[Houserule] "Hidden" Initiative Method

[Necrosnoop110]

Ok, what do you think of the following initiative method:

1) DM runs an excel spreadsheet with all characters and NPCs listed. Set up a column for a random d20 roll [=RANDBETWEEN(1, 20)] and a second column for each (N)PC's bonuses to initiative, add them up, and then sort largest to smallest.

2) Do not tell PCs who is in what order in advance, keep the results hidden behind the DMs screen. Inform them as each (N)PC's turn comes up. And have that character take its action then.

3) Each round re-calculate initiative (Excel F9) using the method in step one.

Thoughts? Suggestions?


My Thoughts: I like this idea for several reasons but have not implemented in-game as of yet. I would run this by my PCs before hand but they trust me and give me a wide latitude on trying out new ideas. One thing this would avoid is the slow-down of "going round the table" one-by-one asking and marking everyone's initiative. We often re-roll initiative each round already, depending on who is running the game. It also would force a little more attention to the combat as everyone will have to be ready for when their turn comes up without much advance notice. Finally, it appears like it would speed up things.

[MaxWilson]

You might as well just go all the way and have everybody declare their actions up front, then resolve everything pretty much simultaneously, rolling initiative only where the DM judges that things could go either way. E.g. rolling 30' and then stabbing someone might be obviously faster than merely closing a door, but shooting an arrow at the guy closing the door might have an initiative roll to see if the arrow gets him before the door closes.

[Necrosnoop110]

You might as well just go all the way and have everybody declare their actions up front, then resolve everything pretty much simultaneously, rolling initiative only where the DM judges that things could go either way. E.g. rolling 30' and then stabbing someone might be obviously faster than merely closing a door, but shooting an arrow at the guy closing the door might have an initiative roll to see if the arrow gets him before the door closes.
Thanks for the response. I don't comprehend how that would work. Since killing a creature happens at a discreet point in time, as well as the start/end of effects, wouldn't we need an order to define who did what first? How would you know when effects start and end before someone took an action that the effect could possibly impact?

I'm not looking to eliminate initiative order just to have it be more dramatic and "thrown" at the PCs. Plus the speed of fully automating everything.

[nickl_2000]

I actually think this would end up slowing down combat in the end. When I am in a fight I know that I am after someone, so I know the layout of the battlefield in the turn before mine (or sooner depending on what I want to do). Therefore, I can make a solid plan on the spell I'm going to cast or what I am going to do.

However, if I didn't know the initiative order I would have to be solely reactive when my turn comes up, which would slow things down (especially for Sorcerers, Wizards, Bards, and Druids).


Don't get me wrong, if my DM wanted to try it I would, but if you are in the throwing out of ideas phase this is a problem that I see from a player side.

[da newt]

It would increase the randomness, decrease metagaming, and maybe even increase realism, but the downside is no one knows when they are up next, so it's harder to plan or figure out what you will do when called upon to act.


Overall I think it would slow down play, but the added chaos might be fun.

[MaxWilson]

Thanks for the response. I don't comprehend how that would work. Since killing a creature happens at a discreet point in time, as well as the start/end of effects, wouldn't we need an order to define who did what first? How would you know when effects start and end before someone took an action that the effect could possibly impact?

An order needs to have enough detail that the DM can resolve it. It doesn't necessarily need to be "I attack orc #1", it can just be "I attack the orcs," so it could be that all of the PCs just count up how much damage they did against orcs and the DM tells them how many orcs are now dead, and how much damage the orcs did in return.

In the rare case where initiative actually matters ("I shoot the orc before it can drop the portcullis"), yes, you could 'lose' a turn, but if that bothers you as DM, you could let players (and monsters) redirect their action in that case ("the orc is gone, do you want to shoot the giant instead?") and in any case it's fairly rare. It is more common to be able to just tell the player before they declare, "No, you don't have enough time to Dash 60' and then Quickened Booming Blade the orc before it can drop the portcullis--it's standing right next to the lever. Do something else."

Anyway, my feedback for the "hidden initiative" plan is that it sounds likely to frustrate players by adding complexity, but you're halfway towards the type of everybody-declares-then-everybody-acts plan which seems IME to be very satisfying to players because it doesn't force them to sit around doing nothing for 75%-80% of every fight waiting for their "turn" to be allowed to talk to the DM. Instead, players get to work together to defeat the monsters, and they tend to like that.

[Keravath]

There are also some cases where it is a strict nerf and possibly very detrimental to a character.

1) There are a number of spells and effects (e.g. monk stun) that last until the end of your next turn. Usually these guarantee you and your entire party the option to take advantage of the status effect. However, if initiative order changes every round you could go last one round and first the next and the effect only benefits you. Of course, you could also go first one round and last in the next which would then give your entire party two full turns of attacks with the status effect in place. In general, this will mean that when a character has a high initiative it is worth using these effects while if they have a low initiative it generally isn't.

2) Death saves. Usually, if your party is going to get you back up they do it at their first opportunity. However, if you go down at the end of one round and are at the top of the order the next round then you would have to roll two death saves in a row without anyone being able to have an action to save you. So, the revised initiative method is more likely to cause additional character deaths even if the odds are pretty low (i.e. two failed saves ... one of which is a 1).

3) Spell effects. Monsters and players could end up getting two saves in a row or else facing two full rounds of attacks before they can save again.


Anyway, it sounds chaotic and could be fun, it will definitely slow down play since players won't have the time to decide in advance what their action for their turn will be. However, it will have an impact on several combat elements that involve timing.

[Necrosnoop110]

There are also some cases where it is a strict nerf and possibly very detrimental to a character.

1) There are a number of spells and effects (e.g. monk stun) that last until the end of your next turn. Usually these guarantee you and your entire party the option to take advantage of the status effect. However, if initiative order changes every round you could go last one round and first the next and the effect only benefits you. Of course, you could also go first one round and last in the next which would then give your entire party two full turns of attacks with the status effect in place. In general, this will mean that when a character has a high initiative it is worth using these effects while if they have a low initiative it generally isn't.

