Alternate rules for Initiative

[LnGrrrR]

Hello all! I'm wondering if you guys have alternate rules for initiative. The last game I DM'd, we had some paralysis analysis players. I was thinking of a way to prevent that, and came up with this idea.

BEFORE you roll for intiative, everyone spells out what actions they want to take. Then everyone rolls initiative, and turns take place as normal. If the person you wanted to interact with is down, then you can choose a new target.

I would think that it would play out similar to the current rules, but might cut down on some of the "how injured does this guy look, and how many steps to this person" etc etc. I also think it might fit how combat works more realistically, as people are making split second decisions in rounds that last only 6 seconds.

Thoughts? Does anyone have any other ideas to cut down on PA?

[pwykersotz]

My custom side-initiative system that I typically plug would probably make things worse for that problem.

Have you considered the carrot/stick approach? If you act immediately upon the DM saying that it's your turn, you get advantage on your first d20 roll that turn. If you don't take your complete turn after 1 minute, play immediately moves onto the next player.

I've used it before to great effect, though once my players got used to acting quickly, I shelved it for other methods.

[This be Richard]

You could always try the goofy way things were done in the old world of darkness: declare actions in order from worst initiative to best, then execute them from best to worst.



My custom side-initiative system that I typically plug would probably make things worse for that problem.

I understand it won't be helpful to the thread's main question, but I'm curious. What does your custom side-initiative system look like?

[eastmabl]

Have you considered the carrot/stick approach? If you act immediately upon the DM saying that it's your turn, you get advantage on your first d20 roll that turn. If you don't take your complete turn after 1 minute, play immediately moves onto the next player.

This seems good. I'd almost say that advantage seems a little too good, but to each their own.

From running games at cons, I've also found it helpful to let people know when their coming up. At the start of any player's turn, I will announce X player's turn, with Y player on deck (next up) and Z player in the wings (third in turn). I will ignore monsters for the purpose of announcing these things.

Also, are you playing on a grid or are you playing theater of the mind? Try switching it up a little bit and see if it helps.

[pwykersotz]

I understand it won't be helpful to the thread's main question, but I'm curious. What does your custom side-initiative system look like?

I implemented a group initiative fix, I either got it from the books or these boards somewhere, I don't remember where.

Monsters roll initiative as a group, using the highest modifier.
Players roll initiative separately.

Those who rolled higher than the monsters go first.
The monsters go.
All players go.
All monsters go.
etc...

Actions happen whenever someone decides to go. Three players can move, another can chug a potion, then one can try to trip a monster, and on success the others can wallop him with advantage for being prone. It lets the players work together, and people who are having a tough time deciding what to do can take their time without slowing down game. It encourages group strategy and allows for the monsters to do the same. It feels more free flowing and fun overall. And the rules for doing it are super simple so there's no learning curve.

The downside to this situation is it encourages the same over-analysis that is trying to be avoided here, because it encourages heavy teamwork instead of discreet turns. My players don't do this though, they tend to be looking up spells or reading over their item lists to cause delays, which this system patches nicely.

Also, as has been pointed out in other threads, the natural control of mixed initiative against groups nuking single targets on both sides is removed, but I haven't had an issue with it myself.


This seems good. I'd almost say that advantage seems a little too good, but to each their own.
Yeah, advantage is generous, but it does avoid the fiddliness. Back in 3.5 I gave a +1 to the first d20 roll.

[Coidzor]

I would think that it would play out similar to the current rules, but might cut down on some of the "how injured does this guy look, and how many steps to this person" etc etc.

Using a red soda bottle ring by putting it on a miniature or token as an indicator for when a creature is at or below half HP and thus looks visibly bad off is a good way to cut out people asking about that sort of thing. Combine pointing at the minis with telling them to keep track of how much damage has been ostensibly dealt to each enemy on their own and that should take care of it unless they're going to whine.

Granted, the latter question doesn't make sense if you're using a battlemap in the first place, so maybe you should just consider switching away from Theatre of the mind and using tokens and grids or hexes.