Roll Initiative at the start of each round

[Kryx]

I've seen this option suggested before and I'd like to gather some feedback. I play on roll20 so any technical concerns of organizing the rolling is of no concern to me. I'm mainly interested in the affect it had on play.
Were players happy with the change? Did they feel like it was too unpredictable, or did they enjoy it not being so scripted once initiative was rolled?

Any feedback is appreciated!

[gfishfunk]

A person that mentioned it said that there was a app that did it automatically for them. In roll20, it would be more of a hassle than it is worth, imo.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've seen this option suggested before and I'd like to gather some feedback. I play on roll20 so any technical concerns of organizing the rolling is of no concern to me. I'm mainly interested in the affect it had on play.
Were players happy with the change? Did they feel like it was too unpredictable, or did they enjoy it not being so scripted once initiative was rolled? We did that early 80's in AD&D 1e with a DM who was trying to perfect the "segment within a round system" from that edition.

Slowed combat down, even when we all got used to it.

Recommend against.

What added value do you think it will add to combat resolution?

OBTW< our group found that the Roll20 tool was OK, but for a variety of reasons, a given player's initiative would not show up in the queue. (Dm ability to intervene and fix was a good tool and necessary). Little details like 'you have to have your icon selected, then hit that initiative button" cropped up time and again.

[BRC]

It can screw with Action Economy in a pretty rough way, and Action Economy is King.

Consider, Combats tend to be about 3-4 rounds.

Round 1 Goes like this

Alice Goes

Bob Goes

Chris Goes

Round 2

Alice Goes

Chris Goes

Bob Goes

Round 3

Bob Goes

Alice Goes

Chris Goes
Round 4
Chris Goes
Fight Ends

Now, let's say Bob and Chris are fighting each other. Rather than trading actions, they're trading sets of two actions, which greatly skews things. It also messes with Reactions and "Until the start of your next turn" effects.

If Bob puts up a shield spell, Chris now has to deal with that +4 AC for two turns, rather than one. If Chris spends his reaction to do something on Bob's first turn, Bob now gets a free turn to act, since Chris does not get a new reaction until his turn starts again.

Especially at low levels, taking two turns in a row is could easily mean the fight ends with your opponent only getting a single action.

[mrumsey]

I've seen this option suggested before and I'd like to gather some feedback. I play on roll20 so any technical concerns of organizing the rolling is of no concern to me. I'm mainly interested in the affect it had on play.
Were players happy with the change? Did they feel like it was too unpredictable, or did they enjoy it not being so scripted once initiative was rolled?

Any feedback is appreciated!

I played like this in college. It has pros and cons.

Cons (could be negated by Roll20 - I don't use it yet)
Overhead for DM
Encounter order got confusing during long battles.
Could significantly determine relative success of combat when order switches (mage went first in round 1, but last in round 2 and gets beaten to a pulp).

Pros
Could significantly determine relative success of combat when order switches (mage went last in round 1 and first in round 2 and NOVVAAAAAAA'd).

Ultimately, it depends on the game and people involved. It made the combat seem a little more dangerous and dynamic, but also took longer. Like loads longer.

I currently prefer to keep a single initiative for a combat unless something sever alters initiative (Unconscious for 2 rounds, maybe you reroll. Annoying druid/mage completely reworks the entire surrounding terrain...maybe everyone gets new initiative due to WTH MAGE). Typically, initiative is maintained.

The speed and lower overhead drastically outweigh the benefits of rolling every turn.

Hope this is helpful and not completely wandering.

[Joe the Rat]

Pretty sure rerolling was the norm pre 3rd, or else that was just a Kansas thing.

BFRPG uses per round rolls as the standard. It's not a big drag. It adds a call step, or in Roll20 a round of rerolls. If your players are willing, you might be able to make a party Initiate ASI. Push the button after each round.

On consequences: Monks and Battle Masters. Either you tweak their ever full resource abilities to the start of battle, or they just got a whole lot more effective.

[Ruslan]

I love this system. Keeps players on their toes, engaged, and involved in the game. Instead of "I just went, so there's a whole round to wait now, so I'll go play Angry Birds on my phone", they need to pay attention...

Everyone rolls and records results (I roll for monsters), and then I start calling out numbers from (20 + highest initiative modifier of anyone in the group) downwards. Whenever a number is called, that player says "Stop!" and takes his/her turn. If both players have the same Initiative score, the one who spoke first goes first (not exactly RAW, I know, but everyone's cool with it).

And if a player forgets to speak up on his turn, he's pushed down the turn order. For example, if Bob calls "Stop!" on 18, and Alice suddenly remembers she had 19, she'll have to wait until Bob is done. But since everyone pays attention, those incidents hardly ever happen.

There is really no overhead on the DM, as players take care of recording their own rolls and all is left for the DM is to call out numbers.

[Final Hyena]

When it comes to balance you can say that people can end up getting 2 turns in a row, in the grand scheme no one ever gets more than one more turn than anyone else. However certain affects combined when you can take two turns with no one else being able to react can set up lethal combinations. However you can say that a group with 2 casters can do that anyway.