2) Death saves. Usually, if your party is going to get you back up they do it at their first opportunity. However, if you go down at the end of one round and are at the top of the order the next round then you would have to roll two death saves in a row without anyone being able to have an action to save you. So, the revised initiative method is more likely to cause additional character deaths even if the odds are pretty low (i.e. two failed saves ... one of which is a 1).

3) Spell effects. Monsters and players could end up getting two saves in a row or else facing two full rounds of attacks before they can save again.


Anyway, it sounds chaotic and could be fun, it will definitely slow down play since players won't have the time to decide in advance what their action for their turn will be. However, it will have an impact on several combat elements that involve timing.
Excellent feedback thanks. What if I added something like an "end phase" where all spell effects that end in that round from the rounds before finish in the "end phase" instead of on character initiative and death saves happened there as well, all before the next round started?

[Avonar]

Excellent feedback thanks. What if I added something like an "end phase" where all spell effects that end in that round from the rounds before finish in the "end phase" instead of on character initiative and death saves happened there as well, all before the next round started?

You run into a similar problem, where if a character is going last in the round then there is no point in them using "until your next turn" abilities since they would just run out immediately. I can see where you're coming from, but I think that taking away some of the tactical aspect of being able to plan based on when your turn comes will prove unpopular, and as people have mentioned it will slow things down as everyone has to decide their entire turn when it comes up rather than thinking in advance.

Also, the concept of certain enemies going twice in a row is terrifying. Let's take a dragon for example. A dragon is last in the order and uses a breath weapon, almost certainly does good damage. Next round the dragon is first, recharges and does the breath weapon again before the players have a chance to do anything. Most likely, they die and have no way to avoid it.

[sithlordnergal]

This is an interesting idea, but it has a few issues:

1) It gives the DM another thing to worry about in combat. As a DM you're usually juggling quite a lot already in combat, between monsters, minions, spell effects, abilities, HP, ect.. This is yet another thing to juggle. Its probably fine for small encounters, but if you get into large encounters, such as your party alerting an ENTIRE pirate hideout and decide to fight the 20+ pirates all at once...well, you can see where this system breaks down.


2) It makes it a lot more difficult to strategize in combat. Even if I don't know the exact rolls of whatever I'm fighting, I can figure out that the Paladin goes before Goblin B, Monk goes before Goblin C, and I go after Goblin C. Meaning if I cast Hold Person on Goblin C and it fails, everyone gets a free crit on Goblin C before Goblin C gets to make a save at the end of their next turn. I can also better utilize healing by knowing where a character falls on the turn order. If the Paladin goes down, but the big bad demon we're fighting goes right before the Paladin, I know there's little reason for me to heal the Paladin immediately. They'll just be K.O.'d again by the demon. So instead I can hold my action to cast a healing spell once the Demon is finished with their turn. All of that goes away once you make it so the initiative changes every round and the player's don't know when anything goes.


3) This is similar to point two, but it bears repeating, this would massively change how spells and certain abilities work. Specifically, anything that allows a save at the start or end of a turn gets a major debuff, while anything that lets you use your action/bonus action to deal damage gets a major buff. Tasha's Hideous Laughter and Spiritual Weapon are good examples here. If you hit an enemy with Tasha's Hideous Laughter, they could potentially get three chances in a row to save against the spell before you or your allies can really capitalize on the spell.

Meanwhile Flaming Sphere becomes pretty incredible. If an enemy ends their turn next to it, they could be hit by that damage three times in a row before their next turn if you go after them, then go before them on the next initiative roll. That's 6d6 unavoidable Fire damage right there, provided you get lucky with your rolls. The same holds true for spells like Call Lightning or Spiritual Weapon.

[Necrosnoop110]

You run into a similar problem, where if a character is going last in the round then there is no point in them using "until your next turn" abilities since they would just run out immediately.
My phrasing was poor in my last post but what I intended to say was that an effect that says "until your next turn" last until the end phase of the subsequent round of combat not the at the end phase of the current round, something like:

1st round of combat
Last guy in round takes action A
End Phase: Nothing

2nd round of combat
Last guy in round takes action B
End Phase: Last guy from 1st round of combats action A ends

3rd round of combat
Last guy in round takes action C
End Phase: Last guy from 2nd round of combats action B ends

etc.

[Necrosnoop110]

Meanwhile Flaming Sphere becomes pretty incredible. If an enemy ends their turn next to it, they could be hit by that damage three times in a row before their next turn if you go after them, then go before them on the next initiative roll. That's 6d6 unavoidable Fire damage right there, provided you get lucky with your rolls.
Why unavoidable. You get saves on all damage rolls (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Flaming%20Sphere#content), no? Also, and I realize I didn't really say so at the outset but for campaign and PC desired reasons they want a more lethal game.

[Avonar]

My phrasing was poor in my last post but what I intended to say was that an effect that says "until your next turn" last until the end phase of the subsequent round of combat not the at the end phase of the current round, something like:

1st round of combat
Last guy in round takes action A
End Phase: Nothing

2nd round of combat
Last guy in round takes action B
End Phase: Last guy from 1st round of combats action A ends

3rd round of combat
Last guy in round takes action C
End Phase: Last guy from 2nd round of combats action B ends

etc.

So if a player goes first in initiative, a "until the end of your next turn" effect could apply to two of an opponent's turns instead of one?

Honestly, I think you're going to find yourself with two many headaches here. D&D was designed with fixed initiative in mind for an entire combat1, and the mechanics are built around that. Sure, you can go with changing initiatives but be ready to make a lot of on the fly calls for timing.

[RSP]

There are also some cases where it is a strict nerf and possibly very detrimental to a character.

1) There are a number of spells and effects (e.g. monk stun) that last until the end of your next turn. Usually these guarantee you and your entire party the option to take advantage of the status effect. However, if initiative order changes every round you could go last one round and first the next and the effect only benefits you. Of course, you could also go first one round and last in the next which would then give your entire party two full turns of attacks with the status effect in place. In general, this will mean that when a character has a high initiative it is worth using these effects while if they have a low initiative it generally isn't.

