large open space)?

If the dagger wielder can get inside the spearman's reach? Yes. In fact, the best way to use a dagger or knife is typically to grapple with your opponent, at least when facing someone using a longer weapon. Daggers are great for stabbing someone repeatedly at extreme close range.

Of course the trick would be getting close enough to do so. If he had some sort of shield it'd make it much easier to get close enough to strike (spears can be hard to parry, and most daggers aren't exactly impressive parrying weapons, only varieties made for it). Even a cloak could be useful for tangling the weapon long enough to get inside, and a couple close range stab wounds will typically win a fight.

[DanyBallon]

That's not exactly true, look at a more even example, a longsword and a dagger. Try to imagine a situation where someone with a longsword faces someone with a dagger, and the dagger user can manage to get a hit in first. It's rather difficult, as attacking with the shorter weapon invariably will open you up for an attack from the longer one, which likely will land first due to the length difference.

Actual combat wouldn't resemble the "stand next to one another and swing" style of DnD, so much as a series of people constantly using disengage manuevers and everyone had polearm master's reaction attack. Even that struggles because the difference between the reach of a longsword, greatsword, and dagger isn't modeled at all.

But if you want to simplify that to initiative, yes the length of the weapon matters quite a bit.

Not that a weapon changing initiative makes sense, as initiative represents everything a character does in the round. My reflexes don't magically increase allowing me to start running before my teammate because he has an axe and I have a dagger.

It's utter and palpable nonsense for weapon "speed" to even enter into who attacks first, both parties don't just swing and let the faster weapon make contact. Weapon "speed" matters primarily in how fast the swing itself is, thus changing how difficult a weapon is to block/avoid and how quickly someone can recover from a swing. Which would be better modeled with attack and AC changes, as well as the number of times you can attack. Though, even in this case, weapon speed isn't being accurately represented by that table. A longsword used two handed would probably be "faster" than a scimitar or rapier used in one hand.

Au contraire, carrying a smaller weapon is less cumbersome and let you move and react more effectively to an opponent facing you. In you example of someone using a dagger vs someone carrying a longsword. True the dagger user, will have a harder time hitting it's opponent as he will need to get closer, but he will be able to move faster in reaction to his opponent swinging his sword, thus having a higher initiative. Should a dagger have a reach of 0, that's an entire different topic.

[Dienekes]

For people with knowledge of real life weapons:

In real life I would expect larger weapons to have better "speed" stat because of reach and smaller weapons are better because .... they are easier to carry around? Easier to use in a small space?

Does a dagger have any advantage against a spear in a gladiatorial fight (<1 min of fighting, no need to lug the weapon everywhere, large open space)?

Yes. If you're using an off-hand weapon having a dagger at the side is effective because it allows you to parry with that dagger and use your main weapon to actually attack. Or if you get into a bind or grapple the dagger becomes more useful as the length of the weapon starts to get in the way.

That in general was where daggers excelled. Armored combat was generally about (and this is using the most horrid oversimplification but bear with me) using your main weapon like a sword to get your opponent into a position where you are in an advantage. Once that has happened, the dagger was used to sneak into the cracks between armored plates, or joints, or wherever the armor is weakest.

But in a straight two guys starting a fight, one starting with a real sword and one with a dagger. Well, no. That's kind of why swords were invented in the first place. If daggers could do everything a sword could do, why would anyone waste the metal?


Au contraire, carrying a smaller weapon is less cumbersome and let you move and react more effectively to an opponent facing you. In you example of someone using a dagger vs someone carrying a longsword. True the dagger user, will have a harder time hitting it's opponent as he will need to get closer, but he will be able to move faster in reaction to his opponent swinging his sword, thus having a higher initiative. Should a dagger have a reach of 0, that's an entire different topic.

