In Defense of Side Initiative

[Trask]

I've been running a game for some new players and a couple of experienced players for the past few months. I've been running the Keep on the Borderlands, along with some of my own custom dungeons, and initially to make it easy for them to get into the game I used side initiative from the DMG. My idea was to slowly break in the regular initiative when they were more comfortable. But I've actually grown very fond of side initiative and the players have as well, so much so that when I offered to switch to regular initiative they actually refused and said that they liked the way it was. Here I am writing my experiences with the rule variant and encouraging DMs to try it out, especially those that may have some of the same issues with regular initiative that I have, that I will illustrate.

1. Side initiative is fast. This appears to be unimportant but when I started using side initiative I started realizing just how tedious initiative really is as a mechanic. ESPECIALLY when a multitude of enemies are involved, it can really slow down the game. I know not everyone is concerned with game pace, but keeping tension and excitement can really make a session feel more fluid and fun. Rerolling initiative every round keeps things tense and excitement on the table as well.

2. Cooperation. Side initiative has sparked some of the most fun and creative moments I have ever elicited from my players in relation to their interaction with the environment. Lots of moments that were made possible by the simultaneous turns that the party took. The fighter and barbarian grabbing a ghoul and slam dunking him into a toilet in an old abandoned keep, sending him into the sewers. Players can move to flank at the same time, eliminating the need for readying actions and other things that can be particularly cumbersome for new players. The paladin and fighter at one point grabbed an oil slathered log they brought along to a kobold lair and grabbed it in their turn and tossed it at the kobolds, and simultaneously the wizard pegged it with a firebolt setting it aflame and obliterating the poor kobolds. These things arent really possible with regular initiative (or they are but are extremely cumbersome to do and most players would just wave it away and resign themselves to another round of attacking). Side initiative opens up the minds of a lot of players by letting them move freeform in their own round. Which relates to my next point.

3. Not isolated. Regular initiative has the unfortunate effect (at least at my table) of making players feel isolated from each other. I like to call this kind of initiative "spotlight initiative" because it essentially focuses the game on a specific person at a time. The downsides of this become apparent in comparison to side initiative, and are even documented in the complaints about our "table culture". Everyone has heard of or experienced the player whose just on his phone when its not his turn, or just checks out and starts chatting and never knows when his turn is. Spotlight initiative keeps things focused on individuals, but it doesnt encourage group play at all, and it promotes the stale "i attack, i attack, i attack" that is so infamous. Now of course it doesnt have to be this way, but there it takes a stronger conscious effort whereas with the variant it feels like the natural way to play the game.

4. Swingyness. One of the criticisms often lobbed at side initiative is its inbalance and ability to tpk a party on a dime. Fights can swing, but in my experience (we have played up to level 5 by the writing of this post) 5e characters are resilient enough that beyond the fragility of the early levels its not a great deal more swingy than spotlight initiative. It can have tipping moments, but the ability of all the players to act at once can often get them back on their feet after a rough round. Of course this is just my personal experience and I make no guarantees, but I don't find it as bad as some have claimed.

EDIT: Another downside to this otherwise great rule variant is the way it kind of screws classes that get bonuses to initiative. I still haven't figured out something for that.

Well that concludes it, I hope you will give side initiative a try because it really does reveal something special in D&D. It so naturally evokes the kinds of dynamic combat that we all seem to crave and try to get through more character options/attack options. I'm very much considering switching to side initiative permanently at my table I enjoy it so much, and of course my players enjoy it as well. Please give it a shot! Or tell me what I missed and why side initiative might be more flawed than I think.

[Snails]

I agree that side initiative is faster. I think this method is probably better, if you have a DM who is willing to fudge things a little to make it work.

IMO, the main downside to group initiative is the potential for the DM to accidentally (or on purpose) make hyperoptimal plays for the enemy NPCs.

When my group was first experimenting with 3e, we were using a group initiative system similar to side initiative. We were having a nice big combat going on, PCs were moving in interesting tactical ways, and then the reinforcements kicked in a side door, and 6 orcs rushed in and surrounded one PC to beat on. That just felt weird and unfair -- as all 6 orcs were moving in a group, there was no possibility for any of the PCs to interfere with the 6 orcs and save that PC. So did we really want the PCs to hang together in a boring and safe huddle? In the end, we went to individual initiative to make such events rare.

My feeling now is that as long as the DM purposefully spreads out the attacks a bit, side initiative is a better way to go.

One can argue that NPCs "should" focus their attacks because it is "smart". Our opinion is, regardless of whether it is "smart" or "realistic", that leads to slower and less fun play.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I've always used group initiative, and it's always worked out well.

I break up large encounters into discrete squads, who act together, and I always have the party act together. I do make sure each activated unit and player completes all its actions before the next one, but in the player turn, the players can activate in whatever order they wish. Usually, this is a loop around the table.

[Ruslan]

Individual initiative:

DM: "Bob, it's your turn"
Bob: <detaches from smartphone> "I do the thing" <goes back to smartphone>
DM: "Emily's turn"
Emily: <detaches from smartphone> "I do the thing" <goes back to smartphone>
DM: "Joe's turn"
Joe: <detaches from smartphone> "I do the thing" <goes back to smartphone>

Group initiative:

DM: "It's the party's turn"
Bob: "Joe, can you buff me before I charge in, and..."
Emily: "Wait, let me Flame Strike before you get into melee"
Joe: "I'm down to my last 3rd level slot, just how important is that Haste to you?"
Bob: "Very"
Joe: "Fine. But Flame Strike first, ok?"
Emily: "Incoming!"

The difference is clear and tangible.

[Trask]

Individual initiative:

DM: "Bob, it's your turn"
Bob: <detaches from smartphone> "I do the thing" <goes back to smartphone>
DM: "Emily's turn"
Emily: <detaches from smartphone> "I do the thing" <goes back to smartphone>
DM: "Joe's turn"
Joe: <detaches from smartphone> "I do the thing" <goes back to smartphone>

Group initiative:

DM: "It's the party's turn"
Bob: "Joe, can you buff me before I charge in, and..."
Emily: "Wait, let me Flame Strike before you get into melee"
Joe: "I'm down to my last 3rd level slot, just how important is that Haste to you?"
Bob: "Very"
Joe: "Fine. But Flame Strike first, ok?"
Emily: "Incoming!"