2) Death saves. Usually, if your party is going to get you back up they do it at their first opportunity. However, if you go down at the end of one round and are at the top of the order the next round then you would have to roll two death saves in a row without anyone being able to have an action to save you. So, the revised initiative method is more likely to cause additional character deaths even if the odds are pretty low (i.e. two failed saves ... one of which is a 1).

3) Spell effects. Monsters and players could end up getting two saves in a row or else facing two full rounds of attacks before they can save again.


Anyway, it sounds chaotic and could be fun, it will definitely slow down play since players won't have the time to decide in advance what their action for their turn will be. However, it will have an impact on several combat elements that involve timing.

Just wanted to point out that none of these are tied to the OPs idea of secret initiative, but rather deal with initiative every round (which they stated they already do).

We use initiative every round as well and, where as their are times when Shield or Stun doesn’t last as long as with standard initiative, there’s an equal number of times when it lasts longer, so it balances out.


So if a player goes first in initiative, a "until the end of your next turn" effect could apply to two of an opponent's turns instead of one?

Same as above: it balances out.

[Atranen]

Just wanted to point out that none of these are tied to the OPs idea of secret initiative, but rather deal with initiative every round (which they stated they already do).

We use initiative every round as well and, where as their are times when Shield or Stun doesn’t last as long as with standard initiative, there’s an equal number of times when it lasts longer, so it balances out.



Same as above: it balances out.

I'm not convinced it balances out quickly enough to avoid the issue. You will only have a few combats with very high stakes over the course of a campaign--boss battles and such with a high chance of player death--and for this small sample size, the variation will be the difference between life and death. If your players accept that as part of the vicissitudes of life, fine. Everything else is a roll anyway. But you are increasing randomness in a meaningful way.

More generally, this concept makes tactical planning more difficult; it's hard to generate the fun sorts of combos, or to think through the best response to a given situation when that situation is so fluid. Maybe that makes it more realistic, but I think the sorts of people who enjoy turn based tactics do so precisely because it gives them time to think through a static situation for a killer plan.

I think you would do better to do random initiative on the first turn, and keep the order for the rest of combat.

[MaxWilson]

More generally, this concept makes tactical planning more difficult

Making it more difficult (less trivial) is kind of the point. Otherwise it's too easy to exploit synergies with predictability, e.g. kiting via Mobile, or having a bunch of people ready an action for right after a hypnotized bad guys' turn so that everybody gets two full rounds' worth of attacks before he can respond. (I.e. damage ends his hypnosis, but he eats a bunch of readied actions immediately + everybody gets a turn before he finally gets to respond.)


it's hard to generate the fun sorts of combos, or to think through the best response to a given situation when that situation is so fluid. Maybe that makes it more realistic, but I think the sorts of people who enjoy turn based tactics do so precisely because it gives them time to think through a static situation for a killer plan.

Some people find that predictability makes it too easy to be fun.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I can definitely sympathize with the reasons behind this change, as our group finds the 'batting order' initiative boring and unrealistic.
We've tried a few different things, most recently allowing all characters and monsters who are able to act without moving (more than 5') to act first in a round and simultaniously. Others must roll initiative, and do not apply Dex bonus (We didn't think Dex was a valid stat for most actions, nor did Dex characters need another bonus).
During the early levels this worked well and created the kind of frantic combat we wanted. As the group went up in level, an increasing number of abilities worked against our fix; some have been mentioned in the thread, like next round abilities. After 2 sessions that included monsters with Legendary Actions we finally just went back to the default system; there just seems to be too much in the game that made our 'fix' unworkable. The only thing we kept was the delete on the Dex modifier, which we continue to like for balance and realism.

[RSP]

Making it more difficult (less trivial) is kind of the point. Otherwise it's too easy to exploit synergies with predictability, e.g. kiting via Mobile, or having a bunch of people ready an action for right after a hypnotized bad guys' turn so that everybody gets two full rounds' worth of attacks before he can respond. (I.e. damage ends his hypnosis, but he eats a bunch of readied actions immediately + everybody gets a turn before he finally gets to respond.)



Some people find that predictability makes it too easy to be fun.

This.

There’s definitely a meta-aspect to RAW initiative that I personally hate. Plus, the new order every round keeps things interesting and unknown: it’s more important to get to that downed character ASAP because you don’t know if they’ll roll their saves before you get a chance to go.

Sometimes it works out in your favor, other times, it doesn’t. But, to me at least, it’s better than being able to predict the next 3 rounds.

Also: I really like the batting order analogy someone posted.

Edit: we’re also using a VTT (Fantasy Grounds) which does the reroll every round automatically, so it’s not an onerous process of breaking combat to reroll, which helps my enjoyment of it.

[DeadMech]

No DnD is better than bad DnD. Would I refuse to play a campaign featuring this houserule. Maybe I am pretty hard up thanks to quarentine. I'd certainly prefer not to use a rule like this.

It's all the swingyness and gameplay slowdown of rerolling initiative every round.... but without the fun of picking up the shiny math rocks and rolling them myself.

If your players want a deadlier game this accomplishes that. Except how that's a good thing I do not understand. Either luck is on the players side and now every combat is a cakewalk because enemies initiative order leaves them unable to capitalize on an early turn order and punished after for a late turn order... until the luck swings the other way and some player gets killed with zero ability to predict or avoid it.

Doesn't sound like fun to me but fun is subjective.

[Rynjin]

Sounds like a great way to double all combat lengths, if that was your idea going in.

If not, probably best avoided.

[JellyPooga]

I do, on the whole, like the idea.

Automating it with a spreadsheet takes away the onerous task of asking for rolls and sorting the order, removing that aspect of additional time and bookeeping easily enough. I also like that it keeps players engaged with the combat and encourages a more reactive attitude; it's very easy to slip into "optimal planning" mode, which in itself can often extend player turns as they lose themselves in procrastination. If you take away the ability to predict when you will act on your next turn, it's that much harder to get analysis paralysis (the additional random element makes many plans too conditional and thus can more easily be discarded). The additional random element also makes combat, once engaged, less about "optimal planning" and more about "risk taking". This, for me at least, makes combat feel more like it should; you make a plan at the start and then throw it out in favour of taking risks once the battle is joined (depending on how well the plan is executed).