No, your reactions are exactly the same. The longsword is only about 3-4 pounds, while fighting daggers were 1-2. There is not that big a difference. They do not suddenly become faster because they're using a smaller weapon. Your brains work at exactly the same speed. The larger weapons were even designed specifically to not be cumbersome to reposition, unless we get into the size of say, a pike. Which weren't dueling weapons anyway.

The real funny part comes when you realize the tip of the longer weapon will actually be moving faster than the dagger could ever hope to go. Weapon speeds are just ludicrous.

[silveralen]

Au contraire, carrying a smaller weapon is less cumbersome and let you move and react more effectively to an opponent facing you. In you example of someone using a dagger vs someone carrying a longsword. True the dagger user, will have a harder time hitting it's opponent as he will need to get closer, but he will be able to move faster in reaction to his opponent swinging his sword, thus having a higher initiative. Should a dagger have a reach of 0, that's an entire different topic.

That's utter nonsense, a long sword weighs 2-4 pounds. Go grab a five pound hand weight and tell me how much holding that would impede your movement. Now imagine a trained athlete or warrior holding said item, in solid physical condition, specifically trained to move around with that item.

A 2-3 pound weight difference is not going to give nearly the difference you seem to think, I hesitate to say its completely irrelevant but it certainly doesn't matter much.

[DanyBallon]

That's utter nonsense, a long sword weighs 2-4 pounds. Go grab a five pound hand weight and tell me how much holding that would impede your movement. Now imagine a trained athlete or warrior holding said item, in solid physical condition, specifically trained to move around with that item.

A 2-3 pound weight difference is not going to give nearly the difference you seem to think, I hesitate to say its completely irrelevant but it certainly doesn't matter much.

It's not the weigth per say, but the fact that a long sword even with mastery in its use is less easy to maneuver than a dagger.

[silveralen]

It's not the weigth per say, but the fact that a long sword even with mastery in its use is less easy to maneuver than a dagger.

Which again isn't true. Unless you are too weak for the weapon (and yes a dagger probably would have a lower strength required to use effectively) or aren't trained in its usage at all, you won't see this sort of difference. At least, unless the shorter weapon user manages to make the longer weapon's reach a disadvantage.

I think I understand your idea, the shorter and lighter weapon will always be easier given sufficient training, but the problem is you quickly get into diminishing returns. The difference would become so marginal as to be irrelevant compared to other factors. If, on a tie for initiative, you had a dagger user and a longsword user roll against one another to determine which goes ahead of the other, and you gave the dagger user advantage on that roll, it would still probably be overestimating the importance.

[Dienekes]

It's not the weigth per say, but the fact that a long sword even with mastery in its use is less easy to maneuver than a dagger.

That was the entire reason why pommels were invented. These weapons were not just giant poles of metal. They were designed specifically to make them as fast as possible. A good longsword, will have the weight fairly close to the hilt, plus you have a second hand to work in a pushing/pulling motion to make these things go fast.

Now there are some weapons that don't follow this kind of design, like halberds for instance. They were designed with the weight very high up to make single strong swings, but even then the spear part was meant to be used to poke very quickly. Longswords and the like were meant to be swung fast and efficiently.

[DanyBallon]

Which again isn't true. Unless you are too weak for the weapon (and yes a dagger probably would have a lower strength required to use effectively) or aren't trained in its usage at all, you won't see this sort of difference. At least, unless the shorter weapon user manages to make the longer weapon's reach a disadvantage.

I think I understand your idea, the shorter and lighter weapon will always be easier given sufficient training, but the problem is you quickly get into diminishing returns. The difference would become so marginal as to be irrelevant compared to other factors. If, on a tie for initiative, you had a dagger user and a longsword user roll against one another to determine which goes ahead of the other, and you gave the dagger user advantage on that roll, it would still probably be overestimating the importance.