The difference is clear and tangible.

This 100%
This has absolutely been my experience at the table with side initiative, it just naturally cultivated that sense of cooperation and creative play that spotlight initiative fails at so regularly

[Trask]

I agree that side initiative is faster. I think this method is probably better, if you have a DM who is willing to fudge things a little to make it work.

IMO, the main downside to group initiative is the potential for the DM to accidentally (or on purpose) make hyperoptimal plays for the enemy NPCs.

When my group was first experimenting with 3e, we were using a group initiative system similar to side initiative. We were having a nice big combat going on, PCs were moving in interesting tactical ways, and then the reinforcements kicked in a side door, and 6 orcs rushed in and surrounded one PC to beat on. That just felt weird and unfair -- as all 6 orcs were moving in a group, there was no possibility for any of the PCs to interfere with the 6 orcs and save that PC. So did we really want the PCs to hang together in a boring and safe huddle? In the end, we went to individual initiative to make such events rare.

My feeling now is that as long as the DM purposefully spreads out the attacks a bit, side initiative is a better way to go.

One can argue that NPCs "should" focus their attacks because it is "smart". Our opinion is, regardless of whether it is "smart" or "realistic", that leads to slower and less fun play.

This is a good point, a DM can't play the exact same way with side initiative as he does with spotlight. Of course sometimes a player just gets the beat down but more often than not I try to play the enemies in a realistic way which doesn't always translate into "special ops level tactical precision way"

[Doug Lampert]

4. Swingyness. One of the criticisms often lobbed at side initiative is its inbalance and ability to tpk a party on a dime. Fights can swing, but in my experience (we have played up to level 5 by the writing of this post) 5e characters are resilient enough that beyond the fragility of the early levels its not a great deal more swingy than spotlight initiative. It can have tipping moments, but the ability of all the players to act at once can often get them back on their feet after a rough round. Of course this is just my personal experience and I make no guarantees, but I don't find it as bad as some have claimed.

EDIT: Another downside to this otherwise great rule variant is the way it kind of screws classes that get bonuses to initiative. I still haven't figured out something for that.

Swinginess and bonuses to initiative both have the same fix.

Tell the party to roll initiative, and then ONLY those PCs rolling a 12 or higher get a turn. Then all opponents go. Then all PCs go.

It's no longer, "everyone on one side goes and dogpiles the other side", instead it's "our fast guys get an edge."

[Malifice]

I dont like it for the focus fire problems. Particularly with nova strikes, your BBEG can get smoked before getting a turn.

If I were to use it I would have a rule that the Monsters always go first. At least it gives every monster a turn to show off what it can do.

Re players sitting around wasting time, I use the 'count slowly down from 3 and if no action is declared by 0 the character takes the dodge action and his turn ends' method.

Speeds combat up considerably, causing players to have to use the time they're not having a turn to think about what they want to do when it comes up. They focus a lot more on the table and a lot less on flicking though books.

[Ruslan]

I dont like it for the focus fire problems. Particularly with nova strikes, your BBEG can get smoked before getting a turn.Here's how I would suggest to alleviate this particular concern. You can still play with group initiative if you roll initiative normally:

0. Party rolls initiative normally, one roll of each PC. Enemies get one roll.
1. PCs who won init ahead of monsters go, as a group
2. Monsters go as a group
3. All PCs go as a group
4. Back to 2.

So if the initiative order for PC1, PC2, BBEG, PC3, PC4 is: 4, 12, 13, 17, 20, what happens is:

- PC1&2 go
- BBEG goes
- All PCs go
- BBEG goes
- All PCs go
... repeat

[LordCdrMilitant]

I dont like it for the focus fire problems. Particularly with nova strikes, your BBEG can get smoked before getting a turn.

If I were to use it I would have a rule that the Monsters always go first. At least it gives every monster a turn to show off what it can do.

Re players sitting around wasting time, I use the 'count slowly down from 3 and if no action is declared by 0 the character takes the dodge action and his turn ends' method.

Speeds combat up considerably, causing players to have to use the time they're not having a turn to think about what they want to do when it comes up. They focus a lot more on the table and a lot less on flicking though books.

Why would you do that? As I see it, the game isn't about the monsters and the mechanics of their combat abilities.

I almost always give players first go unless the enemy is a particularly fast enemy or is ambushing them and they didn't spot the ambush. I frequently don't have them even roll initiative, and let them enter combat naturally from out-of-combat state.

And with regards to players getting deleted by a lots of enemies concentrating their fire, THE ENEMIES ARE UNDER YOUR CONTROL. Hostiles shouldn't understand the game system, they should act like they'd be expected to if the scenario was occurring in real-time without tuns and grids and such.

[Snails]

EDIT: Another downside to this otherwise great rule variant is the way it kind of screws classes that get bonuses to initiative. I still haven't figured out something for that.

My DM's fudge is that the special PCs who have important initiative bonuses get a second initiative die, as a group, and they pick either, i.e. they get advantage. In the end that is probably a slight gain for those particular PCs -- the NPCs do not seem to complain about that much. ;)

Potentially that means there are two PC groups. About half the time there is just one, of course.

The key is to get away from a dicefest and giant tally of initiatives before the fun even starts. Two groups of PCs is close enough to the ideal that we get most of the advantages.

EDIT: BTW, we do not use Dex for an initiative bonus, as Dex is so heaving overmodeled in 5e. Thus PCs who have important initiative bonuses have them because of something big like a feat.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well that concludes it, I hope you will give side initiative a try because it really does reveal something special in D&D. It so naturally evokes the kinds of dynamic combat that we all seem to crave and try to get through more character options/attack options. I'm very much considering switching to side initiative permanently at my table I enjoy it so much, and of course my players enjoy it as well. Please give it a shot! Or tell me what I missed and why side initiative might be more flawed than I think.

It also devalues dexterity as a stat and any feature that operates on initiative. As a player I'd much rather roll my own initiative, although I can understand how it makes life simpler for the DM.