On the flipside, I have to agree with others that mentioned spell and ability durations; yes, it may balance out in the longer term and it certainly adds to that more random element (which is not necessarily a bad thing for magic, particularly, granted), but whichever method you use to make this work, it's going to have some oddball results every now and then. Also, for those players that aren't so good at thinking on their feet, this method adds an additional layer of pressure to perform. Personally, I would thrive under such circumstances, but I know plenty of people that would hate this based solely on the more random element.

Another thing to consider is that this houserule makes bonuses to Initiative much more significant. Alert becomes even better than it already is. Bards and Swashbucklers also gain a more significant bonus. Given the increased importance of Initiative, I might even be tempted to introduce Initiative Proficiency for some classes; my immediate thought would be thematic and give it to Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue, but it would need some consideration, particularly regarding whether this would replace something existing or not.

[Kane0]

1) DM runs an excel spreadsheet with all characters and NPCs listed. Set up a column for a random d20 roll [=RANDBETWEEN(1, 20)] and a second column for each (N)PC's bonuses to initiative, add them up, and then sort largest to smallest.

2) Do not tell PCs who is in what order in advance, keep the results hidden behind the DMs screen. Inform them as each (N)PC's turn comes up. And have that character take its action then.

3) Each round re-calculate initiative (Excel F9) using the method in step one.


Mighty interesting, I like the concept.

Long term planning would be disincentivised, and combat would probably become more frantic and messy. If youre looking for that sort of realism and improvisation this would be a good thing, but if you’re someone that likes to communicate and plan things im advance this would probably be undesirable.

[Asmotherion]

I feel it's too much work for slim results.

Even secret AC is kinda pointless, my group will usually figure the AC in about 1-2 turns.

[RSP]

Mighty interesting, I like the concept.

Long term planning would be disincentivised, and combat would probably become more frantic and messy. If youre looking for that sort of realism and improvisation this would be a good thing, but if you’re someone that likes to communicate and plan things im advance this would probably be undesirable.

What do you mean by “long term”? If you’re talking rounds, that’s no less frantic or messy with or without secret initiative: if combat begins and you’re thinking “round 3 I’ll do this,” that is completely up in the air, as everything about the situation could change, with none of it based on “secret initiative.”

[Xervous]

What do you mean by “long term”? If you’re talking rounds, that’s no less frantic or messy with or without secret initiative: if combat begins and you’re thinking “round 3 I’ll do this,” that is completely up in the air, as everything about the situation could change, with none of it based on “secret initiative.”

Goblin 7 has demonstrated intent to shut the portcullis. My turn comes up before the goblin’s, I can’t rely on an ally being able to also beat the portcullis drop. Do I go through and hope an ally also makes it, then we proceed to wipe out the mooks on that side? Or do I stay put rather than charging off to my lonely death? You can’t rely on much beyond the immediate state of the battlefield and your own capabilities.

[PhantomSoul]

In "two groups" of which I'm a participating human (same people in the group, but I DM one campaign and am a PC-player in the other), we use a modified initiative system that might be of interest... but I would recommend not even considering it unless it'll be automated after the first round (starting initiative).

On the first round, everything proceeds as normal: people roll initiative (1d20 + DEX + whatever other bonuses they might have), and the DM rolls for the monsters. (In practice, a script rolls for the DM and the DM only has to add the players.) The players know their initiative rolls for this turn, but not the monsters'.

On subsequent rounds, 1d(6+DEX_mod) is added to the previous round's initiative for everyone, which is done by script. For example, if this is the second round and a PC with 14 DEX had a starting initiative of 18, the script adds 1d8 to the 18 for round 2's initiative. The players know (a) their first turn's initiative, and (b) their relative order the previous round... but they don't know their exact initiative on the current round, and they only find out the initiative order for the current round as turns happen.

It's worked great; PCs don't know exactly when they'll go, but it isn't completely unpredictable. On top of that, it's closer to being a full initiative order from one PC's turn to their next one, so spell and effect durations aren't as likely to be wild... but there are still shifts, and you can't be sure who's going before the big bad's next turn.

As an added bonus, you start to get a feel for high dex vs. low dex. It's just a statistical trend and sometimes a low dex character will edge up the initiative order or a high dex character will fall down it, but you can plan strategies based on usually getting "faster" and "faster". You never overlap, though; you still only have one turn in a round (unless something else gives you bonus turns).

[OldTrees1]

Okay so this is initiative rerolled each round and kept secret.

Secret:
1) Try to keep this symmetrical. Don't look ahead, or only look ahead if you keep the NPCs ignorant.
2) Secret initiative makes things harder to predict. This decreases the knowledge available to plans. As a result combat is just a bit riskier to everyone involved. Symmetric risk is felt more by the side that wins, so the PCs are going to be nerfed by this more than each encounter they defeat. Still reasonable, but remember you turned the difficulty dial up a bit by doing this.
3) This will slow down turns. Good players will be making plans for their turn. Under this system they will be updating their plans each time something happens instead of them going next. Still reasonable, but remember to account for more time.

Rerolled each round:
1) This can slow down identifying initiative order. However you can, and have created a tool to recoup the majority of that time. Reasonable, but remember to account for more time. Oh, and modify your tool to calculate 6 rounds at the start, then just sort each round's column.
2) This increases variance on how much each side acts before the other side responds. One side might have to wait for the other side to go twice before they get to go again. As a result combat is just a riskier to everyone involved. Symmetric risk is felt more by the side that wins, so the PCs are going to be nerfed by this more than each encounter they defeat. Still reasonable, but remember you turned the difficulty dial up a bit by doing this.
3) Oh, and this can make balancing action economy for boss fights harder. A team with a concentrated point of power (a boss with only mooks) will be more vulnerable to the opponent going twice before they respond. More dispersed power (8 bandits) is less vulnerable. So give your bosses more lieutenants and fewer mooks. Also be comfortable with some anticlimactic boss fights where the PCs all go first in round 2.