We seem to have divergent view on the topic, and it's fine, because in the end, using speed factor is DM fiat, for me it's fairly easy to explain to my players if I decide to implement it into my game, and for you it doesn't work and the good thing is that you don't need to use it, that's the beauty of variant rules :)

[Easy_Lee]

There's a lot to melee that D&D doesn't cover. Slashing wweapons ought to have disadvantage in tight quarters. Pole weapons should have huge advantages over shorter weapons on an open battlefield. Throwing knives and daggers ought to be two different things. Getting stabbed, slashed or clubbed ought to have long and short term effects like bleeding and impaired abilities. The list goes on.

But D&D is not really a combat or reality simulator. It pretty much runs on rule of cool, and that's a good thing IMO.

[Dienekes]

We seem to have divergent view on the topic, and it's fine, because in the end, using speed factor is DM fiat, for me it's fairly easy to explain to my players if I decide to implement it into my game, and for you it doesn't work and the good thing is that you don't need to use it, that's the beauty of variant rules :)

You see, that's the thing. While it is a game, and you're free to do whatever you want with your game. The annoying thing is that this mentality promotes misconceptions about medieval weapons. Finally, we're taking a few stumbling steps away from the concept that everyone in medieval times were fighting with sharpened poles of lead. This is going backwards for a sense of "realism" that doesn't actually model reality while also penalizing one specific weapon style. I can understand if this weapon style was considered weak, but as far as I have seen Dex based builds are already very strong.

[silveralen]

We seem to have divergent view on the topic, and it's fine, because in the end, using speed factor is DM fiat, for me it's fairly easy to explain to my players if I decide to implement it into my game, and for you it doesn't work and the good thing is that you don't need to use it, that's the beauty of variant rules :)

I'm just unsure why you want to inject more inaccuracy and imbalance into the game. I could see you prioritizing one over the other, but something that harms both is odd to me.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Dagger users act first because there's a lot you can do in combat other than mano y mano, dagger v spear. And no matter what you want to say about medieval swords, a dagger or other light object is easier to handle. Especially when you are dodging fireballs, and acid spit, and disintegration rays.

In the end there are sacrifices you have to make for a relatively simple turn based system. You're never going to get it completely right. What are you going to do? Give an accurate length for each weapon, and if your weapon is longer you get an opportunity attack if someone hits you? Unless they are using one of 7 weapons that ignores that, or one of 3 weapons that specifically works on your specific weapon?

If in your Theater of the Mind, a combat mechanic produces an absurd result, the dm has every right to arbitrarily change it. There are already mechanics in the game- like readied actions, and polearm master - that can apply to such situations. Futz as necessary.

[Shining Wrath]

I recall weapon speed from 2nd edition. It wasn't popular.

OTOH, I've been told by people who actually do the Society for Creative Anachronism thing that a rapier is a better weapon than a greatsword for unarmored combat. Speed *kills*. Once you put heavy armor on the balance shifts back to being able to crush bones through armor. So if verisimilitude in magic elf games is your thing, go for it, enjoy.

I think D20 + Dex modifier is too random, myself, and I'd rather do something like D8 + 2*Dex modifier, but that's me.

[silveralen]

Dagger users act first because there's a lot you can do in combat other than mano y mano, dagger v spear. And no matter what you want to say about medieval swords, a dagger or other light object is easier to handle. Especially when you are dodging fireballs, and acid spit, and disintegration rays.

No. People can keep saying this, but it really isn't true. A longsword isn't a heavy object by most people's standards. I guarantee the standard adventuring pack most players have would be far more cumbersome.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I didn't say longswords were heavy. I said that a dagger or other light object is easier to handle, which is incontestably true.

You're right about the pack though. I'd put its weapon speed at -10.

[JAL_1138]

The actual reason these are in the DMG is they're for people who miss the "initiative options" section from the 2e PHB, which this section is pretty much a (slightly tweaked) copy of. They're optional, and probably only in there for nostalgia's sake, to try and draw back us grognards.