[sir_argo]

My group uses Roll20 and we do separate initiative for everyone, mobs included. The way it automates the initiative order, it isn't cumbersome at all. I can see that if you manually keep track of initiative, it would be a pain, so I won't talk down group initiative... I'll just talk up individual initiative as long as you use something like Roll20.

[Trask]

It also devalues dexterity as a stat and any feature that operates on initiative. As a player I'd much rather roll my own initiative, although I can understand how it makes life simpler for the DM.


My group uses Roll20 and we do separate initiative for everyone, mobs included. The way it automates the initiative order, it isn't cumbersome at all. I can see that if you manually keep track of initiative, it would be a pain, so I won't talk down group initiative... I'll just talk up individual initiative as long as you use something like Roll20.

I think that this is missing the point just a little bit. I'm not trying to talk up SI as some kind of "help your DM" thing, I've found that players have had a much more enjoyable experience with it as well.

EDIT: Also I think you could argue that Dex could use some undervaluing :smalltongue:

[LeonBH]

It also devalues dexterity as a stat and any feature that operates on initiative. As a player I'd much rather roll my own initiative, although I can understand how it makes life simpler for the DM.

This is just my personal opinion, but I like that Dex is a little undervalued here because it's already considered by many to be the god stat. Rules over AC, Dex saves (which is common), and initiative. Stealth and Acrobatics are used very often.

I think Side Initiative is great, I'll give it a try.

[Beelzebubba]

I think it encourages too much focus and smoothness. Combat should be chaotic.

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." :smallbiggrin:

If you're having problems with it breaking down, enforce a six-second decision process for each turn in combat. Same for the monsters. If they snooze, they lose. Give a bit of a longer think time between rounds, but don't dawdle.

If people are on phones, well, that's a problem.

[Daion515]

My experience with this sort of thing was pretty enjoyable. It has its ups and downs. All enemies going at one time is extremely difficult to deal with if any PC is out of place as they get hyper focused and usually go down.

We first did this after playing a table top where all pc's went then enemy goes. So we implemented it in our bigger group for pathfinder. It really does encourage cooperation between everyone and the whole phone > turn > phone thing does phase out quite a bit with the yours > theirs turn. Our dm then changed it up and 1 person per week was our "initiative monkey". We would use their initiative modifier for that week and so they would roll to see if our side went first or mobs. This was to avoid us abusing the system when we had someone who had a massive initiative modifier.

Either way I do find this system to be a decent alternative especially if the party has cohesion issues. Which our group did, so this system really brought out cooperation that the group lacked since everyone would just do their own thing and not pay attention completely to circumstances.

[Strill]

Swinginess and bonuses to initiative both have the same fix.

Tell the party to roll initiative, and then ONLY those PCs rolling a 12 or higher get a turn. Then all opponents go. Then all PCs go.

It's no longer, "everyone on one side goes and dogpiles the other side", instead it's "our fast guys get an edge."

That's a fantastic solution. I love it.


This is just my personal opinion, but I like that Dex is a little undervalued here because it's already considered by many to be the god stat. Rules over AC, Dex saves (which is common), and initiative. Stealth and Acrobatics are used very often.

I think Side Initiative is great, I'll give it a try.

That's not a fair comparison. Strength-based characters get good AC to start. Dex-based characters have to work for their AC. Dexterity improving AC is not a benefit, it's a drawback, because you start with your AC in the hole, and have to work your way up.

[Knaight]

Swinginess and bonuses to initiative both have the same fix.

Tell the party to roll initiative, and then ONLY those PCs rolling a 12 or higher get a turn. Then all opponents go. Then all PCs go.

It's no longer, "everyone on one side goes and dogpiles the other side", instead it's "our fast guys get an edge."
I do like this idea, but I'd probably move the 12 to a variable, particularly if the groups tend to be homogeneous. Fighting zombies? Everyone who gets at least a 4 goes before them. Fighting the fastest blade in the west? You might need a 20. I'd also restrict the PCs who went first from going again, as getting two actions instead of one is really powerful - although I'd be all for it if the game was built around it instead of it being retrofit to a system it really doesn't fit.


Individual initiative:

DM: "Bob, it's your turn"
Bob: <detaches from smartphone> "I do the thing" <goes back to smartphone>
DM: "Emily's turn"
Emily: <detaches from smartphone> "I do the thing" <goes back to smartphone>
DM: "Joe's turn"
Joe: <detaches from smartphone> "I do the thing" <goes back to smartphone>

Group initiative:

DM: "It's the party's turn"
Bob: "Joe, can you buff me before I charge in, and..."
Emily: "Wait, let me Flame Strike before you get into melee"
Joe: "I'm down to my last 3rd level slot, just how important is that Haste to you?"
Bob: "Very"
Joe: "Fine. But Flame Strike first, ok?"
Emily: "Incoming!"

The difference is clear and tangible.

I've found (albeit not in 5e) that individual initiatives can get more interesting if the enemy initiatives are moved into public information. Suddenly you get a bunch of "crap, that one acts before me, take them out now", or "I'm seeing a solid retreat option with this order, here's how we'll do it" etc. It works better if the imitative cycle can also be manipulated, or you have restrictions like only getting to attack down-initiative (e.g. the positioning system in Warbirds, which is very much for aircraft), but it can work.

With that said, team initiative definitely open more options, and they do have a lot going for them.

[Doug Lampert]

That's a fantastic solution. I love it.

It's equivalent to simply declaring that all monsters roll a 12 for initiative (after modifiers), that the PCs win ties, and then declaring that we'll let all the PCs who'll act before the monsters go all at once in any order they want rather than forcing them to follow an irrelevant rolled order or to reinvent the delay action or waste effort with ready actions.


I do like this idea, but I'd probably move the 12 to a variable, particularly if the groups tend to be homogeneous. Fighting zombies? Everyone who gets at least a 4 goes before them. Fighting the fastest blade in the west? You might need a 20. I'd also restrict the PCs who went first from going again, as getting two actions instead of one is really powerful - although I'd be all for it if the game was built around it instead of it being retrofit to a system it really doesn't fit.