Rounds are used as a duration metric:
1) Some effects occur on someone's turn. Some at the start, and some at the end. Death saves, Flame Sphere, Spiritual Guardians. This weakens going twice in a row.
2) Some effects last for N rounds. These are balanced around turns staying 1 rd apart. Now they can be a bit less or a bit more.

Your idea was to implement a cleanup phase. This will consistently round up duration.

If A goes before B (or A is B) in round 1, then anything A does will be cleaned up after N+1 of B's turns.
If A goes after B in round 1, then anything A does will be cleaned up after N of B's turns.

For things with many rounds of duration, +1 round is not an issue. But for things with short durations like 1 round, this can dramatically increase their duration. Imagine Shield lasting from the start of round 1 until the end of round 2. Rounding up is better than rounding down, but be careful about some buffed effects.


Overall it will
1) Slightly slow down combat (I expect less than a minute added per round)
2) Increase the difficulty, like variance always does.
3) Slightly weaken bosses, so use more lieutenants and fewer mooks.
4) Buff 1rd duration effects, so watch these for issues.
These changes seem reasonable IF expected. #4 is reasonable if expected and watched for issues.

[MoiMagnus]

Though:

The main result of such houserule is to push away your player from prepared turn toward reactive turns.
Depending on your table, this could actually significantly slow down the game instead of speeding it up, but I trust you to know your table better than I do.
[Depends on how much time peoples take to synchronise VS how much time peoples are stuck in analysis paralysis if the situation change just before their turn]

The "hidden" part is not really problematic. It might slow down the game slightly as hiding info force players to mentally keep track of more things. It makes "heroic rescues" of someone in danger (and other similar high stakes rounds) harder to plan if you don't know if the enemy will have played after or before your other ally. But for most of the fight, that's not a game changer.

The "reroll each turn" is the most problematic part balance-wise. Playing twice in a row (or twice before a specific enemy) is really a game changer (especially for spellcasters), either in good or bad depending on the situation. And I would really advise against it if you aim at tactical depth and balanced fight (because high variance create unbalance by nature). If you aim at realism and/or "fighting should be utter chaos", then sure. If your fights have a heavy RP component, that's even a great choice because you're more likely to push your player into a situation where they are forced to improvise with the environment around them.

If you aim at chaotic and high-RP fight, another good choice is as MaxWilson suggested, you alternate planing/resolution phases where all the players describe what they plan to do, then you resolving all the actions including the NPC actions, interpreting them as close as the intent of the player when the exact action is no longer possible. This even allows you to get rid of sequential turn order in favour of simultaneous turn resolution, using initiative rolls whenever the order is actually relevant.

[Damon_Tor]

I've used the following system:

1. Each round, everyone rolls initiative and writes the result on one side of a notecard. On the other side they write the actions and movement they will take. They are free to be general or specific (ie, "I move 30 feet east and 10 feet west behind a tree and attack the enemy cleric twice." Vs ("I move to the nearest cover and fire both attacks at the nearest enemy". Talking out of character for planning purposes is discouraged. Readied actions are allowed.

2. The cards are passed to the DM who puts them in initiative order and resolves the actions in that sequence. When a players card is pulled or when a readied action is triggered, the player in question makes any necessary rolls at that time.

This keeps combat pretty interesting, with a constantly changing initiative order. Early in the initiative order you've got a good chance you can rely on the battlefield being mostly as you see it at the top of the round, but the lower your result the more likely it is that creatures have moved.

I used this for a game with 8 PCs to keep combat fast, and it did that.

[Pex]

I don't like PCs not allowed to know. Even accepting it's not the intent it reeks of adversarial DMing. Adversarial DMs absolutely hate players knowing things, so the less they know the better. Stop fighting against your players.

Rerolling initiative will break the balance of the game. Many effects have their duration dependent on end of someone's turn. It makes a difference dependent on the effect whether the effect ends or at least a saving throw to end happens at the end of the target's next turn or the end of the attacker's next turn. Allowing the attacker to go twice in a row before the target can respond can mean the target gets royally screwed beyond the intent of the effect. Meanwhile a target who gets to go twice in a row before the attacker could mean the attacker never gets to benefit from the effect he imposed. Even basic combat is messed up. Imagine you attack an ogre then the ogre attacks you. Next round the ogre attacks you again before you can. You're getting pummeled with no chance to do anything about it.

This whole idea is a bad one.

[PrinceOfMadness]

I actually use a system that functions similarly to this, even if it's executed differently. Initiative is determined by my shuffling a deck of selected tarot cards. Each initiative slot is assigned to a specific card: one player gets Strength, one gets the Emperor, one enemy gets the Devil, so on and so forth. Each round, initiative gets re-shuffled. There are some other side-rules to this, but this is the gist (and credit goes to the Adventurer's Tarot Kickstarter for the original idea).

There are pros and cons to it.

First, it's a nerf to Dexterity-based characters. Whether or not this is a problem for your table is up to you (I personally like this, as I find Dexterity to be an over-prolific stat).

Second, as others have stated; it really mucks around with effects that last until end of turn, start of turn, etc. Potentially, an effect that should immobilize a monster for a full game round could end up immobilizing it for a couple of turns only. Inversely, those effects could go nearly two full rounds. Save-or-suck effects become much less reliable.

Third, and the reason I and my table prefer it - chaotic combat is more dynamic, and in my opinion, more interesting. It keeps tension high at the table - will a crucial card be drawn next, or does it sit at the bottom of the deck? When does the boss strike next?

I don't honestly notice much difference in speed of combat with this variant, but I like it. I DO encourage GMs that use this variant to make sure they're also keeping themselves in the dark as to when monsters will go so it's "fair" around the table.