Since I keep buying 5e books, seems to be working. :smallsmile:

[silveralen]

I didn't say longswords were heavy. I said that a dagger or other light object is easier to handle, which is incontestably true.

You're right about the pack though. I'd put its weapon speed at -10.

Lighter? Yes. By a pound or two. Easier to handle? By the slightest fraction.

It makes a difference, but if you are interested in measuring things of that amount you should also be using the height of the players to calculate their rough arm length, because the few inches difference there matters more than what you are describing.

Weapon speed? I meant the initiative penalty for merely wearing one. A -10 for wearing a backpack when a dagger gives a +2 over a longsword? It'd probably be more like -20 if we are talking about an actual full backpack that's 10-20 pounds, like what most adventurers seem to have. That's being rather generous.

[DanyBallon]

I'm just unsure why you want to inject more inaccuracy and imbalance into the game. I could see you prioritizing one over the other, but something that harms both is odd to me.

The only reason needed is "fun". If the players and I decide that it would be fun to use speed factor in our game, then so be it. We're not playing for realism, we're playing to have fun nothing more.

[Knaight]

I recall weapon speed from 2nd edition. It wasn't popular.

OTOH, I've been told by people who actually do the Society for Creative Anachronism thing that a rapier is a better weapon than a greatsword for unarmored combat. Speed *kills*. Once you put heavy armor on the balance shifts back to being able to crush bones through armor. So if verisimilitude in magic elf games is your thing, go for it, enjoy.

The HEMA people I know tend to have a different perspective, and their weaponry is a lot closer to actual swords (blunted metal, the SCA uses metal for rapiers but generally uses rattan for anything that is more swung). Having used both, I'd also take the greatsword.

On a completely different note, the term "longsword" outside of D&D is generally used to refer to what D&D calls a greatsword. Look up some HEMA longsword fighting tournaments, the fighting is very fast.

[Dienekes]

The HEMA people I know tend to have a different perspective, and their weaponry is a lot closer to actual swords (blunted metal, the SCA uses metal for rapiers but generally uses rattan for anything that is more swung). Having used both, I'd also take the greatsword.

On a completely different note, the term "longsword" outside of D&D is generally used to refer to what D&D calls a greatsword. Look up some HEMA longsword fighting tournaments, the fighting is very fast.

Mine as well, though more stock than re-creators I would give to the old masters. Thinking of Fiore, I know he did not put much stock in a rapier winning that duel.

[Knaight]

Mine as well, though more stock than re-creators I would give to the old masters. Thinking of Fiore, I know he did not put much stock in a rapier winning that duel.

Oh, absolutely. It's just that among the re-creators I'd prioritize the people who use the equipment that is more similar. Plus, the SCA has the restrictions on striking the lower leg, which gets in the way a lot more with longer weapons (particularly spears).

[silveralen]

The only reason needed is "fun". If the players and I decide that it would be fun to use speed factor in our game, then so be it. We're not playing for realism, we're playing to have fun nothing more.

I suppose, but what's fun about unbalanced gameplay?

[DanyBallon]

I suppose, but what's fun about unbalanced gameplay?

Fun is subjective. Your group may prefer a more balanced game, mine might prefer that speed factor add a cool twist to the game. Neither group are wrong, they just have different preferences. :)

[silveralen]

Fun is subjective. Your group may prefer a more balanced game, mine might prefer that speed factor add a cool twist to the game. Neither group are wrong, they just have different preferences. :)

To each their own then, assuming it is something your table as a whole wants.

[Shining Wrath]

There's a lot to melee that D&D doesn't cover. Slashing wweapons ought to have disadvantage in tight quarters. Pole weapons should have huge advantages over shorter weapons on an open battlefield. Throwing knives and daggers ought to be two different things. Getting stabbed, slashed or clubbed ought to have long and short term effects like bleeding and impaired abilities. The list goes on.

But D&D is not really a combat or reality simulator. It pretty much runs on rule of cool, and that's a good thing IMO.