Variable DC for different groups is fine, or you can roll as Ruslan suggests below my post. But you're never getting to go twice. It's just as accurate to say that the round ends when monsters finish, and that those who miss the DC are not getting to act at all as it is to claim that those who make the DC are getting two actions.

[Hrugner]

It pushes in combat healing even further down in it's importance, and can require a DM who will be civil about their decision and not just burn down one PC at a time. It also limits the value of initiative bonuses. I think I'd rather just resurrect held actions as a solution to the points in side initiative's favor.

[Knaight]

Variable DC for different groups is fine, or you can roll as Ruslan suggests below my post. But you're never getting to go twice. It's just as accurate to say that the round ends when monsters finish, and that those who miss the DC are not getting to act at all as it is to claim that those who make the DC are getting two actions.

I read "All PCs get to go" as "All PCs get to go, including the ones who already went". If it means "The rest of the PCs get to go" that solves that issue entirely. If it's meant as a one time thing (you roll initiative once, the fast guys get one extra turn as a sort of surprise and then it goes in a cycle) it also works; I'd interpreted it as meant to go with round by round initiative, where it absolutely would be going twice.

[Steampunkette]

Problem: On any VOIP game, like Skype or Teamspeak or Discord, is basically impossible to do with side initiative due to issues of latency and talking over one another.

If you're in the room with someone and two people are talking you can mostly hear what both of them are saying. If you're on a skype call, the one with the slightly louder volume will completely drown out the other because of the way speakers work, more or less.

So while I respect your decision, I'll stick with standard initiatives online at the very least.

[Knaight]

Problem: On any VOIP game, like Skype or Teamspeak or Discord, is basically impossible to do with side initiative due to issues of latency and talking over one another.

I've played games over Skype which had straight up simultaneous actions and it worked fine. Side initiative doesn't mean that people need to interrupt each other.

[Deox]

I'm a fan of how Edge of the Empire runs their initiative and have adopted it into D&D.
Everyone rolls initiative as normal, let's assume A, B, & C are players and D1 and D2 are DM controlled.
A = 12, B = 10, C = 8, D1 = 11, D2 = 14

Instead of each participant going on their designated turn, it instead changes to that "team" or "side" gets to decide as a group who will take that turn. So, instead of the order looking like:
D2, A, D1, B, C

it looks like:
DM, PC, DM, PC, PC

This allows for the players to be more actively engaged in what is around as well as promote teamwork.

[Dhuraal]

This is just my 2 cents, but when I run a game I have the PCs all roll their initiative individually and the enemies are separated into groups.

So say we have 4 pcs fighting 2 Orcs and 3 Wolves, there would be an initiative roll for each pc, a group initiative for the Orcs, and a group initiative for the Wolves. Within each enemy group I try to consistent order, but sometimes I slip up I admit.

I the enemy group is small enough or if there are members of that group who have unique abilities or are just unique characters, then they will get broken out into individual initiatives. So if there were 3 Orcs, but 1 was a wizard, while 2 were generic bandits, I would split them up.

[Snails]

That's not a fair comparison. Strength-based characters get good AC to start. Dex-based characters have to work for their AC. Dexterity improving AC is not a benefit, it's a drawback, because you start with your AC in the hole, and have to work your way up.

What hole are you talking about? A Dex-based PC could easily have a higher AC than a Str-based one. Most likely they are about the same. The reason we even track armor proficiency and armor weight is because wearing armor is supposed to be a net benefit.

Regardless, I do not think you can build a sensible argument around the idea that pumping your primary stat is a cost. The default assumption is that getting your primary to 20 ASAP is normal, and the real question is whether feats or pumping a secondary stat is more useful. Very clever players may forego the bird in the hand of a higher primary for clever reasons, but clever people should not ask for a discount.

[pwykersotz]

For those who say it devalues a player's initiative, use an alternate version of side initiative.

1. Players roll initiative. Monsters roll initiative with the highest modifier in the group
2. Players who roll higher than the monsters go first
3. Monsters go
4. All players go
5. Repeat 3-4 until combat ends

It keeps the value of individual initiative, and retains all the benefits of side initiative.

[Doug Lampert]

I read "All PCs get to go" as "All PCs get to go, including the ones who already went". If it means "The rest of the PCs get to go" that solves that issue entirely. If it's meant as a one time thing (you roll initiative once, the fast guys get one extra turn as a sort of surprise and then it goes in a cycle) it also works; I'd interpreted it as meant to go with round by round initiative, where it absolutely would be going twice.

All PCs go means ALL PCs GO. But that does NOT give anyone an extra turn!

Seriously, it just doesn't.

Assume 12 is the monster's initiative and PCs win ties. PCs Al, Betty, and Cathy roll higher than 12, PCs Dave and Edgar roll lower.

Individual initiative. Al, Betty, and Cathy go; monsters go; Dave goes, Edgar goes, Al, Betty, and Cathy go; Monsters go; ext...

Group initiative as described, Al, Betty, and Cathy go; monsters go; Dave goes, Edgar goes, Al, Betty, and Cathy go; Monsters go; ext...

There is NO CHANGE in how many actions someone gets compared to team monster. NONE. If all monsters go at initiative 12 and PCs can rearrange/delay their initiative/actions then you get this exact system. Ruslan and Pwykersotz have suggested exactly the same system, except with a die roll for monster initiative rather than a flat DC (I can go into why I think flat DC is better), but there are no extra turns.

You approach, of not allowing a "second" turn to the fast PCs would mean
Al, Betty, and Cathy go; monsters go; Dave goes, Edgar goes; Monsters go AGAIN (without Al, Betty, or Cathy getting a turn). This is not good.

[Ruslan]

Ruslan and Pwykersotz have suggested exactly the same system, except with a die roll for monster initiative rather than a flat DC (I can go into why I think flat DC is better), but there are no extra turns.
I have no objection to a flat DC (10 + Monsters Initiative Bonus). Decide in advance who wins ties.

[Strill]

What hole are you talking about? A Dex-based PC could easily have a higher AC than a Str-based one. Most likely they are about the same. The reason we even track armor proficiency and armor weight is because wearing armor is supposed to be a net benefit.

