Initiative Ties

[Koury]

I asked in the Q&A thread if there was a rule I was missing about how to handle ties for initiative, but I was told there isn't one and to just do whatever I wanted. So here are the two things I have in mind, looking for pros/cons of them. They're pretty similar.

Option 1 (Lawful): Highest modifier wins ties, a la 3.5.
Example: Abby rolls a 12 and gets +3, for a 15. Bart rolls a 14 and gets +1, for a 15. Abby goes first.

Option 2 (Chaotic): Ties make opposed Initiative checks against each other to tie break.
Example: Abby rolls a 12 and gets +3, for a 15. Bart rolls a 14 and gets +1, for a 15. Chris rolls a 16 and has no bonus. Abby and Bart reroll, getting a 17 total and a 6 total, respectively. Chris goes first (he wasn't a part of the tie breaker), then Abby, then Bart.

OK, the Lawful option reduces rolls, which is good for speed. It rewards Dex and other Initiative boosts in general since a bigger modifier means you win ties that much more often, but it is still a rare-ish case for this to come up at all.

The Chaotic option gives people with less Initiative boosts a chance to win ties, even if they're at a disadvantage. It adds an extra roll but is uncommon enough that it shouldn't slow the game much at all.

I know this is a minor thing, in the end, but yeah. Thoughts, or guidance? How does your game handle ties?

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I go by the rules, vague as they are. In ties between PCs, I let them decide. In a tie between a monster and a PC, I decide based on the situation.

[Koury]

I go by the rules, vague as they are. In ties between PCs, I let them decide. In a tie between a monster and a PC, I decide based on the situation.

The rules on tying say things stay as they were before. That's fine on, say, grappling. Doesn't work for Initiative.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

To quote the PHB, page 189:
"If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among
tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide
the order among their tied characters. The DM can
decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a
player character. Optionally, the DM can have the tied
characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine
the order, highest roll going first."

This is what I was referring to.

[Koury]

I see! So there IS an actual rule, contrary to what I was told in the Q&A thread.

I was going off the opposed ability check rules on pg 174 because... I don't know. I didn't know there was a specific rule for initiative. Clearly. Thank you. :smallsmile:

Though I suppose this doesn't solve the question of which method to use to break ties, assuming you don't like just arbitrarily deciding.

The given method of just rolling a d20 with no bonuses is the most even. Is that better than rolling with normal initiative bonuses? I'm aware that I'm spending too much time considering something like this that will likely have no real impact on any outcome ever but yeah.

[Wrenn]

In the case of initiative ties I always look at the initiative order and choose to place the tied ones in a way that keeps the battle dynamic. I don't really like when all or a majority of players take their turns, then the Npc's take their turns. Sometimes that happens, nature of rolling, but I prefer the battles to have a 'back and forth' quality, I guess. It seems to make it more interesting.

If it's two players I just let them decide.

Edit: That's also why I don't use group initiative for the baddies. It may take a minute longer to set up the order, but it's worth it to me.

[Shadow]

I see! So there IS an actual rule, contrary to what I was told in the Q&A thread.

Actually, that is exactly what you were told in the Q&A thread.


A238 For DM controled creatures: DM decides, For PC ties: Players Decide, For PC tied with Creature: DM decides

When you asked a follow up question the answer given was incorrect.

[Koury]

Actually, that is exactly what you were told in the Q&A thread.

When you asked a follow up question the answer given was incorrect.

Indeed. Let it be known to all that FadeAssassin correctly answered my question.

I guess I just read it as a generic "Use Rule 0" answer or something. "DM decides" is not much help when looking for an actual rule, really. I failed to realize that "DM decides" in fact IS the answer, specifically written in the book. A pg # would have helped make that clear, I suppose, but so would me adjusting quicker to 5e's "rules lite" way of things (coming from 3.5, at least).

[Grayson01]

I have always played higher Mod goes first on a tie, roll again if mod is also a tie. Simple, limits need for rerolls.

I think DM making the decision could lead to animosity, the above reason has a logical, mechanical, and concrete rulling.

edit: This repsonse is toward your question of "Though I suppose this doesn't solve the question of which method to use to break ties, assuming you don't like just arbitrarily deciding".

[Shadow]

I think DM making the decision could lead to animosity, the above reason has a logical, mechanical, and concrete rulling.

How would it create animosity/
The ties that the DM decides are between monsters.
If there's a tie between the players, the players decide, and they likely do so based on their own best interests.
If there's a tie between a mob and a player, the DM decides. Use mods to decide, or reroll, or just simply say the mob goes first because I said so.
It's not like it happens so often that it makes any real difference where animosity should arise.

[Grayson01]

How would it create animosity/
The ties that the DM decides are between monsters.
If there's a tie between the players, the players decide, and they likely do so based on their own best interests.
If there's a tie between a mob and a player, the DM decides. Use mods to decide, or reroll, or just simply say the mob goes first because I said so.
It's not like it happens so often that it makes any real difference where animosity should arise.

Deciding Between a Monster and a Player, it has happen fairly often when I have played. The Animosity "could" arise from the same place any animosity arises when someone abitraly decides against someone.