For me the biggest issues are;
Players attention, the constant changing order can confuse people.
Players waiting, the rearranging of orders can result in some players waiting through almost two rounds with no turn which is boring for them which is compounded by the init re rolls which slow thing down further.

[ad_hoc]

My group switched to this way a few months ago. I use an app on my phone to roll then I call out names.

The only downside we have found is that it can make combat more swingy.

The upside is mostly that it feels better. Combats feel chaotic and frantic. They are more tactical rather than strategic. People are engaged as they don't know what will happen next.

This is why we are sticking with it. Everyone is more engaged this way.

[gfishfunk]

My group switched to this way a few months ago. I use an app on my phone to roll then I call out names.

The only downside we have found is that it can make combat more swingy.

The upside is mostly that it feels better. Combats feel chaotic and frantic. They are more tactical rather than strategic. People are engaged as they don't know what will happen next.

This is why we are sticking with it. Everyone is more engaged this way.

Do you know the name of the app?

[Slipperychicken]

I want to do it because it's easy for players to get too comfortable and metagame the initiative order.

My group tried it, but did not like with it because we got sick of all the extra rolling we had to do. Also having to rewrite the initiative order every round was a pain.


I'd be interested in an app that does the rerolling automatically and quickly displays the initiative order.

[ad_hoc]

It is called "Initiative Tracker"

The logo is purple with a black d6 and the letters
"IT" in white.

I don't know how good it is compared to other ones but it does the job fine.

[MrFahrenheit]

Can't speak for roll20. In theory, it's a great idea. In reality, no matter how playing-field-leveling it may be, I recommend AGAINST it if only because it ties up so much time at the table. And the larger the battles are, the more time it takes.

[ad_hoc]

Can't speak for roll20. In theory, it's a great idea. In reality, no matter how playing-field-leveling it may be, I recommend AGAINST it if only because it ties up so much time at the table. And the larger the battles are, the more time it takes.

It has sped up our battles.

[Ruslan]

It can screw with Action Economy in a pretty rough way, and Action Economy is King.

Consider, Combats tend to be about 3-4 rounds.

Round 1 Goes like this

Alice Goes

Bob Goes

Chris Goes

Round 2

Alice Goes

Chris Goes

Bob Goes

Round 3

Bob Goes

Alice Goes

Chris Goes
Round 4
Chris Goes
Fight Ends

This is ... not a problem at all. All you displayed here, is that Chris got one extra action over everyone else because he won initiative in the last round. So what? Exactly same effect would have happened by normal rules if he won initiative in the [one and only] time it was rolled in the first round. Fight would have ended on Round 4, with Chris taking one action more than anyone else.


Now, let's say Bob and Chris are fighting each other. Rather than trading actions, they're trading sets of two actions, which greatly skews things. It also messes with Reactions and "Until the start of your next turn" effects.
Clearly, this system is not meant for 1-1 duels, but for large chaotic combats. But as a matter of fact, it doesn't break duels.



Especially at low levels, taking two turns in a row is could easily mean the fight ends with your opponent only getting a single action.Again, same can happen under normal initiative rules.

Normal rules: Chris wins initiative. He goes, then Bob goes, then Chris goes again. Net result so far: Chris had 2 turns for Bob's 1. Next turn will be Bob's (if he's still alive)

Roll-each-round: Bob won initiative round 1. He goes, then Chris goes. Chris wins initiative round 2. He goes. Net result so far: Chris had 2 turns for Bob's 1. Next turn will be Bob's (if he's still alive)

[Stan]

In AD&D1e, as I recall, the recommended order of things was for the DM to go around the table and every player would say what they're going to do. Then everyone rolled initiative. I wanna say the initiative die was smaller than a d20 so mods had a bigger impact. Depending on what happens if you go late, you may find yourself doing nothing. Spellcasting started at the beginning of the round but the spell went off on the caster's turn so there was a window to hit a caster and interrupt their spell. If you wanted to get hardcore, different spells had different casting times and you could add int weapon speeds to big weapons were slower to get a hit in. At times, reach negated that so the dagger wielder would have to receive a halberd attack before they could get in range to attack.

In practice, there was quite a bit of variation around this as 1e rules were poorly organized and people wound up with different understandings from reading different sections of the rules. I think most groups started with basic and tended to do things that way with the parts of AD&D that they liked add in.

It had some pros but it was wonky and didn't always yield sensible results. A good DM could alter things on the fly for a cool battle. A mediocre DM could get lost in the technicalities and have a slow, odd battle. Twenty first century D&D really isn't built for this and the benefits of going first are already pretty high. Spell durations will be rather variable. Plus, I just don't want to have more rules to deal with.

edit: how initiative was interpreted had an effect on how powerful casters were as it determined how easy it was to interrupt spells.

[Toofey]

I intend to continue to use 2nd ed initiative, which I also did when some of my players wanted to play rifts.

I greatly prefer the element of variability remaining in combat, if not everyone goes in the same order every round and the rounds become much more predictable for the players and the bad guys.