Greyhawk initiative.

[sammyp03]

So I'm a huge fan of making combat more dynamic and unpredictable. I think the standard initiative is to easy to meta game around and a changing order and players planning a little of what theyre going to do would bring about some new and fun challenges.

Has anyone tried this and if so, how was it?

I think a good work around for some of the problems that people say about this is

1. start with regular initiative for the 1st round
2. Based on what you did the previous round, will affect your next initiative. So if I moved, action, bonus, ill be slower than if someone just used an action.

That way you won't be locked into an action, but your choices still matter in determining where you are in the next round, and there is still the unpredictability of merals system.

[Protato]

So I'm a huge fan of making combat more dynamic and unpredictable. I think the standard initiative is to easy to meta game around and a changing order and players planning a little of what theyre going to do would bring about some new and fun challenges.

Has anyone tried this and if so, how was it?

I think a good work around for some of the problems that people say about this is

1. start with regular initiative for the 1st round
2. Based on what you did the previous round, will affect your next initiative. So if I moved, action, bonus, ill be slower than if someone just used an action.

That way you won't be locked into an action, but your choices still matter in determining where you are in the next round, and there is still the unpredictability of merals system.

I think that might make combat go slower. Then again, one turn lasts several minutes at my tables.

[sammyp03]

I think that might make combat go slower. Then again, one turn lasts several minutes at my tables.

I think how it's faster for tables is that rather than aboit a minute or more per player to decide what they're going to do, they take about a minute to decide their actions tigether at the beginning.

[Deleted]

So I'm a huge fan of making combat more dynamic and unpredictable. I think the standard initiative is to easy to meta game around and a changing order and players planning a little of what theyre going to do would bring about some new and fun challenges.

Has anyone tried this and if so, how was it?

I think a good work around for some of the problems that people say about this is

1. start with regular initiative for the 1st round
2. Based on what you did the previous round, will affect your next initiative. So if I moved, action, bonus, ill be slower than if someone just used an action.

That way you won't be locked into an action, but your choices still matter in determining where you are in the next round, and there is still the unpredictability of merals system.

The only way this is going to make combat more dynamic is if you write a program to determine initiative based on what people do... Because this is going to slow things waaaaay down.

[Hrugner]

This sounds like complexity for its own sake. What are the DM and players getting out of this system? I understand that the current system is simple enough that it can survive additional weird rules, but shouldn't they make play more interesting rather than create book keeping exercises?

[Kane0]

I wonder if there is a way to remove initiative in some way. Like when combat begins everyone declares their actions and everything is resolved via some sort of heirarchy, only rolling if two things are equal and you need to determine which one happens first.
But I don't think the 5e structure really supports that.

[Corsair14]

First, why the title Greyhawk Initiative? From the title I thought this was a movement to get Greyhawk campaign setting realized in 5th and I was excited.

Second, if you want more differentials in combat, go look up Weapon speeds from 2nd edition and apply them. I would make first initiative rolled and then add weapon speeds the rounds after. Spears are really fast the first hit but take time after to draw back and maneuver for another thrust, as opposed to a sword which has to close with the spear wielder but will likely strike faster once/if he gets past the first thrust.

[Rogerdodger557]

First, why the title Greyhawk Initiative? From the title I thought this was a movement to get Greyhawk campaign setting realized in 5th and I was excited.



This (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAGreyhawkInitiative.pdf) is why.

[Corsair14]

Cant access that site from where I am, whats the nutshell explanation?

[Deleted]

First, why the title Greyhawk Initiative? From the title I thought this was a movement to get Greyhawk campaign setting realized in 5th and I was excited.

Well, let's get it done

[Contrast]

Cant access that site from where I am, whats the nutshell explanation?

UA for an alternative initiative system entitled 'Greyhawk Initiative'.

[Laserlight]

I wonder if there is a way to remove initiative in some way. Like when combat begins everyone declares their actions and everything is resolved via some sort of heirarchy, only rolling if two things are equal and you need to determine which one happens first.
But I don't think the 5e structure really supports that.

As I recall, One Roll Engine has everyone declare actions first, roll to resolve the action, and that roll also tells you the initiative order. You could do the same thing in D&D, I suppose. Declare your action, roll your D20 (several of them if you're multi attacking) and your "to hit" is also your initiative. Add movement and bonus actions when you get to your initiative.