Regardless, I do not think you can build a sensible argument around the idea that pumping your primary stat is a cost. The default assumption is that getting your primary to 20 ASAP is normal, and the real question is whether feats or pumping a secondary stat is more useful. Very clever players may forego the bird in the hand of a higher primary for clever reasons, but clever people should not ask for a discount.

Go look at the armors. Studded Leather maxes out at 17 AC. Half Plate maxes out at 17 AC. Full Plate maxes out at 18 AC. Dex-based characters are behind by at least one AC compared to Strength-based characters past the early levels.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Go look at the armors. Studded Leather maxes out at 17 AC. Half Plate maxes out at 17 AC. Full Plate maxes out at 18 AC. Dex-based characters are behind by at least one AC compared to Strength-based characters past the early levels.

Does the 1 AC point make a difference? No.

A player can get a +7 to +11 to hit, not including potential advantages and such. AC is really overrated in the first place, and the difference between AC17 and AC18 is insignificant.

5e also allows adding dex to damage rolls, making Dex basically superior to Str in almost all conditions.

[Strill]

Does the 1 AC point make a difference? No.

A player can get a +7 to +11 to hit, not including potential advantages and such. AC is really overrated in the first place, and the difference between AC17 and AC18 is insignificant.Of course the point of AC point makes a difference. You haven't provided a single reason why it doesn't. In fact, each additional point of AC makes the next point of AC worth more.

For example, if your opponent has a 25% chance to hit, and you increase your AC by one point, you've reduced their chance to hit from 25% -> 20%, eliminating one fifth of the damage that was getting through. That's a huge improvement.


5e also allows adding dex to damage rolls, making Dex basically superior to Str in almost all conditions.
A character who invested in STR would already add STR to damage and to-hit, and they would already have 1 more point of AC than a DEX build, and they would be able to use higher-damage two-handed weapons, as well as Athletics for the Shove and Grapple actions

[Knaight]

All PCs go means ALL PCs GO. But that does NOT give anyone an extra turn!

Again, the language was ambiguous. There's a few ways of interpreting it. Sticking to the static initiative set, we have two main ways.
Method I
1) PCs A,B,C go
2) Monsters go
3) PCs A,B,C,D,E go
4) Go to 1

Method II
1) PCs A,B,C go
2) Monsters go
3) PCs A,B,C,D,E go
4) Go to 2

Notice that in one of these there are extra turns getting handed out every cycle (round), where the other is the standard first turn advantage gained by winning initiative.


You approach, of not allowing a "second" turn to the fast PCs would mean
Al, Betty, and Cathy go; monsters go; Dave goes, Edgar goes; Monsters go AGAIN (without Al, Betty, or Cathy getting a turn). This is not good.
Two things.

One: I was fairly explicit that this was being read as going with variable initiative per turn, so no, it doesn't involve monsters going again. My method would be:
Method III
1) Roll initiative
2) Fast PCs go
3) Monsters go
4) Slow PCs go
5) Go to 1

Observe how in every cycle everyone acts once.

Two: Lets go remove that assumption, and put in a constant initiative cycle. We're back to
Method IV
1) A,B,C go
2) Monsters go
3) D, E go
4) Go to 1

Notice how yet again, everyone acts once, and how Method IV and Method II are the exact same method phrased a bit differently. The only one which gets knocked off turn order is Method I, which fits within the system you described.

I'm going to assume an honest misunderstanding of my post which lead to an interpretation as this:
Method V
1) A,B,C go
2) Monsters go
3) D, E go
4) Go to 2

Then I'll just point out that you wrote an ambiguous post, got belligerent about it not being read the way you wanted, and then misread a post no less ambiguous and got really hostile about how the method proposed was bad. Chillax.

[LeonBH]

That's not a fair comparison. Strength-based characters get good AC to start. Dex-based characters have to work for their AC. Dexterity improving AC is not a benefit, it's a drawback, because you start with your AC in the hole, and have to work your way up.

Are you arguing that Strength is a better stat than Dex? It's commonly accepted that Dex is the god stat and I'm just saying Dex, being the god stat, could use a little undervaluing. Dex-based saves, initiative, skill checks (Acrobatics and Stealth being the most used), and AC.

It's not a drawback for Wizards to have higher AC via higher dex, unless they multiclass or spend feats to wear heavy armor and dump their dex. Same deal for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bards.

Barbarians and Monks also think a high AC via Dex is great, because these classes don't usually wear heavy armor.

Rangers and Rogues are usually Dex-based, so with Dex being their primary stat, having their AC, Initiative, and saves scale up with them putting points into their primary stats, it's not a trade-off at all. The better AC relative to their early levels comes as a side benefit of them trying to get to 20 Dex.

[Strill]

Are you arguing that Strength is a better stat than Dex? It's commonly accepted that Dex is the god stat and I'm just saying Dex, being the god stat, could use a little undervaluing. Dex-based saves, initiative, skill checks (Acrobatics and Stealth being the most used), and AC.

I'm saying that for a martial character, the choice between strength and dexterity is highly situational, and that both stats are about equal in overall effectiveness.

Strength-based characters get to use stronger two-handed weapons, can support heavy armor which is stronger than dex-based armors, can shove and grapple, and in particular, can effectively use top-tier feats like Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master.

[LeonBH]

I'm saying that for a martial character, the choice between strength and dexterity is highly situational, and that both stats are about equal in overall effectiveness.

Strength-based characters get to use stronger two-handed weapons, can support heavy armor which is stronger than dex-based armors, can shove and grapple, and in particular, can effectively use top-tier feats like Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master.

I agree with you that characters can choose between Dex and Strength. On the whole, though -- for all classes -- it doesn't make it an unfair comparison. Dex is still the god stat.

[Strill]

I agree with you that characters can choose between Dex and Strength. On the whole, though -- for all classes -- it doesn't make it an unfair comparison. Dex is still the god stat.

How? Casters benefit just as much if not more from Constitution. For Martials it's a toss-up. Just because it's a stat that's useful for many characters doesn't mean it's overpowered. What matters is how it compares to other stats, and whether there are interesting and competitive choices.

For, say, Rogues, yeah it's their top stat, no question. That's mostly because Rogues are single-attribute-dependent, which is one of their advantages. For Warlocks, Wizards, Sorcerers, medium-armor-Clerics, and Druids, it's not. The casting stat is most important, followed by Constitution and Dexterity equally.