[Damon_Tor]

Rerolling initiative will break the balance of the game. Many effects have their duration dependent on end of someone's turn. It makes a difference dependent on the effect whether the effect ends or at least a saving throw to end happens at the end of the target's next turn or the end of the attacker's next turn. Allowing the attacker to go twice in a row before the target can respond can mean the target gets royally screwed beyond the intent of the effect. Meanwhile a target who gets to go twice in a row before the attacker could mean the attacker never gets to benefit from the effect he imposed. Even basic combat is messed up. Imagine you attack an ogre then the ogre attacks you. Next round the ogre attacks you again before you can. You're getting pummeled with no chance to do anything about it.

Except that both of these issues are symmetrical. They benefit the PCs as often as they act to their detriment. And from running a game that uses a shifting initiative system, I can tell you doesn't happen that much.

[Rynjin]

Except that both of these issues are symmetrical. They benefit the PCs as often as they act to their detriment. And from running a game that uses a shifting initiative system, I can tell you doesn't happen that much.

Symmetrical effects are not necessarily balanced. And from also running a system that uses shifting initiative (Savage Worlds) it's a large part of the reason that system can be so deadly.

[Pex]

Except that both of these issues are symmetrical. They benefit the PCs as often as they act to their detriment. And from running a game that uses a shifting initiative system, I can tell you doesn't happen that much.

It's not symmetrical. The bad guys are supposed to lose anyway. It doesn't adversely affect the DM as it does the players. Cleric casts Hold Person on Orc Chief. Fighter pummels Orc Chief. Fighter pummels Orc Chief again. Dead Orc Chief. Orc Chief would have been dead eventually anyway. It's just one round sooner. Continue the game as normal. Orc Shaman casts Hold Person on Fighter. Orc Chief pummels Fighter. Orc Chief pummels Fighter again. Dead Fighter. Player rolls a new PC. Major difference in effect.

[OldTrees1]

@Damon_Tor and Rynjin too

It's not symmetrical. The bad guys are supposed to lose anyway. It doesn't adversely affect the DM as it does the players.

It makes combat more risky for both the PCs and the bad guys they encounter. That is symmetric. PCs are supposed to win and fight again and again. Bad guys are supposed to lose in their first fight. As such a symmetric effect that makes combat more risky ends up increasing the difficulty in the long run. If the DM knows this, they can account for it during encounter design.

[RSP]

@Damon_Tor and Rynjin too


It makes combat more risky for both the PCs and the bad guys they encounter. That is symmetric. PCs are supposed to win and fight again and again. Bad guys are supposed to lose in their first fight. As such a symmetric effect that makes combat more risky ends up increasing the difficulty in the long run. If the DM knows this, they can account for it during encounter design.

It makes combat order less reliable, however, at least at our table, which uses initiative every round, you see the higher initiative characters going early and lower initiative characters going later (as averages play out).

However, you see outliers every few rounds, which can help or hurt the PCs. For instance, perhaps an enemy moving before a PC goes, is the difference between that PC getting one attack off on that enemy by having to Ready the Attack Action, vs getting Extra Attack with the Attack Action straight up.

Once you get used to it, you stop expecting “Oh I always go after X and before A, B, C.” and plan on setting up better strategies.

[Xervous]

Once you get used to it, you stop expecting “Oh I always go after X and before A, B, C.” and plan on setting up better strategies.

Is it strategy or more conservative guessing? Removing certainty and knowledge from things like turn order shifts the game further towards gambling. Too much hidden randomization reduces player investment because they can’t reliably interact with the world, they can’t respond appropriately because there is no standard. Eerily reminiscent of the black hole that is skills.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Ok, what do you think of the following initiative method:

1) DM runs an excel spreadsheet with all characters and NPCs listed. Set up a column for a random d20 roll [=RANDBETWEEN(1, 20)] and a second column for each (N)PC's bonuses to initiative, add them up, and then sort largest to smallest.

2) Do not tell PCs who is in what order in advance, keep the results hidden behind the DMs screen. Inform them as each (N)PC's turn comes up. And have that character take its action then.

3) Each round re-calculate initiative (Excel F9) using the method in step one.

Thoughts? Suggestions?


My Thoughts: I like this idea for several reasons but have not implemented in-game as of yet. I would run this by my PCs before hand but they trust me and give me a wide latitude on trying out new ideas. One thing this would avoid is the slow-down of "going round the table" one-by-one asking and marking everyone's initiative. We often re-roll initiative each round already, depending on who is running the game. It also would force a little more attention to the combat as everyone will have to be ready for when their turn comes up without much advance notice. Finally, it appears like it would speed up things.

My 2c? This is not really an upgrade to the existing system, and adds general convolution and will slow down the table by making it harder for people to plan out what they're going to do.

For this level of additional-time-consuming, I'd sooner move to simultaneous turns and turn resolution where everybody declares their actions and all are then resolved rather than something like this.

[RSP]

Is it strategy or more conservative guessing? Removing certainty and knowledge from things like turn order shifts the game further towards gambling. Too much hidden randomization reduces player investment because they can’t reliably interact with the world, they can’t respond appropriately because there is no standard. Eerily reminiscent of the black hole that is skills.

I wouldn’t call it gambling, outside of certain, specific situations (“I’ll attempt to kill the BBEG this turn, hoping to down him; and then, so long as Phil doesn’t roll a 1 on his Death Save later this turn, I’ll hopefully go before him next turn to administer a healing kit.”); just like I wouldn’t call any RAW initiative roll gambling.

As for strategy vs conservative guessing, I’m not sure there’s an effective difference. Isn’t the implementation of any strategy based on guessing anyway?

I feel it adds to the RP: in-character, my PC doesn’t know initiative order anyway, so the idea that “I can attack the BBEG this turn, because I know Phil’s unconscious PC only has 1 Death Save Failure so far, and I can help him next turn, because I’ll go before he rolls his potentially third death save,” isn’t a thing the PCs are aware of.

Basically, it’s just less meta gaming the system.

Edit: also note, in standard every round initiative, as opposed to the OP’s totally secret initiative, you know the initiative rolls of the other PCs so you know your order relative to them anyway, at the start of each turn.