Battlefield? Phalanx. Even Wellington & Napoleon used the phalanx, except they wrapped it around and called it a square. First invented (or perhaps popularized) by Wallace IIRC - that scene in "Braveheart" was of course inaccurate, but the basic idea that "Wallace figured out how unarmored foot could stop heavy cavalry" has merit.

If you put a bunch of pole arm users together so that they can cover for one another, they will give swordsmen a very bad day.

[sigfile]

It works for other systems, but I'm not sure I like it when I've used it. I think it would be pretty bad for a swingy system like D&D.

It's hard enough to stop a decent party from going nova on a smaller enemy party or single boss. The opposite is true as well. If I'm supposed to play my monsters smart, and the 5 hobgoblins get to go first, someone is dying instantly.

You're spot-on. We tried this out during an Expeditions session. Party wins initiative? Combat is a cake-walk. Party loses initiative? At least one character is either unconscious or straight-up dead without getting to participate.

[Forum Explorer]

Actually I don't understand how you would end up attacking a blank spot. The rules only ask to declare action as in "I'm attacking with my longsword" or "I shoot an arrow with my bow", "I cast X spell", etc. If your intended target is dead, choose an other one and everything is fine. If there is no more targets, then you don't waste any actions at all, as the combat is finished.


Because I haven't gotten the book and thus haven't read the rules. I'm going off what I've heard from this thread. Anyways, that does make it better, but also makes it much more like a final fantasy game. Which to be fair, is a popular type of game.


There's a lot to melee that D&D doesn't cover. Slashing wweapons ought to have disadvantage in tight quarters. Pole weapons should have huge advantages over shorter weapons on an open battlefield. Throwing knives and daggers ought to be two different things. Getting stabbed, slashed or clubbed ought to have long and short term effects like bleeding and impaired abilities. The list goes on.

But D&D is not really a combat or reality simulator. It pretty much runs on rule of cool, and that's a good thing IMO.

Very true. The question becomes does the initiative system add more then it takes away? In my opinion, no. It seems to be added complexity with very little gains. I'd only really want to try it out of curiosity or a desire for something new.

Though I might use it for a duel, or a team competition of some sort. So I am glad it's in the book.

[Easy_Lee]

Though I might use it for a duel, or a team competition of some sort. So I am glad it's in the book.

Regarding this, I can see the optional rules as a great way to resolve initiative ties.

[Galen]

One of the initiative options in the DMG is that instead of a static initiative order, everyone chooses an action and then you roll initiative for that round (just like 2nd edition!), modify it for size and weapon type (e.g. loading weapons get -5 penalty, finesse weapons get a +2 bonus, Gargantuan creatures get -8 penalty) and when your initiative slot comes up, you have the choice to either do your declared action or do nothing.The time lapse between declaring your action and taking it iis the one thing I disliked most about 2nd edition. I realize it might be a bit more simulationis, but it's very player-unfriendly. "I am already commited to attacking with my sword, but all the Orcs near me are dead or ran away... I guess I can't shoot my bow. Rats".

I will definitely not be using this variant.

[MaxWilson]

The time lapse between declaring your action and taking it iis the one thing I disliked most about 2nd edition. I realize it might be a bit more simulationis, but it's very player-unfriendly. "I am already commited to attacking with my sword, but all the Orcs near me are dead or ran away... I guess I can't shoot my bow. Rats".

I will definitely not be using this variant.

A strict reading of the DMG Speed Factor rules says that you only have to pre-declare your action (Attack) and not the details of your action (bow vs. sword, targets). So apparently the DMG writers agree with you on that aspect, although some (like me) might consider breaking down the granularity further. (Maybe.)