[LeonBH]

How? Casters benefit just as much if not more from Constitution. For Martials it's a toss-up. Just because it's a stat that's useful for many characters doesn't mean it's overpowered. What matters is how it compares to other stats, and whether there are interesting and competitive choices.

For, say, Rogues, yeah it's their top stat, no question. That's mostly because Rogues are single-attribute-dependent, which is one of their advantages. For Warlocks, Wizards, Sorcerers, medium-armor-Clerics, and Druids, it's not. The casting stat is most important, followed by Constitution and Dexterity equally.

I feel like this is not a useful discussion anymore. Let's leave it as, Side Initiative is a good way to track initiative.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Because of initiative, everyone benefits from DEX. Everyone also benefits from CON, though I find most can do better by stacking DEX and obliterating the enemy before they get to act.

Because DEX governs initiative, and can get to almost the same AC as without it, and DEX is a common save type, and DEX governs ranged combat and finesse weapons, and DEX gets to add its damage, it's not really a question.

Anyway, I pretty much never have people roll initiative. Units in the encounter act in the order they realized there was a fight happening.

[Malifice]

Why would you do that?

Because that way every monster is guaranteed a chance to show off its one thing and demonstrate its threat before the players murder it, and not just pop up and get murdered by an action surging nova stomping party of 5.

It's the same reason why legendary monsters have legendary resistances and legendary actions.


As I see it, the game isn't about the monsters and the mechanics of their combat abilities.

Of course it is, thats whh we have challenge ratings and encounter difficulties.

[Strill]

Because of initiative, everyone benefits from DEX. Everyone also benefits from CON, though I find most can do better by stacking DEX and obliterating the enemy before they get to act.

Because DEX governs initiative, and can get to almost the same AC as without it, and DEX is a common save type, and DEX governs ranged combat and finesse weapons, and DEX gets to add its damage, it's not really a question.

Anyway, I pretty much never have people roll initiative. Units in the encounter act in the order they realized there was a fight happening.

As has been said several times, you can use Side initiative, while still allowing players to benefit from their initiative bonuses. Just have the players roll initiative as normal, and have the monsters roll initiative as a group, using their average initiative mod, or whatever initiative mod the DM thinks makes sense. If you're worried about the monsters rolling high and killing party members before they get a turn, then you can just roll three times for the monsters, and take the middle roll.


Because that way every monster is guaranteed a chance to show off its one thing and demonstrate its threat before the players murder it, and not just pop up and get murdered by an action surging nova stomping party of 5.

It's the same reason why legendary monsters have legendary resistances and legendary actions.



Of course it is, thats whh we have challenge ratings and encounter difficulties.

If your party is so free to use their action surges, then you probably aren't giving them enough fights per day.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Because that way every monster is guaranteed a chance to show off its one thing and demonstrate its threat before the players murder it, and not just pop up and get murdered by an action surging nova stomping party of 5.

It's the same reason why legendary monsters have legendary resistances and legendary actions.

Of course it is, thats whh we have challenge ratings and encounter difficulties.

I guess if that's the air of the campaign you want to run, I guess that makes sense. But demonstrating the power of the pikes enemy soldiers 1 through 30 are carrying seems unnecessary, though. Especially if the enemy squad isn't particularly aware of the party.


As has been said several times, you can use Side initiative, while still allowing players to benefit from their initiative bonuses. Just have the players roll initiative as normal, and have the monsters roll initiative as a group, using their average initiative mod, or whatever initiative mod the DM thinks makes sense. If you're worried about the monsters rolling high and killing party members before they get a turn, then you can just roll three times for the monsters, and take the middle roll.

If your party is so free to use their action surges, then you probably aren't giving them enough fights per day.

I don't feel its necessary to use initiative rolls at all in most cases. We largely naturally flow into combat, and the action sequence resolves itself in the order in which units became aware of and actively engaged in the fight.

And as far as fights per day goes, and expending party resources, the party should generally decide how many fights per day they plan to engage in. And beating down some unruly dockworkers protesting the party's poor treatment of them probably shouldn't be of the same difficulty as storming an old dwarven fortress being used by technologically advanced invaders from an extraplanar empire as an invasion base, even though both would probably consume most of the day's time for activities.

[Malifice]

I guess if that's the air of the campaign you want to run, I guess that makes sense. But demonstrating the power of the pikes enemy soldiers 1 through 30 are carrying seems unnecessary, though. Especially if the enemy squad isn't particularly aware of the party.



I don't feel its necessary to use initiative rolls at all in most cases. We largely naturally flow into combat, and the action sequence resolves itself in the order in which units became aware of and actively engaged in the fight.

And as far as fights per day goes, and expending party resources, the party should generally decide how many fights per day they plan to engage in. And beating down some unruly dockworkers protesting the party's poor treatment of them probably shouldn't be of the same difficulty as storming an old dwarven fortress being used by technologically advanced invaders from an extraplanar empire as an invasion base, even though both would probably consume most of the day's time for activities.

If I had enemy pike men their first action would be to advance and ready an action to attack in ranks of anyone advances.

Monsters winning initiative isn't an excuse to murder the players - it's just to showcase to the players the particular monster.

It also places a premium on defensive abilities like deflect arrows, defensive duelist, counter spell, cutting words, parry and riposte etc

[LeonBH]

Hmm, you don't really need the monsters to win initiative if you just wanted to showcase them to the players (though that is one way of doing it). Another way is to show them the monsters' powers outside of combat, before initiative starts.

I guess without a common context, it's hard to assert. I'm specifically picturing sending a dragon into town and letting the party witness it breathe fire over the many houses that the party do not occupy currently. And then they roll initiative.

[RSP]

All PCs go means ALL PCs GO. But that does NOT give anyone an extra turn!

Seriously, it just doesn't.

Assume 12 is the monster's initiative and PCs win ties. PCs Al, Betty, and Cathy roll higher than 12, PCs Dave and Edgar roll lower.

Individual initiative. Al, Betty, and Cathy go; monsters go; Dave goes, Edgar goes, Al, Betty, and Cathy go; Monsters go; ext...