[Pex]

@Damon_Tor and Rynjin too


It makes combat more risky for both the PCs and the bad guys they encounter. That is symmetric. PCs are supposed to win and fight again and again. Bad guys are supposed to lose in their first fight. As such a symmetric effect that makes combat more risky ends up increasing the difficulty in the long run. If the DM knows this, they can account for it during encounter design.

The risk is not the same. The bad guys/DM doesn't care. The bad guys are always getting killed off. The game goes on. PC death becomes easier to happen. That's changes everything.

Tactics are meaningless because turn order is always random. Your condition attacks can become useless because the bad guys overcome them before youhad a chance to benefit from it. You can't rely on PC ability combos. Action economy is king as they say. Getting to go twice in a row before someone else is a big deal. That's why Action Surge and Haste are so loved. Making it an every round possibility puts the game out of whack.

[RSP]

Tactics are meaningless because turn order is always random. Your condition attacks can become useless because the bad guys overcome them before youhad a chance to benefit from it.

This just isn’t true. Tactics are still very valid and meaningful, they just incorporate the idea of a new initiative order every turn.

“Condition attacks,” as you call them, likewise are just as relevant, and, again, use of them just takes into account the fact that the order may switch up.

For instance, in standard RAW initiative, a PC attacks a giant with a Giant Slayer Weapon. The giant fails their save and falls Prone. The giant goes next, and stands up before any other PCs get to take advantage of it.

The “Condition Attack” was irrelevant using RAW initiative, and, from that point on during that combat, that same Condition Attack will most likely keep being irrelevant; whereas in rolling initiative every round systems, there’s a much better chance of the Condition Attack being relevant.

In the end, sound tactics are more important in this system, not less. I understand you might prefer a simpler system that takes away variables, and that’s fine. But making combat more complex is fun and interesting to others.

[Mellack]

This just isn’t true. Tactics are still very valid and meaningful, they just incorporate the idea of a new initiative order every turn.

“Condition attacks,” as you call them, likewise are just as relevant, and, again, use of them just takes into account the fact that the order may switch up.

For instance, in standard RAW initiative, a PC attacks a giant with a Giant Slayer Weapon. The giant fails their save and falls Prone. The giant goes next, and stands up before any other PCs get to take advantage of it.

The “Condition Attack” was irrelevant using RAW initiative, and, from that point on during that combat, that same Condition Attack will most likely keep being irrelevant; whereas in rolling initiative every round systems, there’s a much better chance of the Condition Attack being relevant.

In the end, sound tactics are more important in this system, not less. I understand you might prefer a simpler system that takes away variables, and that’s fine. But making combat more complex is fun and interesting to others.

I do not see it as more complex, but just more random. It makes it harder to use tactics because more of a plan then relies on dice rolls.

For your condition attack as run RAW, you know when each turn is. If a power were going to have an effect that only lasts through the monster's turn, and their turn is next, you can make the reasoned choice to not use it. If the monster is far off in the turn order, you can make the choice to use it. You know exactly what the benefit will be and can make a logical choice based on the knowledge.

If instead turns are randomized, you no longer have the knowledge of how long your power will last as you do not know when the monster's turn is. It might last almost two rounds, or it might be completely wasted. By not having the same information, you cannot make the same tactical decisions. More of the combat comes down to luck.

[RSP]

I do not see it as more complex, but just more random. It makes it harder to use tactics because more of a plan then relies on dice rolls.

“More complex” as in more variables to account for.

It makes it harder to rely on simple, set tactics, that get spammed every encounter. It doesn’t make it harder to use tactics, in general, because tactics are still used just as often, they just take into account the relevant, known fact sets.



For your condition attack as run RAW, you know when each turn is. If a power were going to have an effect that only lasts through the monster's turn, and their turn is next, you can make the reasoned choice to not use it. If the monster is far off in the turn order, you can make the choice to use it. You know exactly what the benefit will be and can make a logical choice based on the knowledge.

And if combat is more fun for you knowing when everyone is going to act throughout combat, I’d suggest not using this alternative in a game.

However, others enjoy a more complex d20 combat where there are more unknowns, and you need to think more about possibilities and consequences.

To each their own; I’m not stating you have to like the alternative, just explaining what I think it brings to the table for those who might enjoy a bit more complexity in their D&D combat.



If instead turns are randomized, you no longer have the knowledge of how long your power will last as you do not know when the monster's turn is.

The turns aren’t “randomized” any more than RAW initiative is random: they follow the same rules. At our table, the 20 Dex Ranger with a Weapon of Warning (Adv on Initiative rolls) tends to lead off the rounds. That’s not random.

Certain abilities that last a round, last until the same initiative order the following round. This may be a little more beneficial, it may be a little less, but it averages out.

For something like Shield, you still use it when you feel you need to to avoid an attack. In that sense, you’re getting the same benefit from it as you would in RAW initiative. In RAW initiative, you might have to use Shield on the turn immediately preceding yours, meaning you only get the benefit from it for one turn. Other times, you use it on the turn immediately following yours, and might gain the benefit of it for seven or eight turns.

Similar with this, it just might last a little longer or shorter; you’re still going to use it when you feel you need to avoid an attack that it could turn into a miss.

Again, is there a little more thought involved to weigh the possible outcomes, sure, but that’s not a bad change for some people/tables.

[Xervous]

Short of adding new modes of interaction the only levers you have to pull on for complexity are the aforementioned randomness and denial of player knowledge. If I hear limited player knowledge, randomness and statistically informed guessing I’m picturing neon billboards at Vegas.

And yes, rerolling hidden initiative is to the disadvantage of the players, just like fumble tables and their ilk.

[OldTrees1]

@Damon_Tor and Rynjin too


It makes combat more risky for both the PCs and the bad guys they encounter. That is symmetric. PCs are supposed to win and fight again and again. Bad guys are supposed to lose in their first fight. As such a symmetric effect that makes combat more risky ends up increasing the difficulty in the long run. If the DM knows this, they can account for it during encounter design.