[Danielqueue1]

I am not a fan of this system due to the fact that it punishes character classes with higher action economy. just recently I played in a game where a clever character rearranged the battlefield made attacks against multiple targets, grappled a creature, dragged said creature to within melee range of another and cast a spell all in the same round. (haste and multiclass was involved.)

in Greyhawk initiative this character would be all but guaranteed to go last in initiative despite in normal rules he has one of the better initiative modifiers in the party.

in the proposed arrangement he would quickly find him self at the bottom of the listings. rogues who use their bonus actions all the time would find themselves always lagging behind.

some advantages of the current system is that it prevents double-stacking turns. delaying turns has the affect of giving players who have high initiative complete control over the turn order while in 5th edition there are no delayed turns. only readied actions. if you switched to rolling initiative every round, you could very well have the bad guy taking two turns in a row.

I've kind of been rambling, but in the end, I preffer the normal 5e initiative to others that have been proposed.
types that include delaying turns allow for complete meta-gaming control of the action.
types that re-roll every time can give people double turns or really mess with spell durations (consider booming blade just not happening at all because your turn came up before your target's)
types that change your initiative based on actions taken punish classes with high action economy.

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying know the risks and talk with your players about it.

[MeeposFire]

I wonder if there is a way to remove initiative in some way. Like when combat begins everyone declares their actions and everything is resolved via some sort of heirarchy, only rolling if two things are equal and you need to determine which one happens first.
But I don't think the 5e structure really supports that.

You could either use a variation of Rulescycopedia D&D which had certain actions come in the initiative order and I believe included side initiative or use a variation of 2e AD&D initiative which is similar to Greyhawk initiative in some of if its variations but is not quite so complicated.

[Eric Diaz]

Most of the ideas of "dynamic" initiative I tried in my table ended up being to fiddly - and that is INCLUDING rolling a d20 for each character. So nowadays I just use side initiative.

But, if you want to try something different, here are some ideas:

You NEVER want one to lose his/her action IMO, or to spend a long time doing nothing; it might be better to give PCs that take "fast" turns a chance to act TWICE.

How would that work in 5e?

Off the top of my head...

Assuming you want to "start with regular initiative for the 1st round", I guess you could assign a value for movement, actions, bonus actions and reactions (For the sake of example, say 6, 6, 3, 3). After taking some or all of your actions, you can roll a die; if the result is equal or greater than the sum of your actions, you can take one more action, provided the sum is under .

For example, say you moved and took one action, no bonus actions, and don't want to waste your reaction (6+6+3). If you roll 15 or more in the d20, you can take another bonus action. Or maybe you REALLY need to TRY and get one extra attack, so you give up your reaction and try to get a 13 or 14...

Or maybe turn this around? Roll initiative normally, subtract each "action" from the dice, until you run out of numbers... In any case, everyone should be able to take all expect actions in a round IMO.

I dunno, probably more trouble than its worth.

BTW, be VERY careful to make this independent from Dexterity. It is the most powerful ability as it is, and this would make things worse.

One system that might also work is using CARDS. Works well in SW. Maybe a suit for each of action, reaction, bonus, and movement; play around with kings, etc, and jokers let you change things around.

Some random ideas here:

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/02/brainstorming-initiative.html
http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/03/brainstorm-in-jar-card-initiative.html

[Erit]

This sounds like complexity for its own sake. What are the DM and players getting out of this system? I understand that the current system is simple enough that it can survive additional weird rules, but shouldn't they make play more interesting rather than create book keeping exercises?

Some people can't stand seeing things that aren't broken, so they fix them until there's a problem to solve.

[Kane0]

"You're not done when there's nothing more to add. You're done when there's nothing more to take away."

Something I heard in relation to engineering once, has always been a good guideline for me.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've played with complicated initiative systems, and complicated combat systems.
I find 5e's initiative and action packaged together to be refreshing and simple to use.

The system you are suggesting, dear OP, isn't either.

With large groups of enemies, clumping them into groups of 3 to 5, for the sake of initiative, with bosses and leaders chosen individually, works well enough.

[MeeposFire]

I've played with complicated initiative systems, and complicated combat systems.
I find 5e's initiative and action packaged together to be refreshing and simple to use.

The system you are suggesting, dear OP, isn't either.

With large groups of enemies, clumping them into groups of 3 to 5, for the sake of initiative, with bosses and leaders chosen individually, works well enough.

I have no problem using the normal initiative in 5e but how is it refreshing? It is essentially the same initiative that has been in use for something like 18 years (as in roll d20 add mods higher numbers go first).

[EvilAnagram]

Greyhawk initiative will turn out one of two ways:

1 - Everyone at your table is experienced, understands complex rules, and plans what they're doing well ahead of their turn.

2 - It ****ing sucks.

If you think the former might be the case for your table, I encourage you to pursue this path.