Group initiative as described, Al, Betty, and Cathy go; monsters go; Dave goes, Edgar goes, Al, Betty, and Cathy go; Monsters go; ext...

There is NO CHANGE in how many actions someone gets compared to team monster. NONE. If all monsters go at initiative 12 and PCs can rearrange/delay their initiative/actions then you get this exact system. Ruslan and Pwykersotz have suggested exactly the same system, except with a die roll for monster initiative rather than a flat DC (I can go into why I think flat DC is better), but there are no extra turns.

You approach, of not allowing a "second" turn to the fast PCs would mean
Al, Betty, and Cathy go; monsters go; Dave goes, Edgar goes; Monsters go AGAIN (without Al, Betty, or Cathy getting a turn). This is not good.

I believe the difference is Knaight was keeping the Turns still organized by Rounds. This system could have Al or Betty get 2 Turns before Edgar gets a Turn, which makes the game less fun for Edgar.

[Sirdar]

Again, the language was ambiguous. There's a few ways of interpreting it. Sticking to the static initiative set, we have two main ways.
Method I
1) PCs A,B,C go
2) Monsters go
3) PCs A,B,C,D,E go
4) Go to 1

Method II
1) PCs A,B,C go
2) Monsters go
3) PCs A,B,C,D,E go
4) Go to 2

Notice that in one of these there are extra turns getting handed out every cycle (round), where the other is the standard first turn advantage gained by winning initiative.


Two things.

One: I was fairly explicit that this was being read as going with variable initiative per turn, so no, it doesn't involve monsters going again. My method would be:
Method III
1) Roll initiative
2) Fast PCs go
3) Monsters go
4) Slow PCs go
5) Go to 1

Observe how in every cycle everyone acts once.

Two: Lets go remove that assumption, and put in a constant initiative cycle. We're back to
Method IV
1) A,B,C go
2) Monsters go
3) D, E go
4) Go to 1

Notice how yet again, everyone acts once, and how Method IV and Method II are the exact same method phrased a bit differently. The only one which gets knocked off turn order is Method I, which fits within the system you described.

I'm going to assume an honest misunderstanding of my post which lead to an interpretation as this:
Method V
1) A,B,C go
2) Monsters go
3) D, E go
4) Go to 2

Then I'll just point out that you wrote an ambiguous post, got belligerent about it not being read the way you wanted, and then misread a post no less ambiguous and got really hostile about how the method proposed was bad. Chillax.



How about a method that groups all players and monsters into either Fast or Slow?


All players roll for initiative. The best half (rounded down) is in the Fast group. The rest is in the Slow group. So if the initiative is A=15, B=13, C=10, D=9 and E=7 then A and B form the Fast group with an initiative of 13-15 and C, D and E form the Slow group with an initiative of 7-10.
the DM has (in advance) grouped all monsters into a Fast group or Slow group in a way that is fitting. The two groups should be fairly equal in power. The Rogue-boss and her 2 goons are in the Fast group and the Necromancer and his 4 skeletons are in the Slow group. The DM has also decided on a common initative bonus for all monsters in this encounter and just needs to roll one D20 in order to get an initiative for the monsters. Seing the players initiative, the DM decides that the monsters go first if they have an initiative of 13 or higher. Why? It just feels right at the moment.

The outcome is either:

PCs won

Fast PC:s
Fast Monsters
Slow PC:s
Slow Monsters
New round, go to 1

OR

Monsters won

Fast Monsters
Fast PC:s
Slow Monsters
Slow PC:s
New round, go to 1

I think this could work quite well for groups with 4-6 players. The PCs will not always end up in the same group (which is good), but the ones with good initiative will often be in the Fast group (which they should). The Slow group can plan their actions together while the Fast groups act (as long as they still pay attention to whats happening) and vice versa. The 'action stomping nova party' that Malifice warned about can still be a problem if there is a large group of players, but for 4-6 there will at least not be more than 3 players doing a coordinated attack when the fight begins.

[LeonBH]

I feel like this is adding mechanics unnecessarily to Initiative. What it used to be was just keeping a list of numbers and names. Now you have to categorize and divide.

[Sirdar]

I feel like this is adding mechanics unnecessarily to Initiative. What it used to be was just keeping a list of numbers and names. Now you have to categorize and divide.

Perhaps you're right, I don't know until I've tried it. I hope it would help the players to stay focused even when it isn't their turn. Since the DM can say things like: The Necromancer cast some kind of spell on you Alfred while two skeletons storms against Cecilia, one goes for Dave and the last one thrust his spear at Edgar, since they move as a group. That should get the attacked players on their toes and start thinking of possible Reactions. The DM can then resolve the actions in any order she likes.

[Knaight]

I feel like this is adding mechanics unnecessarily to Initiative. What it used to be was just keeping a list of numbers and names. Now you have to categorize and divide.

All of these methods are simpler - you have 3 categories instead of one per combatant, and just two with standard side initiative. The problem is that one sentence descriptions of the system thrown out as an afterthought on a forum turned out not to be well written.

[LordCdrMilitant]

If I had enemy pike men their first action would be to advance and ready an action to attack in ranks of anyone advances.

Monsters winning initiative isn't an excuse to murder the players - it's just to showcase to the players the particular monster.

It also places a premium on defensive abilities like deflect arrows, defensive duelist, counter spell, cutting words, parry and riposte etc

I don't think that monsters winning initiative is going to cause bad things to happen to the players; as the GM it's our prerogative to ensure that doesn't happen. I just don't really have the desire to "showcase the monster". Monster-of-the-week kind of games, and games centered around unique monsters and bosses with attack patterns and special abilities, tend to feel like a video game or a incoherent dungeoncrawl killfest.

The players will figure out what enemy soldier A's equipment did after they killed him anyway, when they loot it from his corpse, and if they don't, then they'll figure it out when enemy soldier B and C with the same loadout come along. And by the time the final battle comes along, they'll have a pretty good idea of the enemy force and its preferred tactics.

It's really a preference sort of thing, in this case.