The risk is not the same. The bad guys/DM doesn't care. The bad guys are always getting killed off. The game goes on. PC death becomes easier to happen. That's changes everything.

I said that in the underlined part. I then had a conclusion. If the DM knows the rule increases the difficulty, which they do because we collectively told them, they can account for that.


Tactics are meaningless because turn order is always random. Your condition attacks can become useless because the bad guys overcome them before you had a chance to benefit from it. You can't rely on PC ability combos. Action economy is king as they say. Getting to go twice in a row before someone else is a big deal. That's why Action Surge and Haste are so loved. Making it an every round possibility puts the game out of whack.

The OP has a plan for how to avoid the underlined section. It had the side effect of buffing 1 round buffs.

With turn order being random, tactics don't become meaningless. But tactics do change. We have people that used random turn orders telling us tactics still exist in their games.

[Mellack]

I said that in the underlined part. I then had a conclusion. If the DM knows the rule increases the difficulty, which they do because we collectively told them, they can account for that.




The only way I can see to account for that added "swinginess" is to make the encounters easier. A bad set of rolls can always cause a TPK. There is a percentage chance of that. By adding in more randomness, the odds that a certain encounter may have enough bad rolls come up to cause a TPK would increase. The only way I can see to move that chance back is to make the encounters easier overall. Would that not mean that the fights where the dice stay at statistical average would be more boring? It would seem that by including the more randomness, you are left with the options of making the fights either more likely for the PC's to lose, or more often a boring, simple fight.

[Pex]

This just isn’t true. Tactics are still very valid and meaningful, they just incorporate the idea of a new initiative order every turn.

“Condition attacks,” as you call them, likewise are just as relevant, and, again, use of them just takes into account the fact that the order may switch up.

For instance, in standard RAW initiative, a PC attacks a giant with a Giant Slayer Weapon. The giant fails their save and falls Prone. The giant goes next, and stands up before any other PCs get to take advantage of it.

The “Condition Attack” was irrelevant using RAW initiative, and, from that point on during that combat, that same Condition Attack will most likely keep being irrelevant; whereas in rolling initiative every round systems, there’s a much better chance of the Condition Attack being relevant.

In the end, sound tactics are more important in this system, not less. I understand you might prefer a simpler system that takes away variables, and that’s fine. But making combat more complex is fun and interesting to others.

Opinions were for asked for. Opinions are given. We all have one.

Going twice in a row is too powerful an event. It upsets the balance of how things work.

My other point also stands. The DM controls the world. The only thing the player controls is his character, and now the DM is taking away some of that control. Stop fighting against your players.

[OldTrees1]

The only way I can see to account for that added "swinginess" is to make the encounters easier. A bad set of rolls can always cause a TPK. There is a percentage chance of that. By adding in more randomness, the odds that a certain encounter may have enough bad rolls come up to cause a TPK would increase. The only way I can see to move that chance back is to make the encounters easier overall. Would that not mean that the fights where the dice stay at statistical average would be more boring? It would seem that by including the more randomness, you are left with the options of making the fights either more likely for the PC's to lose, or more often a boring, simple fight.

Yes, accounting for it would mean make encounter baseline easier. There are other changes like I mentioned with regards to reformatting boss fights.

Would fights that have an easier statistical average be more boring? That is not really your question.

Would fights that have an easier statistical average but have random secret initiative order be more boring? Maybe, maybe not. That is group specific. The random element might add more excitement than the easier baseline takes away. Especially if it lends itself to memorable moments.


My other point also stands. The DM controls the world. The only thing the player controls is his character, and now the DM is taking away some of that control. Stop fighting against your players.

I kinda ignored that point because I thought/think you misread the DM's intentions. The OP does not sound like an adversarial DM.

The DM sounds like a DM that had a random idea. I suspect they will ask their group for opinions (and vetos) on their final draft. Our opinions are just helping peer review the draft.

Clearly you don't want this change. Personally I would not either. But I know players that would.

[Necrosnoop110]

I kinda ignored that point because I thought/think you misread the DM's intentions. The OP does not sound like an adversarial DM.

The DM sounds like a DM that had a random idea. I suspect they will ask their group for opinions (and vetos) on their final draft. Our opinions are just helping peer review the draft.
Yeah, that's my intention. I am open to feedback here. And appreciate everyone's take. My PCs seem to love this idea even more than I do and are pushing for it. I share some of the trepidation pointed out in this thread. They are a sharp bunch and really want to boost the chaotic leathality of combat. They hate the "batting order" conception of initiative, which is why we've mostly re-rolled each round in the open at my gaming table. This was my suggestion to their request.

[RSP]

Opinions were for asked for. Opinions are given. We all have one.

But your missing what the OP asked opinions on (hint: the thread title isn’t “reroll initiative every round”). The OP stated their table already uses every round initiative. They’re aware of what it entails and, since they’re still using it, apparently they’re fine with it.

You’re needlessly attacking something they (and others) enjoy, and telling them not to do it, under the guise of giving your opinion, when the opinion asked for was in regard to keeping all initiative rolls hidden.

It’s like if I told you I love coffee and asked your opinion on a new coffee shop I wanted to try, and your response is how I shouldn’t drink coffee because you think it tastes horrible. I already know how I feel about coffee, and don’t need you to tell me I’m wrong about it: I was asking about the new shop.

The OP and their group already know the “taste” of every round initiative and don’t need you to tell them they’re enjoying the game wrong.

[RSP]

The only way I can see to account for that added "swinginess" is to make the encounters easier.

I think you’re overly focusing on this, or, rather, I haven’t found it to be an issue, though at my table we have 7 players, and the DM likes hordes over lone BBEGs, so maybe that’s just my table.

In 2+ years of playing this system we’ve had 3 PC deaths, mostly playing the prewritten stuff. Though, now that I think about it, all 3 deaths occurred in homebrew material, so the WotC content hasn’t been particularly more deadly for the PCs. And for two of those deaths, the DM warned us it was an optional encounter that, if we sought out, would be very tough (which really just means we had to engage).

Again, and this is just my experience, once you get used to playing with every round initiative it’s fine.