Simultaneous Turn Update: Session 1

[SangoProduction]

First game with the group I'm trying out simultaneous turns with.

As a review:

EXPERIMENTAL: The next 2 players on the initiative track go at the exact same time. You gain 3x the normal teamwork-based bonuses (like flanking) when it involves the other player. This can pull an ally above an otherwise higher initiative enemy.

Aside from forgetting we were planning on testing this, until half way through the 2nd round, it was somewhat clumsy. We somehow managed to get the pairs such that there was only one where both could meaningfully move at once, and due to describing attacks, which required talking, it mean that only one person was attacking at once anyway.

If we made the combat purely mechanical and dice-rolly, we could probably streamline the attacks so that it was truly simultaneous. That sounds incredibly boring though. But it is an issue of hearing having such low bandwidth.

With that said, although we didn't have much time savings, it definitely did have the effect of having the players talking about what they should do mid-combat, in terms of who will do what, where and when. Plus the players did stay engaged for the entire combat, or so it seemed.
That could have just been player-specific, and they might have talked strategy anyway, but I've played and DMed for many years... It's highly unusual. Especially for a random group of players on Roll20, you'd expect at least one player to just check out when it's not their turn.

So, in a sense, it was a success. Just not in the expected way.

[Falontani]

So let me get this straight (sorry if I should understand exactly)

1. At the beginning of combat initiative is rolled normally.
2. The top two creatures (players, characters, or even monsters) go at the same time, allowing for instances of: Monster charges PC who got second in initiative (player 1 for now), who then takes their move action to move away from the monster at the same time as the monster charges, thus avoiding the charge, or for two players to synch up their turn and enter into a flanking position at the same time as each other.
3. Repeat step 2 with the next two creatures.
4. Odd number of creatures = last creature goes alone, or do they go with the top in initiative?


It seems interesting. I think the novelty of the system may be what kept players engaged for the entirety of the combat rather than just on their (shared) turns, of course it could also be the specific players, or the system itself, definitely would require more trials to tell on that point.


1. Holding turn? Following example:
PC 1: Paladin with a 14 initiative
PC 2: Sorcerer with a 16 initiative
PC 3: Druid with a 7 initiative
PC 4: Rogue with a 24 initiative
Monster 1: initiative 13
Monster 2: initiative 17
Monster 3: initiative 3
Monster 4: initiative 9.0
Paladin Mount: Initiative ? 19 rolled or 14 as paladin?
Sorcerer Familiar: Initiative ? 22 rolled or 16 as sorcerer?
Druid Animal Companion: ? 9.3 rolled or 7 as druid?

Scenario 1
Rogue and sorcerer's familiar go with their 24 and 22
Paladin Mount and Monster 2 go, Paladin mount holds turn to act with paladin, so Monster 2 takes turn alone
Sorcerer and Paladin go, Paladin mount's held turn activates, so Sorcerer, Paladin, and Paladin Mount takes turn together
Monster 1 and Druid animal companion goes
Monster 4 and Druid goes
Monster 3 activates alone
...

Scenario 2
Rogue and sorcerer's familiar go with their 24 and 22
Paladin Mount and Monster 2 go, Paladin mount holds turn to act with paladin, so Monster 2 takes turn alone
Sorcerer and Paladin go, Paladin mount's held turn activates, so Sorcerer, Paladin, and Paladin Mount takes turn together
Monster 1 and Druid animal companion goes
Monster 4 and Druid goes
Monster 3 and Rogue goes
...

Scenario 3
Rogue and Monster 2 go
Sorcerer and Sorcerer's Familiar go
Paladin and Paladin Mount go
Monster 1 and Monster 4 go
Druid and Druid Animal Companion go
Monster 3 goes
...

Scenario 4
Rogue and Monster 2 go
Sorcerer and Sorcerer's Familiar go
Paladin and Paladin Mount go
Monster 1 and Monster 4 go
Druid and Druid Animal Companion go
Monster 3 and Rogue go
...

Scenario 5
Rogue and sorcerer's familiar go with their 24 and 22
Paladin Mount and Monster 2 go, Paladin mount holds turn to act with paladin, so Monster 2 and Sorcerer go
Paladin and Paladin Mount go
Monster 1 and Druid animal companion goes
Monster 4 and Druid goes
Monster 3 activates alone
...

Scenario 6
Rogue and sorcerer's familiar go with their 24 and 22
Paladin Mount and Monster 2 go, Paladin mount holds turn to act with paladin, so Monster 2 and Sorcerer go
Paladin and Paladin Mount go
Monster 1 and Druid animal companion goes
Monster 4 and Druid goes
Monster 3 and Rogue goes
...

[SangoProduction]

The intent was that odd players = pairs cycle around. That way, hopefully, bad pairings are eventually cycled out, and good pairings aren't just roflstomps for the entire combat.

I have it so that players and their companions go at the same time.

As for #2, it's the next 2 players, not creatures, going at once. All enemies already go simultaneously because individual initiative really do slow things down. And it's like...they could wait until the partner was finished casting a buff before they charged off to meet the enemy, outside of the range of the buff. I still classify that as essentially simultaneous. At least as much as D&D already does.

Way we did it: If you want to drop your initiative down, for perhaps a better pairing, or because you're an intelligent sword and going before your wielder was inconvenient... you just moved your initiative down, as though you rolled lower, and continue as normal.
We didn't figure out holding action, and certainly not with intent to act during another simultaneous turn. I would probably have the held action either interrupt, or occur after, said simultaneous action, unless we got good enough to do 3 simultaneous actions. I think we are barely doing 1.5 as is.