Side after Side Initiative

[Traziremus]

I have used this style of initiative two days ago when i ran a game of Swords & Wizardry as it is the default way of playing out combat and I noticed it actually makes combats more fun for my group and speeds up everything.

My question to you folks is how good does this work in 5th edition, has someone tried it and has arguments that include both the upsides and downsides of using such a system? It is listed as an alternative rule in the DMG, my only problem with it is that I don't know will it make combat more serious and dangerous for the players? Did the party death count go down or up when you used this style of play in D&D 5E?

[Oramac]

I've never officially used it, but all my DM's have always rolled one initiative for the monsters, so effectively they used a side initiative order.

It didn't have any noticeable effect that I can see. I think it does speed up combat since all the monsters go at the same time instead of being spread out.

[Rysto]

It saw use in a short-lived PbP game that I participated in. In that context I thought that it worked very well, because it let the PCs post their actions in whatever order they happened to see the thread in.

One thing to watch out for is how you're going to resolve actions that impose a status condition, like Hold Person or a shove attack. If you resolve it as soon as the player takes his action, then they become more powerful, as that person can choose to go first, and then all of the other PCs can attack with advantage after that. This isn't necessarily game breaking (and a group of monsters can exploit it just as well), but it's something to keep in mind when balancing encounters.

On the other hand, if you choose to resolve it on the monster's turn (which you probably wouldn't do in a face-to-face game, but in PbP it would potentially make sense), then imposing those conditions becomes a lot less valuable, as the monster can potentially clear the condition before the PCs get a chance to exploit it.

[MaxWilson]

I have used this style of initiative two days ago when i ran a game of Swords & Wizardry as it is the default way of playing out combat and I noticed it actually makes combats more fun for my group and speeds up everything.

My question to you folks is how good does this work in 5th edition, has someone tried it and has arguments that include both the upsides and downsides of using such a system? It is listed as an alternative rule in the DMG, my only problem with it is that I don't know will it make combat more serious and dangerous for the players? Did the party death count go down or up when you used this style of play in D&D 5E?

I use AD&D-style initiative (everybody declares, in order of Int from lowest to highest; then everybody acts, rolling initiative if necessary to see what order the actions happened in), which has some similarities to side initiative, and I'll say this:

When multiple monsters declare an attack on the same character, the risk goes waaaaay up that the PC will get hit enough to fail three death saves in one round, because it's not like the monsters will change targets in mid-swing or mid-bite. Multiple hits in one round is the most common way I've seen characters die, with "splitting the party" running a close second. Perhaps because of this, I've seen zero abuse of pop-up healing (Healing Word, etc.) at my table.

I expect side initiative would play out similarly: yes, deadlier; less abusable by players.

[pwykersotz]

I use a variant of side initiative. It's not really more deadly.

Monsters roll once with the highest modifier.
Players roll separately.
Players who roll higher than monsters go first.
Monsters go.
All Players go.
Monsters go (etc...)

The staggered first round allows the initiative to mostly happen in the same flow and the whole thing allows greater cooperation and less downtime since everyone is engaged in the turn.

Granted, I could focus fire down party members more if I wanted (and I have!) but that's offset by party tactics being stronger too. I don't really have any downsides to list, my table loves it and now they won't let me use anything else. In fact, my players who play at other tables are trying to get other GM's to adopt it too.

[Oramac]

I use a variant of side initiative. It's not really more deadly.

Monsters roll once with the highest modifier.
Players roll separately.
Players who roll higher than monsters go first.
Monsters go.
All Players go.
Monsters go (etc...)

This is exactly what I've used at all my tables as well. After the first round it basically becomes side initiative, but having that staggered first round does make a pretty big difference. It works well.

[MrStabby]

It's kind of ok as long as it doesn't detract from anyone. If you have a character invested in going first then you are really hitting them. High Dex characters, bards and barbarians being reduced to the level of other characters in this regard may be considered unfair.

[Waffle_Iron]

It's kind of ok as long as it doesn't detract from anyone. If you have a character invested in going first then you are really hitting them. High Dex characters, bards and barbarians being reduced to the level of other characters in this regard may be considered unfair.

But only on the first turn. After that, it will be ring-a-round-the-rosie, individual initiative or side initiative.

[Tanarii]

I use AD&D-style initiative (everybody declares, in order of Int from lowest to highest; then everybody acts, rolling initiative if necessary to see what order the actions happened in), which has some similarities to side initiative, and I'll say this:I've thought about switching to a declare all actions first / resolve all actions second. I loved when AD&D 2e Combat & Tactics really made taking turn-based battlemat play tactically meaningful, and loved it throughout 4e. But I find it far less useful, even detrimental, with theatre of the mind play. I want all the players to think of their actions as being simultaneous, and the easiest way to do that is to have all actions declared, followed by all actions resolved.

I'd also expect returning to side-based initiative (a separate thing from the declare / resolve thing) to be far faster, as it always was in D&D BECMI. And AD&D 1e, provided you ignored the full weight of the system (as outlined in ADDICT). As well as making ganging up far more dangerous for both players and monsters. OTOH I find that to be far less of a common problem in Theatre of the Mind play than battlemat play.