[Galen]

A strict reading of the DMG Speed Factor rules says that you only have to pre-declare your action (Attack) and not the details of your action (bow vs. sword, targets).
That makes it neither here nor there. The whole idea of declaring the action and wait before it's taken is the simulation aspect - large weapons take more time to swing, high-level spells take longer time to cast, etc. I don't like it, but I can appreciate the realism... But if you don't even have to declare bow-or-sword, even the simulation aspect breaks down.

"I'm declaring I'm going to attack"
"With which weapon"
"Uhm, some large weapon. Either the greatsword or the longbow. I'll decide later."
"So, are you drawing your sword or nocking an arrow in your bow?"
"I dunno. It has a +2 speed factor, that's all I need to declare"

[MaxWilson]

That makes it neither here nor there. The whole idea of declaring the action and wait before it's taken is the simulation aspect - large weapons take more time to swing, high-level spells take longer time to cast, etc. I don't like it, but I can appreciate the realism... But if you don't even have to declare bow-or-sword, even the simulation aspect breaks down.

"I'm declaring I'm going to attack"
"With which weapon"
"Uhm, some large weapon. Either the greatsword or the longbow. I'll decide later."
"So, are you drawing your sword or nocking an arrow in your bow?"
"I dunno. It has a +2 speed factor, that's all I need to declare"

Yeah, hence why people like me would want to break the granularity down further. The DMG version, read strictly, services the stated goal (reducing exploitable predictability of the regular initiative cycle) but doesn't take it far enough to actually make the chaos realistic.

[Knaight]

Battlefield? Phalanx. Even Wellington & Napoleon used the phalanx, except they wrapped it around and called it a square. First invented (or perhaps popularized) by Wallace IIRC - that scene in "Braveheart" was of course inaccurate, but the basic idea that "Wallace figured out how unarmored foot could stop heavy cavalry" has merit.

It predates Wallace by well over a millennia - Phalanx warfare can be traced back to ancient Greece, and that's just one example.

[Gwendol]

Both "300" and "Troy" (IIRC) display examples of phalanx fighting, as does "Gladiator". The "Vikings" show also uses formation fighting, but with a twist. Less polearms and instead allowing enemies to slip by into an ambush. Long after firearms were introduced formation fighting was still a thing (firing on command, etc).

[Dienekes]

It predates Wallace by well over a millennia - Phalanx warfare can be traced back to ancient Greece, and that's just one example.

I think he meant the square based phalanx unit. Though even if that was the case it's still wrong as Narses used it in his campaigns, and probably earlier folk too that I just don't have memorized.

[Shining Wrath]

I think he meant the square based phalanx unit. Though even if that was the case it's still wrong as Narses used it in his campaigns, and probably earlier folk too that I just don't have memorized.

Yeah, the square, which I think Wallace dubbed a "schillitom" or something like that.

What I think Wallace gets credit for is deploying infantry in a way that could withstand massed European knights in heavy armor with barded horses. Alexander's phalanxes (and Roman legions) had to deal with elephants, but elephants don't lend themselves to massed charges the way horses do and both the riders and the mount had greatly inferior armor to the European knight. Also I think the max speed of an elephant is quite a bit less than even heavy cavalry, which allows more time to prepare your formation et cetera. Momentum being mass times velocity the elephant still brings more momentum to the charge, but with fewer animals per unit distance.

[Knaight]

What I think Wallace gets credit for is deploying infantry in a way that could withstand massed European knights in heavy armor with barded horses. Alexander's phalanxes (and Roman legions) had to deal with elephants, but elephants don't lend themselves to massed charges the way horses do and both the riders and the mount had greatly inferior armor to the European knight. Also I think the max speed of an elephant is quite a bit less than even heavy cavalry, which allows more time to prepare your formation et cetera. Momentum being mass times velocity the elephant still brings more momentum to the charge, but with fewer animals per unit distance.
Again, that predates Wallace. Pike blocks and similar were used against heavy cavalry heavily in the late middle ages in Europe. By 1300 Swiss mercenaries had a reputation for being extremely capable with pike blocks, and that's just one example.