[Doug Lampert]

One: I was fairly explicit that this was being read as going with variable initiative per turn, so no, it doesn't involve monsters going again. My method would be:
Method III
1) Roll initiative
2) Fast PCs go
3) Monsters go
4) Slow PCs go
5) Go to 1


That's not side initiative at all, because the PCs are not going together as a side. So, yes, if you completely ignore the point of a thread you can introduce ambiguity where there is none.

My original post is:

Swinginess and bonuses to initiative both have the same fix.

Tell the party to roll initiative, and then ONLY those PCs rolling a 12 or higher get a turn. Then all opponents go. Then all PCs go.

It's no longer, "everyone on one side goes and dogpiles the other side", instead it's "our fast guys get an edge."

There is no ambiguity unless you go out of your way to add it. All PCs go means all PCs go. Then the monsters go again.

[MeeposFire]

That's not side initiative at all, because the PCs are not going together as a side. So, yes, if you completely ignore the point of a thread you can introduce ambiguity where there is none.

My original post is:


There is no ambiguity unless you go out of your way to add it. All PCs go means all PCs go. Then the monsters go again.

Wait are you seriously wanting a system where a PC that rolls well gets two turns but one that rolls poorly gets only one and the enemy only ever gets one? I thought I understood what you were going for but now I either must be completely misunderstand your intent or this idea is just terrible.

Giving fast characters two turns compared to slower ones puts way too much emphasis on initiative and unlike in the current game this would be big enough of a bonus that building to increase your initiative checks would be one of the best ideas you could do.

[Ruslan]

Once again, group initiative was most recently proposed to work thus:

1. PCs roll individually
2. Monsters roll as a group (or just take 10+Dex)
3. Only PCs who beat the monsters' initiative take a turn.
4. Monsters take a turn
5. All PCs take a turn
6. Go back to (4)

[GPS]

That's not side initiative at all, because the PCs are not going together as a side. So, yes, if you completely ignore the point of a thread you can introduce ambiguity where there is none.

My original post is:


There is no ambiguity unless you go out of your way to add it. All PCs go means all PCs go. Then the monsters go again.

Alright, so PC's who win initiative go, all monsters go, all PC's go. That's 1 for some PC's + 1 for all = 2 for some PC's and 1 for the rest. 1+1=2, that's indisputable. All PC's get at least a turn, but some get 2 turns. That's simple math, can't really explain simple math away.

[gfishfunk]

My suggestion?

Monster go first, always.

PCs that have specialty initiative abilities have a specialty round 1 side turn. That rogue and that ranger have a turn on round 1, enemies go, then the PC side (including rogue and ranger). I don't think that will end up being too strong, and it only works for the first round of combat.

[GPS]

My suggestion?

Monster go first, always.

PCs that have specialty initiative abilities have a specialty round 1 side turn. That rogue and that ranger have a turn on round 1, enemies go, then the PC side (including rogue and ranger). I don't think that will end up being too strong, and it only works for the first round of combat.

That's kind of like the proposed system, but taking out the DC and just assuming it is met by the high dex guys.

[Thrudd]

Side initiative is by far my preferred method. For all the reasons the OP pointed out, it is great. That sometimes one party gets to go twice in a row is a perk, not a bug - it makes combat more chaotic and dangerous - and as was pointed out, 5e characters are very resilient with many healing options and dying rules quite lenient, I don't anticipate a lot of TPK (especially if the monsters are run responsibly/realistically and not like you are playing a board game vs the players). It means sometimes the party will be able to go twice in a row, and that makes retreating more possible.

Along with side initiative, morale rules should really be in effect - enemies should sometimes withdraw, flee, or surrender when they are being beaten.

I suggest simply ignoring initiative bonuses completely, Dex bonus doesn't need to provide any more benefits than it already does. Wearing armor should always be superior to not wearing armor in terms of combat, barring magical effects.

If you really want dex bonus to have some turn-order effect, let it apply to surprise situations.
When enemies approach the party, check the party's highest passive perception vs the DC to detect the enemy, and vice versa (will be determined by exploration movement rate, light source, natural stealthiness, and other situation specific factors).
If the party is surprised, allow each character a dex saving throw, DC 20.

Any who pass their saving throw are able to roll initiative (as a group), against the enemy and take a turn as normal.

If it so happens that both parties were surprised, then any PC's who pass the dex saving throw will get a surprise round against the enemy - yay assassins.

Following the surprise round, group initiative is rolled and combat proceeds as normal.

[gfishfunk]

That's kind of like the proposed system, but taking out the DC and just assuming it is met by the high dex guys.

I wouldn't give it to the high dex guys. I would give it to the class feature guys / feat guys.

Surprise rounds would still be surprising.

[LordVonDerp]

Alright, so PC's who win initiative go, all monsters go, all PC's go. That's 1 for some PC's + 1 for all = 2 for some PC's and 1 for the rest. 1+1=2, that's indisputable. All PC's get at least a turn, but some get 2 turns. That's simple math, can't really explain simple math away.

Read his post again, it's really clear.
-fast PC's go
-Monsters go
- slow PC's go
-Fast PC's go
-Monsters go
-Slow PC's go
- repeat.

[Ruslan]

Read his post again, it's really clear.
-fast PC's go
-Monsters go
- slow PC's go
-Fast PC's go
<etc...>

The last 2 parts are the same as "all PCs go" (in any order they choose, that's why it's call 'Side initiative' and not 'individual initiative')

[gfishfunk]

Alright, so PC's who win initiative go, all monsters go, all PC's go. That's 1 for some PC's + 1 for all = 2 for some PC's and 1 for the rest. 1+1=2, that's indisputable. All PC's get at least a turn, but some get 2 turns. That's simple math, can't really explain simple math away.

Thats fine for round 1.

Think:
1. Fast PCS
2. Enemies
3. PCs
4. Enemies
5. etc.

Don't think of it in terms of rounds anymore. A round is (from any given creature's perspective) the time between the beginning of that creature's initiative slot and the beginning of that creature's next initiative slot.

[LordVonDerp]

The last 2 parts are the same as "all PCs go" (in any order they choose, that's why it's call 'Side initiative' and not 'individual initiative')

Exactly. The guy I was responding to claimed the faster PCs got extra turns.